User talk:Onel5969/Archive 114

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 114: May 2023

Hi, @Onel5969. Please point me to your particular objections against the article about Terence Dooley. I do not understand your doubts on reliability and independence of sources, since the references are serious and abundant. As for notability, nowadays Terence Dooley is the main bridge between Spanish and British Literatures, probably the most important English translator of Spanish poetry and also a notable poet in his language, published in Spanish too. He has made a big contribution to the diffusion of Penelope Fitzgerald's work and legacy and belongs to a family that is deeply rooted in British culture. I have added some information and am submitting it for review. Please send me any suggestion. Thanks beforehand. --LlompartLlull (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969 can you point me to the part of article that violates WP:COI? three editors have reviewed the article earlier and didn't find this. I'm currently working on adding more references and I'm wondering why you moved it to draft, citing COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannydevelop (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I was curious why exactly you moved my article about Mykola Gnatovskyy to the draft space. As you said it might be a COI violation, I don't really know what I am supposed to change. Yes I am personally interested in the field of International Humanitarian Law and therefore I want to write about its representatives, but I neither have a personal friendship, nor am I getting paid. I do see that it might have to do with the picture I uploaded and I have to admit that I uploaded: The way it went is the following: I found this picture in an official biography report about Mykola Gnatovskyy, it was not uploaded to Wikimedia, so I maid a direct and formal request to Mykola Gnatovskyy, whether he would be ok with it being uploaded on Wikipedia. I must admit I was really confused with the options on how to upload pictures and under which categories, as I am new to this. If the way I did it is not according to the Wikipedia standards I am really sorry and it is a honest mistakte. Of course I can change out the picture if this is a problem. I also would love to change whatever phrasing might not sound neutral, I put a lot of work into this article and would be very grateful, if there would be a way to publish it after all. Thanks! I just now did not manage to link it directly, so here's the site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mykola_Gnatovskyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karla.koala (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop deleting my articles on rugby league competitions in Queensland! They are researched and notable semi-professional competitions. Talsta (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about since I have never deleted an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can you elaborate on the specific issues you have with this article? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:THREE best sources here are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ

) 18:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by this rationale. There's not even an essay on Wikipedia that would suggest that an article having quips disqualifies it. If one were to remove that content from the article, you would have a section discussing how her inappropriate behavior is endearing, how he finds her personality relatable, and how he feels about her narration. So, I stand by that as a source, as what you bring up does not disqualify the legitimate commentary he made. Push Square's article is news about her presence, suggesting that her role in FFXIII-2 is uniquely notable, Mattie Brice is a published author who has made multiple books on gaming and has worked in the industry as a journalist and as director of IndieCade. Nightmare Mode is a reliable source. Additionally, the theory of Vanille and Fang's relationship being romantic has received significant coverage in a peer-reviewed journal and acknowledged by the voice actress. I feel like that the sources provided are thoroughly strong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the issue is that there is really no in-depth discussion of the character from independent, reliable sources. There are 12 sources, 2 are dead links, 8 are not significant coverage (and I didn't check to see if they were all reliable sources), and 3 had decent coverage, but were all non-RS sources (mattiebrice.com and nightmaremode.net). There are 7 sources in the development section. Three are dead links, two are non-RS, and 1 is unaccessible. The final one is shaky in terms of being RS. So you take all of that out, and there's not enough to pass

WP:GNG. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nightmare Mode is a reliable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it has no editorial oversight. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I reckon you ought to bring it up with the Video Game WikiProject, it's marked down as such and has been for a good while. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

I don't know if one additional source works, but Newsweek is pretty credible. In addition to a 1995 Newsweek article stating that Summit Camp & Travel is the largest special needs camp in the country, both Summit Camp & Travel and Easterseals camps' (including Merry Heart) were the only special needs sleepaway camps listed in this much more recent 2023 Newsweek article of "America's Best Summer Camps 2023"; see here: https://www.newsweek.com/rankings/americas-best-summer-camps-2023

All of Easterseals' camps (located in multiple states across the United States) and Summit Camp & Travel are considered the top 2 largest special needs sleepaway camps in the country.

In addition to the many other sources I listed before (i.e., American Camp Association, other news articles, etc.), would it be credible enough to re-add the article or as you mentioned about a year ago or do I still need additional resources from books, as a recent credible newssource considered Summit Camp & Travel among the best summer camps in the United States.

Thanks, and let me know whenever you get the chance!

Enjoy the rest of your week, and take care!

From, Eli ATC ^{. Talk} 23:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Just because a source is reliable, doesn't meet the coverage is significant enough, and being mentioned in lists doesn't count towards notability either. Also, sources like American Camp Association are primary. I'm also not sure what article you're talking about, cause there is no link, and Summit Camp & Travel doesn't exist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to prove Open Mike's independence before the current redirect to another company can be removed and it was suggested setting up a development page for us to use rather than the live page. Can this be set up please? Many thanks. Tequester (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I also like to point out that's a bad redirect, Open Mike Productions is owned by Jack Dee and not the agency Jack is with. Regards. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Better yet, the better redirect would be Jack Dee, regards. Govvy (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, thanks for your recent review of my article

Hi. There appears to be a connection between you and the subject. Would you mind explaining your relationship as to how you were allowed to take that portrait of him? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a photo taken during a recent concert in Zhaoqing, China, of which I was an audience. Fancams are very popular in Hong Kong or China pop concerts. Organizers don't stop audiences from taking photos or videos, and in fact, half of the audience are probably recording at any one time. The only exceptions in general are classical concerts and theatre. You only need to google images/videos with "fancams in Hong Kong concerts" etc and you'll see what I mean. In fact, if you search the subject "Mike 曾比特" on YouTube by upload date, the first 10 to 20 videos are most likely fancams of his recent performances. Izumi2009 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized I didn't directly answer your question. I have no relationship with the subject other than a regular concertgoer. Everyone in the audience in most pop concerts here are allowed to take pictures and videos, and almost everyone does. Izumi2009 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, sorry to bother you again but I'd like to ask your advice on what I can do now. If the photo is the main issue that has resulted in this draftification, then I can replace it. But I'm also afraid that doing so would lead to further speculation that I might be hiding something, which I am not. As I explained, it is common practice for concertgoers in Hong Kong and China to take photos and videos. It's taken as implied consent from the organisers because they don't stop it at all. You don't need to be related to be "allowed", and it's usually the fans who do it (as myself). Again this applies to most but not all performances. I'm really proud of this photo, but if it should lead to contention on whether explicit approval is required for taking it or speculation of a connection etc., then I want to replace it, as long as it doesn't further complicate matters.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I've spent a lot of time trying to put this piece together and cite all the sources. It's frustrating to then have it sidelined not because of the quality of the work that's been done, but doubts arising from a photo due to different country practices. I can understand the rationale of moving anything in doubt to drafts, but to be honest, it felt a bit like being proclaimed guilty until proven innocent for me in this case. It's a good lesson for me though and I would be grateful for any suggestions on what to do about the photo. Thanks! Izumi2009 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the

