- 1 Scott Reid
- 2 Moshe Yosef (rabbi)
- 3 Deletion nomination of 2015 Kharkiv Bombing to be thrown out
- 4 Thomas W. Talley
- 5 Revert of Bravo Telecom in English
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for March 19
- 7 Notable Person March 30
- 8 Request on 18:00:22, 1 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nannadeem
- 9 Welcome!
- 10 Infamous-Quests Article
- 11 21:08:57, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Lpwords
- 12 Draft:Jayantilal Gada
- 13 16:36:42, 15 April 2015 review of submission by CanvasNinja
- 14 Submission declined.
- 15 Submission declined II.
- 16 00:20:54, 23 April 2015 review of submission by 2604:2000:D12F:D100:C011:A678:59EB:8225
- 17 Paweł Tarnowski (sailor)
There are three Scott Reids actually
1. The Conservative MP from Ontario 2. The Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MLA 3. The Liberal Party Strategist famous for the Beer and Popcorn comments.
I saw in the edit history that you had to tag the article twice. I'm sure that I must of deleted the first one while constructing the article in a hurry. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Deletion nomination of 2015 Kharkiv Bombing to be thrown out
2015 Kharkiv bombing is a notable article. I don't know why it's been proposed for deletion. It's notable. Some other users are with me. This is a provocation, I believe. This is done, I understand, because of other people's opinons. I don't agree it should be deleted and I hope it isn't. Could you please take out the nomination for deletions? Thanks. --Babestress (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Babestress: - I hope the article isn't deleted too, but the fact remains that the article is reads a news article rather than an encyclopedic entry. Sure, it might be notable in the future but we can't make those predictions. And although we don't have a limit on how many articles we can have on Wikipedia, we can't have every single news item have its own article. I'd suggest reading through Wikipedia:Notability (events) to have a better idea on what can be made into an article.
- Don't feel discouraged, though, as many new editors have the same learning difficulties that you have. It's like learning a language; you may have some difficulty interpreting what you want to say, but with more practice you'll get the hang of it. If you need any help on how to contribute to Wikipedia, feel free to ask on the help desk. Many thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
apparently user:DGG says: "almost certainly notable author, certainly at least indicates some importance".  you might want to rethink and reevaluate your judgement at NPP. and other people are commenting on your actions . Duckduckstop (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Duckduckstop: Please forgive me, when I tagged the article it was a one-sentence article. I instinctly thought it was a non-notable bio and made the tag. I'll try to be more mindful and look for sources in the future. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- actually, that one sentence said he was a Chemistry professor at Fisk. Being a professor at a university, though not proof of notability, is an indication of plausible importance, and should always pass speedy--because it will need to be checked further. (You made the same error at Jane A. McKeating, and at Sanjay Shete even the first version showed actual notability according to WP:PROF because he is editor in chief of a major journal.) It's also not a good idea to tag a new article for A7 two minutes after creation unless its patently hopeless on the face of it, because the editor might well be in the process of adding more--as here. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Revert of Bravo Telecom in English
I understand why you reverted but the point is that company in Saudi Arabia is no more active So the article actually is deprecated and we shall move on with translation of french version on Wikipedia for Bravo Telecom https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Telecom I'll try to get in contact with Bravo Telecom owners in order to fix that issue Thanks
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kakrala Bhaika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi aerospeed I believe I can give you extra information for your article Aquagenic Urticaria. Please get back to me soon. Thanks Medicalmystery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalmystery (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Notable Person March 30
Hi Aerospeed! You rejected my submission for [[Michael Baum [entrepreneur)]] and cited that the sources did not indicate he was notable enough. From what I have read, he is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, having founding many companies in the big data space. I put many sources, many of which are from online publications and news outlets (38 sources). I'm relatively new, can you help me make the page reputable?
