May 13

• Tomboy1977 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Why my article is rejected though i submitted lot of citations and proofs Tomboy1977 (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomboy1977: your draft (not yet an 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. The majority of your sources are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In parenthesis, @

WP:RS. They are primary sources of YouTube interviews of the subject and in no way, proves notability. The welcome message on your talk page can also serve as help after reading, while following the blue links. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• PNKAT1993 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Naveenkumar about good information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

sir i want published this PNKAT1993 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PNKAT1993: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please carefully read the messages posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That is exactly what I am telling you. I tagged those pages because they are off from the goals of the encyclopaedia. You may not want to read the speedy deletion messages and follow the links. It's good to use the one by Deepfriedokra especially to this act of promotion. You are also a relatively new editor who can Chanel into cleaning up articles; till after learning about Wikipedia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

then more such stuff can be created, but this clearly makes no sense: just because there are problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia does not mean we should create more such problems. (And if you have identified articles that do not meet referencing or notability etc. requirements, you're welcome to improvement, or tag them for improvement using maintenance templates, or to commence deletion proceedings where improvement is not possible.)

To answer your other question about notability criteria for professional bodies, these are the same as for any other organisation, and are laid out in

WP:ORG. In other words, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the organisation in question, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of the source, and of each other). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

OK thanks for the prompt response DoubleGrazing. Understood. I get the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point but can see at least 10 pages that do not meet the criteria, and struggle to see many would have significant coverage with independence of the type indicated. But I will leave them as they provide users with accessible information. It would be unfair for example to have such organisations page removed. It is strange but these are organisations who members help make the world tick over yet would be otherwise invisible here and no as straight forward to add in as content on other pages.

I was just trying to help out given people have commented to me on the omission so I will stand down. Still I have learned something from the experience. Reqman (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as good articles, which have gotten community review. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Or

threads critiques 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Reqman. I understand your concern about substandard articles getting deleted because they might be "useful"; but usefulness is not part of Wikipedia's purposes. If those articles can be changed to meet Wikipedia's criteria (in most cases, finding suitable

independent sources), then they should be; if they can't then they should be deleted. Unfortunately, not many volunteers are willing to spend much time going over tens of thousands of old articles doing this. ColinFine (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Saji Edavazhikkal: it was certainly correctly declined for lack of notability. On what basis are you alleging unfair treatment, exactly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything unfair about it. Much of your draft is unsourced, at least with in line citations(see

WP:REFB), and the citations you have seem to just be routine coverage. The fact that he is a bishop might merit him an article, but any article about him must summarize sources with significant coverage that describe what those sources see as important/significant/influential about him. Is he known for holding particular theological or social views? Does he have certain policies? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The reviewer says the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published" however this is not true as most of references show significant coverage the subject (the bishop) being published, also the reviewer says the sources are not "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I think this is grossly unfair as all of the sources are independent of the Bishop and some are also independent secular newspapers that are both independent of the Bishop and the Church.You also say that much of my draft is "unsourced, at least with in line citations." however, if you look at the citations at the end of the paragraph you can see the things mentioned in the paragraph there. Not all bishops hold any "particular theological or social views" personally but are given articles due to the significance of their office. Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saji Edavazhikkal

Source analysis:-

1. Directly associated with the subject = not independent
2. Indirectly associated with the subject (the Catholic Church) = not independent
3. Appointment news = not significant coverage; probably also not independent (press release?)
4. As #2
5. As #3
6. As #2
7. As #2 and #3
8. As #3
9. As #2 and #3

I repeat, this draft was correctly declined, and if you wish to continue claiming unfair treatment you need to start coming up with actual evidence to support that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles of similar nature (Bishops) have a similar, less or no references and most of their references are not independent like you deem this to be, If you think this is not worthy then fine, however you would not delete many articles of a similar nature that are poorly referenced or have no reference at all... Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See

other stuff exists we certainly WOULD delete any articles which were poorly referenced or have no reference at all. Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

threads critiques 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thomas Koorilos Mathew Moolakkatt Joshua Ignathios Abraham Julios Thomas Chakiath Paul Alappatt Anthonios Yaqu'b Yakob Elias Baker Ninan Fenn Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Koorilos, Moolakkatt, Julios, Yaqu'b, Elias, and Fenn will go to

threads critiques 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• 173.63.169.98 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Flag of Clipperton Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

accept it now I will make it better 173.63.169.98 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. You have no independent sources that discuss the use or history of this flag. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 71.167.7.207 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lisa Davis (law professor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused as to why this article would be declined. Lisa Davis has held positions in the International Criminal Court and the State Department and is a law professor at CUNY Law. I have found numerous other instances of people in these positionshaving Wikipedia pages, often with fewer third party citations than this one. As to the quality of the citation sources, they include the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, Buzzfeed News, and others - all of which are independent of the subject of the article. Are you suggesting these sources are not verifiable? 71.167.7.207 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

classified as good articles

, which have received community vetting.

What are the three best sources that provide significant coverage of Lisa Davis? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):

• https://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty/directory/davis/ and any other source on that domain is useless for notability (
  connexion to subject
  ). CUNY Law is Davis' employer and thus not independent of her as far as we are concerned.
• We can't use https://peqod.com/prof/Lisa_Davis (
  too sparse
  ). Literally no content here.
• https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/human-rights-groups-file-legal-petition-sexual-violence-against is useless for notability (
  no editorial oversight
  ). Press release. While I'm willing to buy Davis has no direct or indirect connexion to the CCR, press releases as a rule are useless as sources since they're intended to promote or otherwise raise awareness of something in a biased manner.
• https://arc-international.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/El-Escrito-de-amicus-curiae-en-ingles.pdf is useless for notability (
  gov't document
  ). Court cases are always considered government documents and cannot be directly cited; you need to cite a news article that discusses the case or document and Davis' role in it.
• https://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_239_ing.pdf has the exact same issues as the previous source.
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/these-lawyers-have-a-case-for-charging-isis-with-killing is useless for notability (
  too sparse
  ). No discussion of Davis; article merely quotes her.
• https://ilg2.org/2018/01/25/activists-launch-case-for-prosecution-of-isis-crimes-against-women-and-lgbtiq-persons/ is useless for notability (
  connexion to subject
  ). Authored by Davis.
• We can't use https://www.law.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/page-assets/academics/clinics/hrgj/CAH_English.pdf (
  no editorial oversight
  ). Open letter to the UN. Again, you need to find a source that discusses this letter and Davis' role in its writing.
• https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2019/english/a_74_10_advance.pdf is a
  non-sequitur
  . (A source that doesn't so much as mention Davis is going to be completely useless as a source about her.)
• https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-12-07-Policy-on-the-Crime-of-Gender-Persecution.pdf is useless for notability (
  too sparse
  ). One-line mention of an appointment in a footnote and a name-drop in a contacts list. Not enough to cite.
• We can't cite https://www.justicerapidresponse.org/what-we-do/sexual-gender-based-violence/ (
  too sparse
  ). Presser from JRR that name-drops Davis.
• https://www.frauenrat.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/W7_Project-Handbook-2022.pdf is useless for notability (
  too sparse
  ). Name-drop in a group membership list.

We do not judge sources solely by who puts the source out;

threads critiques 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Altberry65 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Al Berry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What am I doing wrong? And how can I change to biography? Altberry65 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

threads critiques 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]