Hi. To me this is borderline, if you could find another in-depth source or two, that would clinch it. Right now, I don't think it passes the notability bar. If you do find another in-depth source, please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback! I've added several new sources, including two in-depth articles (Zamichow and Vercher) focused on his work in Dallas, and other references pertaining to Texas, California, and DC. If you have other feedback, please let me know - I really want to make sure the article for this important deaf gay person sticks around. I'm also working to find a free image of him if possible, perhaps from the Gallaudet University Archives. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I came across your Wikipedia page for 'The Siren' when I was researching Byron Haskin films, so I tried to find a website where I could watch it to no avail. If you remember, could you tell me where you watched it? (It is legal; the film's copyright has expired!) Scratchu90 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't watched it, so I can't help you with that. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you do AfC reviewing? The draft needs that at the earliest so it can be moved to the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:DEADLINE. If you feel there is an urgent need, please identify that need. - UtherSRG (talk)

13:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is still a question of the plot copyvio, which is being looked into by several admins. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

...and one has found it to be a case of reverse copying. In other words,

WP:MIRROR. Kailash29792 (talk)

13:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's being looked into. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

Hi. I still think this is a bit lacking in in-depth coverage. It's a new term, being coined and promoted by a small number of folks. You might fare better if you submit it through AfC, and get feedback from other editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and feedback @

Draft:Gender power gap for review? Thanks. Stablemushrooms (talk

) 14:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I meant submitting the current draft by clicking on the submit draft for review button. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification @Onel5969 :) Stablemushrooms (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I left you a message across at Talk:Mill Valley (song).

TL;DR: I believe the "needs more citations" tag has been addressed, and I contest the "notability" tag but will not unilaterally remove the tag. If you still object, perhaps take the matter to AfD?

Thanks a lot, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. Removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Better take my meds now and chill for a while. :) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this page; I see you've tagged it for notability issues. This was my concern making the page. Simply put, the only album Stoughton released - Transformer is far more notable than the man himself, who seemingly is otherwise obscure (besides the group he was in, hence why I have some stuff about them on his article). I only created a page for Stoughton as, even though I believe the album article stands up fine, I was unsure if it would be fine on its own without the artist also possessing a page. I addressed this at WikiProject Albums and was told it was fine as Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums says album articles can standalone if they meet general notability guidelines, but I still once experienced such an article of mine briefly deleted under A9 speedy delete criterion, despite it meeting WikiProject Albums notability, until I created an article for the artist behind the album. And I once rescued an album article created by another user in the same manner. So I created Stoughton's article more as backup (a decision I made after I bought a magazine article about him and the album, the only article I can find that gives Stoughton and his album equal billing, ergo the only true source on Stoughton's article that is directly about him). The sources used in Stoughton's article are partly different to those than in Transformer - namely, the stuff about the Opera Company band he was in - and I was hoping this would be enough to help it stand alone as a notable stub. What would you suggest I do in this situation? My main concern is making sure the Transformer article remains, as I believe it to be notable in and of itself regardless of whether its creator otherwise is (I once saw an album, Pru, become a Featured Article before the artist herself had an article), but I would not like to face an A9 speedy delete situation that would seem contrary to WikiProject Albums' notability guidelines, or at least my understanding of them. Thanks.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I actually reviewed both articles this morning. The album does pass GNG, but he doesn't. You might want to add a section to the album, about the artist, and incorporate some of the information from the Stoughton article into it, and then redirect the Stoughton article to that section. BTW, nice job on both articles, well done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Onel5969. I think I am going to do one final proper scavenger hunt to see if Stoughton's article can be improved (or possibly even turned into one about the Opera Company), and then take it from there.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know if you need anything. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you verify this or just pick one of the two genera? If the latter, I'll revert and tag as {{

Hi. Only Clethrionomys is indigenous to North America. The other genera is limited to Europe and Asia. And no, I'm not conversant enough to have drilled down. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool beans. That's good enough for me. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I've just created a draft article for the

Hi. Thanks for the invite. While I'm a fan of a few actors in the show, not really a big fan of the show itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Before judging my case regarding my edits, which have been later reverted:

• special:permalink/1149753485
• special:permalink/1153028492

Please read through carefully

Hi. Some funny business appears to be going on with a draft I created (Leon Emirali). Looks like it was moved into main space and then moved back into drafts. By the looks of things it's also been heavily edited since I created it. Would you suggest re-submitting it in AfC? Cheers, JF. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since the additional edits were clearly UPE/COI.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The guy was on TV early this week, so perhaps stimulated the interest. Anyway, I've sought to tidy it up and back in drafts. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Have been reviewing edit history. I suspect User:ButtonPocketSquare899 and Pocketsquare123 are socks for one another. Frustrating they've steamrolled into the page as spent some time on it! PoliticsDex (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are tons of valid, detailed secondary sources from top tier news outlets and .gov sites in this article. Please see the references section and the links within the article. This organization gets alot of trolls from hoaxers like Alex jones fans. I hope that is not what is happening here. Your assessment does seem to be a bit unfair and inaccurate based on the guidelines and what is actually in the article. would appreciate any constructive input. thanks Gvpgirl (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not really understand what constitutes

Christian Science Monitor piece is in-depth, reliable, and independent. Also, this is the second personal attack you've thrown. Personal attacks will get you blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

the first guy who redirected is a confirmed troll who got banned for being a right wing sockpuppet so I am not jsut being paranoid here. hope you understand Gvpgirl (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be a pain. sorry. Here's the list of references, I mean like NPR, brookings institution, the state of north carolina, abc news. That's not small potatoes or some rando sites. they're like really famous, how is that not notable? just trying to understand because other similar organizations have pages and i just want to help. thanks :

http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2013/sandy-hook-promise-gun-safety.html#/

^ https://www.guidestar.org/profile/46-1657101

^ https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676375851/it-s-preventable-sandy-hook-parents-promote-app-for-reporting-school-threats

^ https://www.today.com/parents/sandy-hook-mom-shootings-changed-how-we-feel-about-going-1d80113380

^ https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2022/0527/Sandy-Hook-Promise-School-shootings-don-t-have-to-be-inevitable programs

^ https://www.dpi.nc.gov/districts-schools/district-operations/center-safer-schools/say-something-anonymous-reporting-system

^ https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-hillsborough/tampa-bay-students-spread-kindness-during-start-with-hello-week

^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993703/

^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-safety-laws-storage/

^ https://www.lionnewspaper.com/pulse/2023/03/22/save-promise-club-aims-to-prevent-violence-in-schools/

^ https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/03/24/gun-control-sandy-hook-parent

^ https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft15st.pdf

^ https://ctmirror.org/2022/09/22/sandy-hook-survivors-call-on-senate-to-pass-assault-weapons-ban-chris-murphy-uvalde/

^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-save-lives-mass-shootings-ban-large-capacity-magazines-researchers-n1066551 Gvpgirl (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

this is the guy who first redirected it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sagecandor

sorry to have lumped you in with him. i should have looked at your profile. Gvpgirl (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for explaining. Regarding the sources, most of the above are already in the article, of the 5 others, the Brookings essay is a primary source (written by someone affiliated with the organization), Guidestar is not an in-depth sources, the NPR isn't a bad source, but it's not really in-depth about the organziation, Liononline and the DOJ barely mention the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there – I believe that Ryan Andrews (footballer) has now been amended sufficiently to qualify as a notable article, but it won't let me submit it to recreate (maybe bc it is someone else's draft?) – can you help. Thanks, Dalek194 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been submitted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

FYI, I have restored PD Note, which you redirected earlier - just didn't want to do it via stealth.

As a general comment which I hope extends to editing in general rather than this specific article, I disagree with your approach there. Bold edits are fine, but should be reserved for clear-cut cases. If an article has been around for 7+ years, and (especially) is in a non-English topic where more sources might exist but in harder to search form, there should be some caution exercised. If you really feel such an article is on the wrong side of the border, you can always tag it with {{notability}} and wait. Obviously I don't expect you to agree with every single call I or others might make, different editors have different opinions and that's fine, but this kind of bold redirection from nowhere isn't good practice. (Speaking personally, I've certainly merged a few needless spinoff articles myself, but I do try to tag the articles for at least a week first to see if there's anyone out there paying attention.) SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. A - redirection is not backdoor deletion. B- Readding unsourced information, as per

WP:BURDEN, is, however, disruptive editing. I restored the redirect because large chunks of the article had been uncited, and had been tagged that way for years. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Some content is uncited" is not remotely the same as "this topic is not notable," though. If an evil genie removed all the references from a featured article and its history / mirrors, that does not mean to delete the resulting unreferenced article, it means to re-add the references. And even if someone doesn't re-add the references right away, that means drop a tag asking for the references to be re-added, not delete the article. This is a very classic and very core element of notability policy that is, to my knowledge, quite uncontroversial. When you say "tagged that way for years", it was tagged with a template asking for cleanup, not deletion. That's part of why I recommended that if you come across similar situations in the future, to consider adding a notability template. If you do a bold redirect, I would argue that you should be able to defend the redirect as if the article had gone to AFD, which includes all the usual

WP:BEFORE

checks.

On BURDEN... okay, this is a little tricky. Wikipedia does need editors like yourself who clean out rubbish that's been uncited too long. And I myself have yelled about BURDEN to other editors trying to sneak in suspicious material. However, there's a balance. The plain fact is that most of Wikipedia is unfinished. The house is still being built. Most of it isn't GA level. And... that's okay! Since you've just accused me of disruptive editing over a trivial difference of opinion, let me add that good-faith random editors have added in totally uncited stuff to articles I monitor. And sometimes, it turns out these are great additions, and I'm happy to go find / add the references myself. Uncited content is not always bad. If such a policy had been applied to Wikipedia of 2006, there'd have been nothing left to build on, yet Wikipedia 2006 proved a fantastic foundation to build Wikipedia 2023 which I hope we can both agree is substantially better referenced and cited. The parts of modern Wikipedia that are still in wild west territory are not bad. Again, I'm speaking from personal experience here as someone who has built up good, referenced articles based on shoddily referenced random stuff beforehand - the shoddily referenced random stuff helped provide a baseline and makes the job of writing the proper article easier, even if much of it is eventually replaced. If the articles had been deleted or blank slates, it would have been much harder to build the good content you are theoretically thinking you're favoring. Going back to the merits of this specific article, none of what you're going against appears problematic or likely to be false, so it's the "good" kind of work-in-progress content. SnowFire (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't accuse you of disruptive editing, but I understand how you could perceive it that way, and my apologies that I wasn't more specific. I was making the point about why I restored the redirect. My issue was not with the notability of the article, only with the lack of sourcing. And my rule of thumb is that And I disagree with your concept of there being "good" uncited content. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. One of the core principles is

WP:OR. Adding unsourced information is, by definition, OR. And I just reverted your revert of my removal of the unsourced material. Once removed, it must be cited, and while the exposes were in the citations, the other information was not. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: your sense of what content can be kept or not is not in keeping with the rest of the community. It is too strict. I obviously can't expect you to change your opinion short of a mind control helmet or whatever, but what you describe is not Wikipedia practice, and you should respect that your opinion is the one out of line with others. You are articulating a vision where, on the frontiers of Wikipedia, only GA-level or better content is kept, with each part referenced. But, as I just described above, the community does not actually impose such a burden, because we expect articles to improve over time rather than be big-bang released in a GA-level state. I'm just going to state one more time that as someone who has personally brought articles up to the standard you're claiming to favor - where every bit is well-referenced to scholarly sources - I've found that the imperfectly cited, sometimes unreferenced articles that existed earlier are generally a great help in writing the better, improved content. They (usually) aren't a "problem", just an earlier stage in the process. Now, WP:BURDEN is a very important policy, it's one of Wikipedia's main defenses against cranks - but it does NOT mean that literally every bit of imperfectly cited content should be immediately deleted. It means contested content should be deleted, and you're not providing any substantial contesting here other than "the article is not GA yet." Which I agree with! That's cause for a cleanup tag, not unilateral deletion. (And as you seem to acknowledge in your latest edit, I DID add references for some of the material you deleted? I don't get it.)

Finally, I don't want to overstress it because it can be a charged topic and because I seem to recall disagreeing with you on American topics too (e.g. you backdoor deleted

the 'countering systemic bias' project. If a topic is likely to largely have non-English sources, that is a cause for caution. If a "bad" editor is using this as cover to flood Wikipedia with bullshit, yes, delete it, go nuts, and I'm sure you can find tons of examples of that easily enough. But for something like a non-English TV program that is obviously not a hoax or axe-grinding? The threshold is higher on doing such backdoor deletions. It's okay to be unsure if non-English sources exist, but that just means to complain on the talk page, not boldly redirect. And again, I don't want to over-focus on the particular PD Note article, I'm talking about in general. It is not that hard to drop a notability tag and a talk page comment, and wait - whether for a week or for a year, depending on how bad it looks. SnowFire (talk

) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could review my new article Yotzeret Sheydim? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't say it passes GNG at this point. Most of the sources are unreliable (Bandcamp, SpliceToday, and Passionweis), and the BBC link is dead. I didn't do a BEFORE, so I can't comment on whether or not they're notable, but the current sourcing doesn't pass the bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The notability is admittedly not strong but I was counting the Bandcamp Daily and Splice Today articles as the main RS sources; they're third-party journalistic sources that cover the subject in detail, both sites have staff and editorial oversight, and both writers are published journalists (Yoni Kroll has written for Vice, Philadelphia City Paper, and WXPN, Noah Berlatsky has written for The Atlantic and The Guardian among others). Passion of the Weiss is more of a secondary source, but I've seen it cited in other Wikipedia articles and it seems to have a full editorial staff (including an editor who's a long-time staff writer at Pitchfork [1]); even still I did my best to use them as an attributed source rather than an objective one. I'm going to try to Wayback Machine the BBC source; it's admittedly primary (basically a program listing) but it does establish an important point of notability.

I'll work on the sourcing but I hope this better explains my thinking.

(Editing to add, the BBC link still works for me, you may need to scroll down?) Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this response. Bandcamp Daily is not reliable, it's run by Bandcamp, so it's like a newsletter for the website. And Splice Today is also not reliable, as the information is simply posted on the site. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but my understanding is the author of a source can be reliable even if the place it's published isn't (looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of a source). Given that (as I explained in more detail on the article's talk page) the writers of both pieces are both professional journalists with bylines at a number of credible outlets, wouldn't they still count as RS? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please revert your revert. The same details from the same source are located on Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/platinum-jubilee-medal-revealed

you’ve severely overreached on this. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not overreach to report copyvio issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. I'm Murasakihitsuji. On November 16, 2022, you judged my film article Pure Japanese as C-class. I appreciate it very much. Since then, I have been improving this article to make it better. So, I have a favor to ask you. Could you please judge this article again? You may be busy, but I need you. Please give me your best regards. Murasakihitsuji (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, gave it a brief look, and it looks good, but I really don't have time to give it the in-depth B-level review. Nice job, though. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your comment encouraged me. I understood. I will ask someone else to do it. Thank you. Murasakihitsuji (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brett Mellor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: previous discussion was delete based on a notability guideline that has since been deprecated. There should be a new discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

As always, thanks for letting me know. Although I hadn't realized that

WP:GNG, which was one of the deletion rationales, had been deprecated. When did that happen? Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Chantal Da Silva, and honestly, I didn't think notability was shown at the time. But I've improved it a lot and think it's borderline at this point. Could you take a look and see if it's finally ready for main? Thanks! BhamBoi (talk

Hi. Okay, here is the issue which is going to make reviewing that article slow:

WP:CITEBOMB. Just looking at the sources is daunting for many AfC and NPP reviewers. Going over the sources, the first 8 are all primary sources, then you have a primary, non-reliable source (FB), then references 10-18 are primary, 19 is just a brief mention, 20 and 21 is not a reliable source (is a PR source), 22 is a brief blurb, so not significant coverage, 24 is a primary source, 25 and 26 are brief mentions, which go back to primary source written by Da Silva, and 27-30 are more brief mentions which link to one of Da Silva's story. I can't access the The Political Voices of Generation Z, but the context of the information it's citing leads to the impression that it is a brief mention (also, you should really put a page number in the footnote). So right now, while it is a very thoroughly researched and cited article, there isn't any in-depth coverage of the actual subject. I hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I noticed that you've drafted my article Draft:UMNO Youth, and as a rookie here in WP I just wanted your advice on how I could improve on making articles that are more qualified for your liking. Most of the resources that I've referenced are from independent Malaysian based media outlets such as Astro Awani, The Star, New Straits Times, FreeMalaysiaToday, Utusan Malaysia, etc. As such, could you please let me know if there's anything more I should add so it could be published in main? Didyara (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. What you need is in-depth coverage about the group, from independent, reliable, secondary sources (what I call IRS sources). The first source meets the IRS requirement, but is just a brief mention of the organization. #2 & 3 talk about the parent organization, but not the youth arm. #4 & 5 are decent sources, but still very light on coverage, the first is a short article about 3 groups, and the second is another brief article, which is simply quoting someone from the group. I can't access #6, but again, it appears to be a brief mention. #7 is a primary source. #8 is very good source which goes to notability. #9, 10, 11, 12 is a simple

WP:ROUTINE announcement, and #13 is an interview, which is a primary source. What you need are several like #8. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969! You have redirected this article to an article about the Uzbekistan Super League. I inform you that the professional football league of Uzbekistan and the Super League of Uzbekistan are two different things. The Professional Football League of Uzbekistan is an organization for the preparation and holding of all types of matches. In the title of the article, it should not be called an organization, this is wrong from a legal point of view. Look at the titles of this article in other languages. Umarxon III (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC).

I restored the original redirect, because the version I looked at was virtually uncited. Taking a look now, you've done a nice job at providing sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The page [[:{{{1}}}]] has been restored after its deletion was contested at

Hi, when I was created this article, I tried to link to it from another one so it wouldn't be an orphan. It didn't work then, and won't work now. When I type in the name on the linking feature it doesn't come up, do you know if it's because the article is so new or something? Thornfield Hall (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you did, I just linked it to

WP:CONCISE. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I just got it to work, perhaps the renaming helped. Thank you Thornfield Hall (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969! I noticed that the Yann'Sine article has been moved to main after you had moved it back to draftsapce. Just an FYI. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel, it's great to see you back on track like before. One of my draft articles has been pending for so long, it has been almost 3 months. Could you take a look at it, at least accept or reject it instead of keeping it pending? I have already fixed what I could, and I think it's ready to be moved to the mainspace, but I'm not sure. It would be better if you could take a look on Draft:Prakash Neupane DIVINE (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Draftifiying articles simply because they do not meet your subjective and often overly strict notability interpretations is not policy based, and very often leads to it being only a backdoor route to deletion while also driving away many new editors who could have gone on to be great contributors.

the topic has some potential merit, and the article does not meet the required standard (one that you seem to often ignore), and there is no evidence of active improvement, and the article does not contain copyright violations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969,

While I appreciate all of the work you do here, Onel5969, I look at the daily list of articles that have been draftified each night and I'd guess that between 1/4 and 1/3 of the articles you move to Draft space are moved back to main space within hours. You might consider the words of BeanieFan11 and review your criteria for what you consider to be "draft-worthy" because there is a fair amount of disagreement with how you measure this. I'd try to aim for 90-100% of your draftifications "sticking" and editors working on the articles in Draft space rather than immediate move reverts. Also, I've noticed not many but a few of your article moves have already been draftified before so please remember to check the page history before moving a less-than-promising main space article. Thanks again for your due diligence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but BeanieFan has zero credibility with me. None of the articles I draftify meets the required standard. If an article has been tagged for improvement, and has not been improved, but yet has potential, the proper course of action is to draftify. I think you might be better served leaving messages on the pages of editors who simply move an article with zero in-depth independent sourcing back into mainspace, without improving them. Those are the editors who do harm to the project. But as always, thank you for your comments. And as for BeanieFan11, please stay off of my talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I took a look at my draft log for May. 38 of 273 have been returned to mainspace (14%). And many of those are improved prior to be returned, like Ruben Garcia (coach), Volodymyr Stolyar, Makise Evans, and Ivan Palamarchuk. Which is the way draftification is supposed to work. Probably more than half of those returned (and very few of them are within hours) fall into this category.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with

good faith principles and some hard and fast policy. One of the criteria as BeanieFan11 pointed out above is the "required standard," and one of which is, "it would have very little chance of survival at AfD." This means the benefit of the doubt has to be given to keep an article in Main space, and let our processes play out (AfD, et al.) Please re-evaluate the draftify guidelines and adhere to this in the future. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk

17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Since you didn't leave a link to what you are referring, I'm guessing that you're talking about David Uy. Couple of things. You are not the article creator, unless you are also AAPIHistory1882. I did leave a detailed message on that editor's talk page (User talk:AAPIHistory1882#David Uy moved to draftspace. You moved the article into mainspace. And I do not believe that an article without a single in-depth source about an individual from an independent, reliable source, would pass AfD. 2 of the sources are primary (W&M and the museum), 1 is unreliable (Severna Park Voice), and the other two are brief blurbs which are quoting him, not about him. That being said, I do think there is a high probability that there is sourcing out there to show that he's notable. And that's the proper usage of Draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In this Teahouse thread, Etoile, Jayron32 and Ianmacm all seem to agree that moving Michael Felts to draft was out of order.

Listen, I am fairly deletionist myself. I regularly send borderline articles to AfD and they regularly get kept even though the sources aren’t really in-depth. That’s infuriating. But that’s the proper way to do things. Please stop draftifying articles en masse - send them to AfD if they deserve it, add sources if they don’t. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that my Kim Cook article got taken down and I was curious if there was anything that I did wrong. Can you please let me know as soon as possible if I need to fix anything and to publish the page. Ajgriffin21 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've replied on Ajgriffin21's talk page. Tails Wx 18:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking care of that for me. Much appreciated, and your response was spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey I created Sajin Gopu. It was moved to draftspace by Monhiroe by stating unnecessary reason when I was in the middle of expanding it. Actually I wanted the credit of creation under my name. So I unknowingly messed it up (check my contributions). Now I just wants to know whether the article is reviewed or not. I have autopatroll rights but because of this whole mess, I'm wondering whether it is remaining unreviewed. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No, it's marked reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, you queried the notability of Dirk Sacré. After adding Terence Tunberg I had a close read of the policies on academics before adding any more; it mentions that academics who have edited prominent in-field publications, or have had a Festschrift published in their honour, are generally considered notable. I added Sacré as he meets both these criteria. Does that make sense, or have I missed something in the policy? Jim Killock (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Well looking at

WP:NACADEMIC, the only one he could possible meet would be #2, if indeed a Festschrift meets that requirement. However, I am not sure that's the case. But then again, that's why I simply tagged it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Folks like David Eppstein are much more well-versed in academic notability, so I was hoping one of them might have a look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

23:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks: so for criteria 1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", then "The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1"; and for criteria "8. The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." he has been editor of the most established academic journal in their subject area. Jim Killock (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You make a good case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

11:53, 10 May 2023‎ Onel5969 talk contribs‎ m  860 bytes 0‎  Onel5969 moved page Servač (Vilija) to Draft:Servač (Vilija) without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace (via script) undothank

Each and every new article created by Журавіны (talk · contribs) must be draftified. Most of them were obviously translated from be-tarask-wiki (and referenced to it; removed). Some of them are gone. Remained ones: Viača, Minsk upland, Oksna (river), Janka Žurba.

And the article Vuła (river) is a full translation from [2] - an obvious copyright violation, so that it must be draftifed and all content but brief lede removed.

(you may ignore the following rant) I am watching this guy because he appears to be a Belarusian dissident and tried to replace belarusian geographical names (even well established in English) with transliteration from

Hi. As articles come up in the queue, I'll take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What kind of queue are you talking about? For example I see your cleanup in "Viača", meaning it had already popped up somewhere. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a New Page Patrol (NPP) queue. I review articles between 1 and 2 weeks old. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! You are one of the most recent people to review the article Damalas and I need your assistance... The page which is well sourced has been under attack by people from reddit. They only seem to care about English sources and disregard sources that are in Greek and a few other languages. I do not see how it is fair in any way to discount the validity of my research and mark it as a hoax, just because they themselves cannot read the source material. The article is on a Greek noble house, so naturally a lot will be in Greek...

I would appreciate it greatly if you could review the talk page on the aforementioned wiki and put your two cents in on the matter.

Many thanks. User:Chios historian (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

	Some Cheese for you!
	Please forgive my rude and offensive remarks towards you. At least your research in the relevant field from reliable sources is a senior-level Wikipedian. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the apology. Water under the bridge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this "Encyclopedia of Latvia" is a reliable source, but I hope you can find time to discuss it in your busy schedule, see the discussion page on the right, thank you! Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Encyclopedia_of_Latvia_a_reliable_source? ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Left my .02. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have just redirected the page that I created. The information isn't a fork because Liverpool Cricket Club has had 4 cricket grounds, only one of which is the target!!! It is also a lot like saying we should redirect Liverpool F.C. to Anfield. I'm going to undo this and will defend it with AFD and any other means I feel necessary. Regards, Desertarun (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

With a single source (the second source is about the target article), you might want to consider working on it in draft, until it passes

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I will find other sources. I will undraftify and send it to AFD if anyone does draftify it. It will pass GNG and an AFD in my opinion based upon a whole book written about the history of the club. Desertarun (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Scientific American Library Book Series (thriftbooks.com)
• Scientific American Library | LibraryThing
• openlibrary.org

Htmlzycq (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No, they show it exists, but not that it's notable. You need in-depth coverage. In addition sites like thriftbooks.com (which I love, btw), are not independent, since they are sales sites. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How about source in the main article Scientific_American#Books?

I'm afraid there might be copyright issues if I bring the content directly from there.--Htmlzycq (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There's only one there which would help notability, the PW piece. But you can always copy from other articles, as long as you provide attribution, which is very simple. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969,

I know you say that

I've added new references from reliable sources as you requested. Is it OK now? --Silverije 23:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding notability, with fictional characters you need to show that they have "real-world" notability, not simply in-universe notability. This usually means that there is academic discussion regarding the characters (not the actor's performances), as well as in-depth discussion of the development of the character. You do have a development section, but it is very sparce: the esakal.com piece is decent, but it is quite brief, and the other does not go in-depth about the character at all. There is no critical academic section. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I believe Cherry Hill is notable because she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Here are the sources:

·        (2021, November 15). "Cherry Hill Striving for Perfection in Model Engineering." The Miniature Engineering Craftsmanship Museum.

·        Koerner, E. R. (2019, November 20). "A Model Engineer: Cherry Hill." Electrifying Women. https://electrifyingwomen.org/a-model-engineer-cherry-hill/%0A%0A‌

·        (2022). "Cherry Hill" Institution of Mechanical Engineers. https://archives.imeche.org/archive/artefacts/cherry-hill

·        Koerner, E. R. (2019, November 20). "A Model Engineer: Cherry Hill." Electrifying Women.

·        (2022). "Cherry Hill" Institution of Mechanical Engineers. https://archives.imeche.org/archive/artefacts/cherry-hill

·        (2017, November 8). "IMechE Archive and Library." Institution of Mechanical Engineers. https://imechearchive.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/cherry-hill/

I also believe that she is notable because she has received a well-known and significant award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times.

Here are the awards:

·        Sir Henry Royce Trophy for the Pursuit of Excellence (1989 and 1995).

·        MBE (Member of the British Empire) award (2000).

·        Elected Companion of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2004).

·        Honorary member of the Society of Model and Experimental Engineers (2004).

·        Awarded nine different gold medals at the annual Model Engineer Exhibition in London.

·        Awarded the Bradbury Winter Memorial Trophy eight times.

·        Awarded the Aveling Barford Cup twice.

·        Crebbin Memorial Trophy.

·        Awarded the Championship Cup three times.

·        Awarded The Duke of Edinburgh's Award nine times.

·        Joe Martin Foundation Craftsman of the Year Award (2017).

Please let me know if I am wrong and what I should do to fix it. I appreciate your help! Orlando Davis (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am still on Cherri Hill.

I added 4 more sources:

1.     "Cherry Hill's Second Blackburn Agricultural Engine" Model Engineering Website. https://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Cherry_Hills_latest.html

2.    ^ (1968, February 16). Model Engineer. (134).

3.     ^ (1987, November 5). An Interview with Cherry Hill. Model Engineer. (159).

4.     (2014, October 21). "Book celebrating model-maker Cherry Hill launched." Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Do you think that is enough to remove the not notable tag? Thank you. I appreciate your help. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't know why user Orlando Davis deleted my message to you, but I'll repeat it: I've added new references from reliable sources as you requested. Is it OK now? --Silverije 21:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what happened with your comment, but regarding your article, there are still numerous things which need citation. I'll put cn tags on the uncited items, hopefully that will help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I take it you found this one as difficult to follow the sources with all the domain name changes as I did lol. I cleanup it up some to remove unsupported claims and removed sources that did not explicitly name site to make it at least a little easier but still not easy. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I was so confused. I think it's still a mess, but, well, I guess I came to the same conclusion you did when you moved it to mainspace. btw, thanks for all the hard work you do over at AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, why is this one not ready for mainspace? It does fall in the gray area between what would, in practice, be accepted at

Draft:Filó Case is in similar shape and I have the same question here. What do you think is going to happen now that this is in Draft space? ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

For it to be improved. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

By whom? ~Kvng (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, You might have noticed me in the past month submitting new articles about engineers. You have reviewed the four articles I've submitted so far, and I firstly wanted to thank you for that.

Three of the four articles I submitted have recently had a random IP editor post a notice/warning across the top of each page (namely

I would put a brief statement on your userpage expanding about your intent to write articles about engineers. You actually do have a COI, since they are fellows of the Royal Academy for which you are the Wikipedian in residence. You probably should submit these through AfC. I'll remove the tags, since I reviewed them and see no issue. but you should not remove them yourself. Please read

WP:COI and follow the instructions on how to deal with that issue. But they are nice articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action and guidance, I really appreciate it. As you suggested AfC might be the only option and if that is more in line with what Wikipedia regulations stipulate then I'm more than happy to do that. Also I will update my userpage accordingly.Mark at RAEng (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that your nomination of

Technically, any editor can move a draft to mainspace, as long as they have the pagemover right. It won't last, and has already been prodded. If that is disputed, it'll go to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings,

Hi. No, my issue is one of

WP:COI editing, as you seem to have a connection to the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

02:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969, thanks for getting back to me. As far as that goes, there's no "seem" about it. The article's subject was indeed my mother, as should be clear from the original AfD discussion. But even in the context of that discussion (and its inevitable and irrefutable verdict), no one suggested that that relationship, in and of itself, automatically disqualifies one from creating an article; otherwise they could've dispensed with the discussion altogether. Rather, it was the quality—or lack thereof—of that particular article; un-encyclopedic tone, coupled with an almost utter lack of bona fide sources. Whatever its shortcomings at present, the current draft is a far cry from that. Which is why the template since added to the talk page seems so misleading, not to mention counterproductive. "This draft" is most definitely NOT what was deleted in 2012. Might not a more accurate and useful message read, "An earlier version of this proposed article was nominated for deletion etc., etc."? Which, by contrast, might even elicit—or at least not actively discourage—constructive input from other editors. Just a thought. DavidESpeed (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Then please follow the instructions at

WP:COI regarding posting the necessary statements on your page and the talkpage of the article, and submit through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

09:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 Please delete the promotional text in the article Chinmoy Barma. He is an Artist, Director and Producer from Assam and he's quite famous in India through various newspaper also published articles about him. I know that, As per wikipedia policy there's no place for promotional text or the article should be notable enough.

Feel free to edit the article yourself if you see an issue with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, thanks for your review of this article. I have removed the parts where the references were to works by this person herself. The article still uses several other articles and websites as references that make substantial and not passing references to Prof. Paul's work. I request you to please review the revised article. Best wishes. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. When it comes back up in my queue I'll take a look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I hope this message meets you well.

I saw your input in the last two pages I created. It made me feel part of a community that proactively cares and helps. Now I understand why you were reviewer of the year for 2 years.

Do review review Tunde Fatuntele. Cheers. Amaekuma (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like another editor already took a look at Fatuntele Tunde and marked it "reviewed". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Onel5969 know why the page Gaetano Minale it's back to draft. Thank you. 95.233.102.243 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Because there were large portions of the article which were uncited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

dear onel5969 I have added alot of citations on my article "list of sindhi tribes" that you have drafted,I have sent my article for review but still my article has not been published, kindly publish it quickly, as most of content I have written is from Wikipedia articles itself. Thanks I'm waiting. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Nice job on the additional sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Onel1978, Hope you're doing good. Kindly review my Draft:Tumse Mil Kay so I can start working on other articles related to Asian Television. Appreciate your usual cooperation. Jockey456 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The AfD was for the version of the article before April 14, while you keep reverting version that was moved into the mainspace on April 19 without providing any further explanations. Respublik (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The AfD, which is a consensus discussion, said the draft had to go through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Had it not went through it when it was submitted by Erincoktem?Respublik (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No. After the AfD, it needed to go through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw that the page

You have to show in-depth coverage of the character pertaining to the real world, not in-universe. This is usually done in the development and reception sections. Please be aware that coverage of the portrayals of characters is not the same as coverage of the characters themselves. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I cited a source on that page that shows coverage of the character. Milo567 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop amending e.g. from 1901–02 to from 1901 to 1902 when the 1901–02 refers to a football season (i.e. from August to July)? It's not generally "football-speak" to talk about years instead of seasons, and it's misleading to say "from 1901 to 1902" when that period is almost certainly not going to be correct. But thanks for taking a look at the obscuriana I put forward! In Vitrio (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just now, Burntisland Thistle. The SFA did not introduce qualifying rounds of the Cup from 1891 to 1892; that suggests the qualifying rounds lasted 2 years. They introduced them from the 1891-92 season, lasted a few years, then were replaced by the Qualifying Cup. In Vitrio (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, first, please provide a link. Second, I see what the issue is. There is nothing in that sentence to indicate that this is a season, rather than a range of years. In the future, please provide context by structuring the sentence to say something like "from the 1891–92 season", or "beginning with the 1891–92 season." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

They're articles about football clubs - competitions are almost always going to be across seasons rather than years. Also it makes no sense to say "the SFA introduced a competition from 1891 to 1892" because there's no gap in the middle. Would be "in 1891 and 1892" if that were the case. In Vitrio (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for reviewing my page Battle of Begums, cheers! :') ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 09:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Nice job on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Given your experience and beliefs about how Wikipedia should be run, I'm curious if you would find the Geraldine DeRuiter suitable for notability purposes. I, personally, did not think Geraldine DeRuiter herself was notable (though her blog is), so I tagged it. However, someone else removed the tag without updating the page. What are your thoughts? Significa liberdade (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason, with the current sourcing, for a notability tag to be removed. Personally, I think there's a case to be made, since you're correct her blog is notable, but she also has a book with several reviews. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969,

Over the past three weeks, you have draftified this article FOUR times! This is three more times than it should have been moved to Draft space. Clearly, your approach is not working so if it moved back to main space and you find this article unacceptable, please pursue one of our deletion processes. Moving it a 5th time, for whatever reason, will be seen as move-warring and could result in a loss of editing privileges.

I realize that you think you know best but you can't bend the rules whenever you want, it doesn't set a good example and only frustrates other editors. Draftify an article only once and if it is moved back to main space, seek other solutions or let it go and another patroller can handle it. Doing the same action over and over with no results or improvement is not the sign of a successful editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Liz, please read

WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The one exception to an editor being allowed to move it to mainspace is an editor with a COI issue. Which is the case here. They have been reported at COIN. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the speedy deletion tag you placed on a page I created, Emmanuel Iren. Many thanks for drawing my attention to the issues surrounding the page. I have no contention with your assertion and I agree with it. Unfortunately, I had no prior information or background knowledge of the page. I have moved it no draft and have no intention of editing it in the future. Cheers. Mevoelo (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

hi. sorry, what edits do you wish me to make at the article below? I'll be glad to do any edits or reverts, etc that you request. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

article is:

Internment of refugees in the Soviet Union during World War II. Sm8900 (talk

) 13:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. None. There was a copyvio in the interviews with authors suggestion, but that has been removed. Nice job on the rest of the article, but be careful of copyvios, as WP takes those pretty seriously. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my recent article for the lost 1912 Kalem film The Girl Bandits' Hoodoo. Strudjum (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might want to paraphrase the long quoted section you're using for a plot, that's not the usual way we do plots on WP. Other than that, nice job on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out why my recent move of

No worries, I've undone those for you. What you need to do is go to

WP:Requested Moves and ask to have the pages moved. Thanks for bringing those other two to my attention. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I have tried to improve the draft by adding some new sources and removed a repeated one. Can you check if this is okay now? JCmainly (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. What you need is in-depth coverage about him from reliable, secondary sources. #4 is in-depth, but not from a reliable source. Interviews are primary sources #14 is a nice source, but that is the only in-depth source that would count towards notability, the rest are brief mentions. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I will find some and add. Can I ping you again for help? JCmainly (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I saw that you put a tag on the Uyunid Uprising page about how the neutrality of it is disputed. Could you please tell me why you put it?
Please, and thank you! Haskko (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The use of terms like "oppressive rule", "Qarmatians were known for their rebellious actions", and such. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969 It's a pleasure to write to you here. I noticed that you had moved an article to the draft space (Nase Lino) due to a lack of sources. I have now improved the article by adding some sources that talk about the character. Could you help me by reviewing it? I look forward to your feedback. Caminante56 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see if I can get to that tomorrow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969 Kindly review the article Mara. You noted a few things which I believe has been corrected.

Thanks Corrugateboard (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. I've marked it reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks mate Corrugateboard (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. I have concerns about all of the articles you've moved to draftspace as a part of NPP activities. I don't think there is consensus for doing things like that, especially for articles that meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). In particular I noticed a lot of that at User_talk:AdesamSA. I thought I'm a bit out-of-date on some of this, so raised the generic issue at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts and it was suggested raising the issue with you was probably the way to go. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with @Hobit - you are using Draft space inappropriately by unilaterally moving things that you deem non-notable. Please stop. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you never have anything constructive to say, you are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Hobit. If the articles meet GEOLAND, then they get an automatic marked as reviewed. However, the drafts you refer to do not have any reliable sourcing showing that they are legally recognized places. They were tagged for improvement, and went unimproved for a week, after which, as per meeting all 4 of the requirements of

WP:DRAFTIFICATION, they were moved to draft. I've also responded at that discussion as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:DRAFT. I do feel there is an issue here, I'd like to figure out how to address it. If you disagree there is an issue, we should probably figure out how to get broader input. In all seriousness, thank you for doing new page patrolling. Finding experienced and knowledgeable folks like you to do it is really difficult. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. And thanks for the compliment. As I said, I understand your concern. I won't be participating in the discussion at the draft talk page, other than my one comment there, as I have no interest in participating in a discussion where quite a few editors who have an animus towards me were canvassed to participate. I think there is a lack of understanding of what NPP reviewing consists of. We are looking at the article in the state the article exists. If there are issues, then it can be tagged, prodded, speedied, or AfD'd, or draftified. I rarely, on my initial review, draft articles. Some reviewers do, and there is nothing wrong with that. The one glaring exception to that is if I come across a UPE/COI editor. Those do get drafted immediately. Probably about 70-80% of the articles I review get marked reviewed on the first pass. For example, yesterday I reviewed about 135 articles for the first time at the front of the queue (articles under a couple of months old). About 105 were marked reviewed. The other 30 were either tagged for issues, or there were about 2-3 which were UPE/COI articles which were draftified. The most drafts I do are on my second review. This is when if there is no improvement, tagging is no longer an option, so they must be either prodded, afd'd or draftified, since in their current form they are not fit for mainspace. As per DRAFTIFY, if I think they might possibly be notable, I send them to draft. Those I do not believe are notable, I prod or AfD. Right now there is a confused editor (actually there are several) who are saying that if a new article has a chance to survive AfD it should not be draftified. That is not what DRAFTIFY says. 2a in Draftify is an example, not a requirement. However, that being said, when I draftify an article, that article, as it exists, would not survive AfD. Granted, many articles I send to AfD are eventually kept. But very few of them are kept without

WP:HEY improvements. Regarding broader input, I think the only choices would be to send me to ANI, or to begin an RFC to clarify the draftication process for NPPer's. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're at ANI then since you're unwilling to participate on the draft talk page. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Not unwilling to participate in an unbiased discussion, as you can see from my detailed response above, however the canvassing which was done makes that impossible. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Will add, that please be aware that the issue of my draftifications was brought up during the last time I was taken to ANI, by one of the biased editors which was canvassed at the draft discussion, and they were soundly shot down. But it wasn't exactly the same context, so you do what you feel you have to do. Sorry you feel my explanation above is not detailed enough to assuage your concerns.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

<ec>So I guess there are three issues: One, any RfC would be at WP:DRAFT where I think you are saying you aren't willing to participate. Two, I disagree with how you're applying existing rules and I'm not looking to change the rules so an RfC probably isn't the right way forward. Three, I think this needs to be addressed pretty quickly and so a 30-day RfC probably isn't the way to go. If you're willing to stop drafting articles while an RfC at WP:DRAFT goes forward and you're willing to follow whatever that RfC concludes, I'm fine with that route. Let me know your preference. (ec note: sounds like you'd prefer ANI, so I'll go that route unless I hear otherwise). Thanks for making conflict like this non-toxic, stuff like this can be pretty painful. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Missed this by you. If you feel that it's that urgent, and you do not want to go via the RfC route, what you're asking me to do is not to do NPP patrolling for a month, which would create quite a backlog. So, you do what you feel you have to do. As I said, sorry you disagree with my above explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Noting it wouldn't stop you from doing NPP, just sending things to draft-space. Hobit (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Good morning (at least it is here). But since draftifying is an integral part of NPP, yes it would. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I wondered if you could clarify exactly as to the citations issue on ISO 21482? I looked over the template directions, I feel I made pretty good use of inline citations. So is the issue something with the citations themselves, etc? Thanks.--The Navigators (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Much better, still needs at least another source regarding the 2004 information. I've marked it reviewed. If you add that citation, feel free to remove the tag. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you please check whether you think that