- Hello @SiliconChips:, and thank you for submitting your article to AfC. The article was certainly well written, but I'm afraid to say the subject of the article (Michael Baum) simply isn't notable enough. Despite the fact that there are 38 sources given, they are not independent of the subject. To be independent of the subject means that the sources produced by those linked with the subject including are discounted when determining when a subject is notable. Examples of these discounted sources include self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and so on. While they may be detailed and even well-proven, the main problem with these sources is they are often biased and promotional in nature, and often do not meet the neutral point of view that an article needs, if these sources were to be brought up on their own. Please look at page on independent sources for more information on what makes an independent source. Don't feel disheartened that your article was declined, however, as many first-time editors often get the same difficulties when creating an article, Remember to keep working hard, and I'm sure you'll get an article approved through AfC. Aerospeed (Talk) 11:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Draft:E-trading in Pakistan: E-Trading is itself a vast subject, and would require a book in volumes to deal with the subject to cover the scope and practices of each and every country. Therefore one subject and one page is not applicable to WP, for instance WP has pages on the subject of:
- Radio and Radio Japan or Radio Pakistan
- Stock exchange and Tokyo Stock Exchange. Also see List of stock exchanges
- Television or TV and France TV
If an article in parallel line with Stock Exchange and List of Stock exchanges can be accommodated, then why the page E-trading in Pakistan cannot be existed on WP in the presence of Electronic trading. As such E-Trade is a subject of modern technology, no all countries on map of globe applying same practices and capabilities due to slow and fast development, per resources/skill, and lack of infrastructure. The subject is changing modus operandi of classic trading systems, the region or regional importance cannot be ruled out.
In view of above submission, you are requested to review the objection fixed and accept the draft, please.
Hi Aerospeed! I have edited the Infamous Quests article several times and taken on board the previous comments about the sources not being notable enough so have endeavored to improve the quality of citations. Again I am very surprised to see it be declined again despite very credible sources from TIME, Slate, IGN and other news outlets. It's simply not an advertisement and it is no different a page to other indie game company pages that have articles. They have a Wikipedia article for their older company Infamous Adventures and also have an article entry for one of their games, King's Quest III: To Heir Is Human (Infamous Adventures). Can you please reconsider your decision. Thank you.
- @Jmbroomie: - If you feel that your article is ready to be re-reviewed then resubmit the article through AfC. To my knowledge, editors are not usually allowed to review the same draft twice, if only to allow fresh eyes to look at the article. Once submitted, I might give another comment on the article for suggestions. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
21:08:57, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Lpwords
This article's rejections have focused on lack of notability. I've read those guidelines carefully and wonder why the references from three books by well-known publishers, from three national industry publications, and from three Denver newspapers are insufficient. They seem to fit the guidelines. Are more references needed or is there something else I can do to make this article acceptable? Thanks. Lpwords (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Lpwords: It would depend on the context of how the company was portrayed in those books. If they are merely mentioned in the book, they don't have notability, since the reason why a company is notable isn't mentioned. Just because a company exists doesn't automatically make it notable. In terms of how the article was written, I think there's nothing wrong with it, it's just that the notability can't be confirmed. I'd suggest reading through the notability guidelines thouroughly, specifically the "Primary criteria" section to get a better idea on how notability works. As I said earlier, don't be discouraged, as figuring out notability on Wikipedia can be very daunting. But more practice will help you get there. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada Hello - I've just seen that My article I submitted for review Draft:Jayantilal Gada has been rejected after review, with the feedback that This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please tell me what changes i have to do to get this article accepted.Now I added more references about person from news papers and others web cites .I Also improved my Article .Please help me thank youYatin Rewale (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Yatin Rewale: In terms of how the article was written, the article was written very well, but the problem with the article is on the subject of the article. As I stated in my comment earlier, I don't see how he can qualify for the notability guidelines for entertainers. One the main reason why is because the producer hasn't worked on a notable film yet. He's also not mentioned in any of the articles that appear in his filmography. All this makes me believe that he is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Please look at what notability is, and why it can't apply to just everyone. Don't be discouraged, however, as many first-time editors have trouble with figuring out notability on Wikipedia. Keep practicing writing articles and you'll be able to get an article submitted through AfC. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
16:36:42, 15 April 2015 review of submission by CanvasNinja
Dear Aerospeed: Thank you for your time and feedback last week. Five days ago, I re-submitted a revised page with changes per your feedback on the subject's notability. I included an addition at the artice's opening to emphasize the work initiating America's first retrospectives of Asian artists, including Yayoi Kusama and Yoko Ono. I also placed emphasis on her appointment as the first curator of Asian art at an American institution. Finally, I revised several of the references to include sources from The New York Times, among others. I would welcome any feedback you have, or further insights into the approval of this page. Thank you again!
