March 28 Information

• Kmccook ( talk · contribs)
  • User:Kmccook/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have a draft submitted on a photographer, Jason Thrasher. I was working in my sandbox and somehow it got declined in the sandbox but I think I have done the work needed with inline citations for the actual draft. can you help me? I am not asking for early review of the draft--I know you are busy but my sandbox work might have mixed things up. Thank you here is the draft

/info/en/?search=Draft:Jason_Thrasher   
Kmccook (
talk) 
02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
reply

Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• ShwetaSmenon ( talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

shweta singh 05:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Platipusica ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jam.py (web framework) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I have no idea where to find "reliable sources" which mentioned Jam.py framework, other than this two in references, and this ones here: http://codegeeks.xyz/category/jampy/ https://devrix.com/tutorial/35-best-html5-and-css3-responsive-frameworks/

This is creating impossible situation for me which I can't resolve. Please advice.

Thanks

PS

29 March 2019 Thank you for reviewing and pointing "More like #5 needed.". I added one more and hope this will help in making a positive decision.

Btw, I do not see any references for this framework /info/en/?search=Bottle_(web_framework). Or this one: /info/en/?search=Tornado_(web_server)

refereed in here: /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_web_frameworks

No comments.

Kind Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Platipusica ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Platipusica ( talk) 06:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Convo Agent One ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pepperfry ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. However, I would like to request a re-review because I believe that the subject is notable enough to be included into Wikipedia. I base this belief on several substantial news and mentions in several independent publications available online about the subject, some of which have been utilized to create the content. Both this quality of being covered by media publications frequently since the subject's foundation and its active status in the online marketplace in the country (India) makes me feel that an inclusion in Wikipedia is valid.

I should add that I have a conflict of interest on this draft, which I have declared on its Talk page.

Any more clarity on this would be greatly appreciated. I thank the community again for its time and consideration. Convo Agent One ( talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

There are differing opinions on this draft. AfC is an optional process. If you want the page, move it yourself Legacypac ( talk) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for responding, Legacypac. I wouldn't want to do that because I have a conflict of interest with the subject. And as per WP:PE point #5, I would request the AfC community to regard it and publish if it meets the criteria, which I believe it does. Please do let me know if there's anything more I could add/edit. Thank you for your support. Convo Agent One ( talk) 07:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hottfitnsexy ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Matthew Kline Kader ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How he is not notable when he is being published by major media websites and the sites have all been sourced in the page? Please have someone else review this article again because you are not reading the material and sources. Hottfitnsexy ( talk) 08:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

you will have to discuss with User:RHaworth who has made this page impossable to create without Admin tools because it has been created so often problematically. Legacypac ( talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Chris7turner ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Association Football Development Programme Global ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Comments made by editor K.e.coffman regarding the notability of AFDP Global have been taken on board. The notability guidelines require that 'each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources.'

More of these sources covering the social enterprise's launch have therefore been added, including MSN, FOX Sports and Reuters, as have subsequent significant mentions of the organisation, including in The Guardian, CNN, Reuters again and Inside World Football.

Overall, sources now include these above plus the Washington Post, the BBC, Eurosport (owned by Discovery Communications)and Associated Press. Is this enough to establish the notability of the organisation? Chris7turner ( talk) 12:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Chris7turner, I've taken a look at the draft. The only current content that might be worth keeping is the "History" section, all the rest is fluff at best or even simply irrelevant. I have not evaluated the sources as it's close to bedtime for me. Trim it down to only what's in the History section and resubmit it for another review. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Paul Wynter ( talk · contribs)
  • User:Paul Wynter/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

newbie to editing pages for WIKI, I had been blocked because I use a VPN I am based in Bangkok and have to use a UK vpn for company reasons and privacy abroad reasons how can I clear this block, I am now using my HOME IP address (3BB ISP) which is not VPNed, thank you.

Paul Wynter ( talk) 13:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Bigchip ( talk · contribs)
  • User:Bigchip/Dog Is Dead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, In 2010, I created the article Dog Is Dead. I last edited it in 2016 (although others have since then). This February (nearly 9 years later), I received a message on my Talkpage headed: "Submission declined on 22 February 2019 by Legacypac (talk)." /info/en/?search=User:Bigchip/Dog_Is_Dead

1. Does this refer to my original creation of the article (9 years ago)? Or to my latest edit to the page (nearly 3 years ago)? Or to more recent edits by other users?