Yes. Nice job. Have approved it to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you  :-) --Dirkjot (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I have disclosed that I'm a paid editor concerning the subject

Thank you. Now it will be reviewed through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. When

Draft:Johnel was in main space, you marked it as reviewed before moving it back to draft. Please re-review it. I stubbed the article because an editor declined it due to insufficient coverage of sources for a Start-class article. Please help with a review. Thank you. Adambenji (talk

) 09:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review article Draft:Battle of Malerkotla and accept it. Thanks. 2601:547:B03:376F:48EE:C504:4472:CF0C (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply:

This was always understood and I have been meaning to get back to it.Would have been nice to have had a chance to rework before it was deleted. Message today; page gone today = a tad unreasonable IMO GRM (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know what you mean by "this was always understood". Copyvios are NEVER understood. They are deleted. Sorry if you feel that's unreasonable, but that's one of WP's strictest policies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there @Onel5969,

I wanted to ask you about the process of page reviews. Some of the pages I made were reviewed by you like Niletto, Artyom Kacher, & Yanix among others (thanks for that, by the way), but others you tagged and did not mark them as reviewed. For example, I saw that you tagged my article Anikv for notability but did not mark it as reviewed. It's the same thing with an article like Markul. Is there a specific reason for that? For example, are you deferring to someone else to make a decision on it? I'm genuinely curious. If you can explain it then that would be great.

Also, would you happen to know how to expedite reviews of certain articles in AfC? I have some articles submitted there and was wondering how to get a faster decision on them (regardless of approval/denial). Please let me know. Thank you in advance for the response! Losipov (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It's a question of sourcing. While reviewing looks at a plethora of things, in regards to your articles, there are one of two issues, either

WP:CITEBOMBING is the key. But like NPP, they have a queue, and they go through it methodically, so just have patience. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 that makes sense. I don't bring everything over from the Russian Wikipedia (which those articles and others come from) either because the templates are different or I simply don't feel like it. That's why you see the expansion tags at the top of those pages if I don't bring everything over. I will say that there were supposed to be more sources for Anikv, but they seem to have not carried over from the other wiki. I can try to bring some over in the meantime, but still.

Also, I'm not sure if you can (or are willing) do this, but would you be able to review some of the unreviewed pages I have in NPP? there are some that were tagged like Markul & Anikv that have been looked at, but it might be a good idea to get them over with and free up the backlog. If you can, great (I can give you a list of them if so). If not, it's completely fine and I understand. Thanks again! Losipov (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 something else to add to my reply above: I addressed the orphan issue for Gayazovs Brothers, so I removed the tag (it's only one link, but still). If that was the only issue with the article, can you mark it as reviewed? Please and thank you! Losipov (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I review between 200-300 articles a day, in a pretty specific order. If I can get to yours tomorrow, I will. I did take a look at

WP:VERIFY. Of the other 11, I only found 1, the Intermedia piece which is actually in-depth. I have no doubt they are notable, but if you could find another 1 or 2 in-depth pieces from independent, reliable sources, that would help. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Can you explain to me this edit please? The first three book in the series are allowed to have detailed pages, why not this one? Your edit summary says "not enough in-depth coverage" even though the article was very much in-depth. You also for some reason link to GNG even though Wikipedia:Notability (books) exists. The book easily passes its criteria #1 if "newspaper articles" can include web articles (which in these days I don't see how it can not). Is it because one of the reviews had [better source] tag added, thus brining a number of non-authorial sources to just one? If so, I can replace it with another, would that solve the issue? Malachi108 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There were two issues with the article. First, there weren't enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show it meets GNG, so yes, if you added reviews from reliable sources, that would help solve that issue. The second was it lacked sourcing to pass

WP:VERIFY. Since plots/synopses do not need sourcing, but all of the character information does need sources. So you could either reduce the character descriptions down to a simple list, or you could add sourcing for the descriptions there. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969,

I saw that you draftified the article

7804j (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss the early draftification. Was not draftified due to notability issues, in fact, the message left on their talk page said that it was notable, but contained large portions which were uncited, despite the existing sources. Just went to move it back, and see you've already done that for me. Thank you. Will remove the unsourced material.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, paid editors cannot DRAFTOBJECT: "Other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

On the article of swimming pool covers, I copied the text from the article swimming pool. When I get time, I intend to improve the article. Not trying to be lazy. Cwater1 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, apparently the copyvio was a

WP:MIRROR. However, please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 In the future, I need to be careful make the text are not violating the copyright policy. Some things can go unnoticed for years. Cwater1 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Praveen Moman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Where do you feel that the article BabyJake has an inappropriate tone? It seems encyclopedic to me.

Thanks, SaltieChips SaltieChips (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks for the work you do. Terms like "he discovered his love for music" and "rose to prominence" are more appropriate for a novel than an encyclopedia. But other than that, not bad overall. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You Are ruing the Project of 2023-24 Maltese Challenge League AND 2023-24 Maltese Challenge League 2023–24 Maltese National Amateur League. You Don't Know About Maltese Football. If you Telling me about the Links they don't do the links they say on the Maltese Television and in Maltese they say. And I can say the Truth of the Maltese Football. You Have No Respect, And that's why You Block me. Shame on you. MPN 1994 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please learn WP policies and procedures. You continue to add unsourced information. Shame on you. Now stay off my talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this user (now blocked) created some railway stations article. Apart from first line, all has same text. If possible can you take a look please? (move to draft or trim down text?) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Good catch Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with the source? "The political role of the system of residential care of children in former East Germany" Anke Dreier-Horning, German Institute of Residential Care Research, Berlin Show me your source stating that the "German Institute of Residential Care Research" is unreliable. Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your comment "The topic of this draft may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Notability should be established before publishing this draft or submitting it via the articles for creation process." says that the text is primary, a mere trivial mention, is dependent. The GDR does not exiist any more.

The GDR residential care was highly politicized, so yes it was very notable.Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, not sure where that source comes from. Is it from a peer-reviewed journal, a newspaper, a magazine? Or is it a thesis paper? (which do not go towards notability). In addition, it is but a single source, and you need more sourcing to pass

WP:GNG. Assuming that source is reliable (and I do not know that it is), you'd need at least one other in-depth reliable independent source to show it meets notability. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"As a matter of good practice, the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors. "

Show me the rule that any page needs two sources. The rule must be very new.

No, it's pretty old, it's called

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I got an alert that you removed all of the episodes on the above named article because they were picked up as copyright violations and submitted for a violations check. I believe this to be a false report as the episode descriptions used were those on the BBC website (see link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0ff7cpp/once-upon-a-time-in-northern-ireland-series-1-1-it-wasnt-like-a-movie-anymore), following the precedent of similar documentary pages such as

That's a copyright violation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then it needs to be better enforced clearly.

talk

) 18:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)