Hello.Can you help clarify on your decision? I need to learn what these standards of "notable" mean.It was my understanding that an artist needed to be recognized by outsider,non-promotional sources. The intention of putting those reviews there was that several of those sites are reputable music-criticism databases with their own recognition on Wikipedia.It had nothing to do with how 'good' the band was or how much influence they exerted.Coupled with the reputable labels that confirm having included the band in their list. I was given the go-ahead by other mods.Why is my article less worthy than this? --MightySaiyan (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @MightySaiyan: Notability requirements not only need reliable sources (I.e. Something not self-published, something that a user can simply create, and something that discusses about the band itself. Bands have a certain notability requirement of their own, since not every band can have their own article. Some of the sources are self-published as well, which means that the verifiability is brought into question, due to the fact that self-published sources can claim anything without having fact checkers, editors, etc. See this for more information.
- However, from the sounds of things it looks like you're getting close to getting the submission accepted, if you're correct about being given the "go-ahead" from the mods. And to your credit, I think your article is better written than the one you sent as an example (Have a Nice Life). So what I'd do is try to clean up the sources that don't say much about the band (such as the first source, which only mentions the band as being part of a catalogue), and if there's any way that the band meets the notability requirements, and if a source says so, make it obvious in the article so the submission can have a better chance of being accepted. Keep trying, as many submissions take many tries to get accepted. It's all part of the learning process. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Submission declined II.
Dear Aerospeed. (Sorry if I am not formatting this correctly.)
Hello. Can you help clarify on your decision? I need to learn what these standards of "notable" mean. I included many sources, some are books in most university libraries, some are articles that can be searched online. I was careful not to include any on the subject's own website. What to do? Just what is missing that would make you consider this person "notable"? Cited in the article are two lengthly interviews with the subject on the subject of mail art. The subject was instrumental in the move from an analog system to a digital context for mail art. As said in a question to you above, it was my understanding that an artist needed to be recognized by outsider,non-promotional sources. That is what I have tried to present. The back story is this: This subject had a page on Wikipedia for many years dating back to the earliest days of the Wikipedia site. Perhaps coincidentally, within the same week, the subject's user account was suspended and the entry on him was deleted. He was warned of this but did not respond in time to the warning to delete, thinking it was referring to his user account. He asked me, someone who has written on him in the past, to try and get his article re-written and replaced to the liking of Wikipedia. I greatly improved this article and backed it up with scholarly citations. In the meantime, he has had his own account reinstated because he made it clear he was not promoting or driving traffic to his site, only that it is one of the best sources for information on him. Please understand that Mr. Bloch is involved in an activity that involves, by its very nature, a lot of self-publishing. He was involved with this kind of self-publishing activity since the late 70s, prior to the spread of cyber-space and online publishing. It was, in fact a precursor to and a model for cyberspace. But rather than use his own Do It Yourself credits, I researched outside source material and re-wrote the entry. Please tell me what should be done to move this article beyond the not notable demarcation. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC) User:iochoneiochone (talk)
- @Iochone: When I looked at the article I also reviewed the notability requirements for artists, which are guidelines to determine if an artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. The first three points in the section are can't be easily determined by the sources given, and it often left to a judgment call based on what is said in the article. In terms of how much notability is needed, 3 good sources are generally needed for a subject to be notable. I noticed you had a couple of off-line sources, could I have some more info on what those sources are exactly? How much detail does the sources explain the subject? If it's in reasonable detail it could be notable since published offline sources are generally more reliable than Internet sources, since they have to get published by an external source. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
00:20:54, 23 April 2015 review of submission by 2604:2000:D12F:D100:C011:A678:59EB:8225
Can you please clarify for me why or what sources I have that are not notable? Theatre Mania, Hitfix, and Broadway World are among the top references in the entertainment and theatre industry. Appreciate the help.
- Hello @2604:2000:D12F:D100:C011:A678:59EB:8225: Looking at the sources in the article, most of them aren't exactly the most reliable. For instance, his imdb page isn't reliable since anyone can edit the website and claim to be an expert on the subject. Secondly, his official website isn't reliable as well, since it is a self-published work and the neutrality of the source may be skewed. The rest of the sources are either broken (as it was with #3), only mention the subject in one line or sentence (which cannot establish notability from that), or don't even mention the actor at all. On top of that, the actor hasn't appeared in any major films - although a case could be made since he appeared in an indie award winning film. But the sources aren't the best, and we have to establish notability and make sure the sources are verifiable to make sure the information is accurate, especially in a biography. That's mainly why I declined the submission, because there are reliable sources in the article. If you want, create an account and learn more about editing on Wikipedia at the Teahouse for more help on creating articles. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If I understand, my impatience is the reason for the confusion. Because I asked for help, and then I published this article. My doubts were associated with the specifics of articles in English about this sport. And I thought that maybe someone glanced at the article before publication. I'm very sorry.
M.Tarnowski (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)