2. What is the process for responding directly to this reviewer's message, so I can resolve this issue? I believe the article, with 24 references including the BBC, should qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia without further editing by me.

Bigchip ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Bigchip Greetings. Reviewer Legacypac declined the article 'Dog is Dead' in 'your sub page' which you created on 17:19, June 13, 2010. You then created Dog Is Dead article in the main space a few hours later on 20:05, June 13, 2010 and this article is not declined and is in Wikipedia (In another words you have nothing to worry about) - see your contribution history HERE. Kindly place {{ Db-G7}} on top of User:Bigchip/Dog Is Dead and state "request deletion from creator" so your sub page of Dog is Dead is deleted. Pop back here if you need further assistance. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 02:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• WJG222 ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alexa Rose Carlin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to submit a draft for review, and it will not allow me to do that. It keeps telling me it's a draft and not reviewed, but will not go into review mode.

WJG222 ( talk) 15:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Renlock ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vasudevacharya ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please elaborate on the non-notability opinion for Vasudevacharya. Vasudevacharya is a noted scholar on the subject of Advaita Vedanta in Australia, India, other parts of Asia and the USA. He has been interviewed by the government run Australian Broadcasting Commission and the national Indian broadsheet newspaper “the Hindu”. What do you consider would make this noted scholar more noteworthy. He is not a household name but in the area of Indian Philosophy and particularly Advaita Vedanta he is considered a world authority. Renlock ( talk) 15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Renlock ( talk) 15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Renlock Greetings. I didnt go through the draft page, but I am here to help answer your question above. For a article to be merit a page in Wikipedia, the subject needs to be notable and the content need to supported by multiple independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not only merely passing mentioned. Pls note home page, official site, interviews, press releases, user generated sites, sources associated with the subject and etc can NOT be used to contribute/demonstrate the notability of the subject. In addition, the content needs to be written in neutral point of view and free of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION tone. Pls read WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR for notability guidelines and for WP:GOLDENRULE additional info. (note: pls click the blue highlighted texts for details info) cheers. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 03:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you CASSIOPEIA for your assistance. Renlock ( talk) 07:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Pivotcyclesron ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pivot Cycles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering why my content was rejected. I am happy to edit but I am not sure what I need to do from here. Pivotcyclesron ( talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Your draft fails WP:NCOMPANY, we require significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources and this reads like an advert, not surprising as you seem to have a conflict of interest being a paid editor. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Salt Cathedral (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please help me. Wondering what other sources I can add that would help the article be approved. I'm looking at various articles for indie level artists and the sources seem on par with what I've provided.

Also, what can I use for notability criteria in addition to them being signed to a well known and historied electronic label?

Thank you for your assistance.

OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace ( talk) 21:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace Hi good day. First of all, you need to re-read the comment left by the reviewer, and secondly pls click on the blue hightlited text for they willl bring to you other pages for details information of the topics. Do pop back here AFTER you have read them (including the info of links) then come back here if you have specific questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 12:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace: Being signed to an important indie label is not one of the notability criteria. If you're saying the band has released two or more albums on one of the more important indie labels (and thus meets criterion #5 of WP:NBAND), then you're burying the lead. Bands aren't a dime a dozen, they're a penny a gross. Tell the reader in the first sentence or two why they should read an encyclopedia article about this band, why they are notable. If you're using other articles as examples, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best work. There's a lot of junk in Wikipedia that you don't want to imitate. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you both for the responses. I've added more sources from national publications, and details on national touring that should meet notability criteria #1 and #4. Will resubmit today.

• Sapphire099 ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Katharine Marais ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sapphire099 ( talk) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• IJD3NN3I ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Blackmore Vale Football League ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am asking for a re-review as this article is similar to already published articles such as the ones that are stated as in the surrounding areas. Any further issues to whether this article can not be published, please identify for myself to alter accordingly.

IJD3NN3I ( talk) 23:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi IJD3NN3I. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it is welcome. It is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.

The draft has been declined for reading like an advertisement and rejected because it fails to demonstrate that the topic meets WP:ORG. Four of the draft's references are the league itself, and the fifth is the governing body of the sport, hardly arms-length sources. The bulk of any article should be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources, but the draft shows no significant coverage in such sources. If it were resubmitted as is, I would decline it for failing to demonstrate notability. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply