The article Unfair dismissal (Australia) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Unfair dismissal (Australia) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AviationFreak -- AviationFreak (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder) and Talk:Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AviationFreak -- AviationFreak (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drover.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article House v The King you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:House v The King for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder) for comments about the article, and Talk:Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AviationFreak -- AviationFreak (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hollis v Vabu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, thanks Jack4576 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Hollis v Vabu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hollis v Vabu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, thanks Jack4576 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Myriad Sun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriad Sun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Alalch E. 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, thanks Jack4576 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jack4576. Thank you for your work on Suresh Naidu. User:TheLonelyPather, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The professor satisfies WP:NACADEMIC as he is a named chair professor at a major institution.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|TheLonelyPather)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ayesha Erotica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayesha Erotica. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DSP2092^talk 07:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be mindful of correctly applying WP:G4 in future. Thank you Jack4576 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayesha Erotica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayesha Erotica (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DSP2092^talk 12:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes Jack4576 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This website sucks. A contributor notices an interesting person as a part of a musical subculture, does the work of researching it, finds a few reliable sources (Pitchfork, Grammy.com etcetera) and still the wikilawyers come knocking. No wonder this website’s coverage of contemporary/underground culture is woefully inadequate.

The culture of notability policing on this website is a systemic rot. Jack4576 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Bill Dunn with a friend.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've come across a few of your recent articles on Oz restaurants, with only two sources cited in each. Just wanted to remind you that two sources isn't really enough to establish notability per WP:GNG (we often say that three is the minimum), and especially in what comes to businesses or other organisations where the notability bar is higher per WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure 3 is the minimum, in some discussions 'multiple' has been said to include two. I'll try to look for three sources from now on though anyway, thank you Jack4576 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's kind of a blurry line, and some editors will accept two, some want to see three. But in order to bulletproof a new creation and make your life a whole lot easier, find three instances of sigcov in independent RS, at least two of which are from outside the local area/industry niche publications, before you move to article space. Voila! :D Valereee (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d rather just take an approach of relying on two until policy that three is required becomes the explicit outcome of an RfC

In the meantime the group of editors where “some will accept two”, includes me. To me, two can mean multiple

Thank you for your perspective regardless Valereee Jack4576 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, if you want to rely on two, knowing that may lead to an AfD when three IND RS SIGCOV including two outside local/ind niche literally almost never will (only exception I can think of offhand is WP:ONEEVENT). But then you shouldn't be surprised when AfDs happen or that you get a reputation for creating barely-sufficiently or insufficiently-sourced articles.

For me it's just not that hard to leave articles in my userspace while I try to find a third and generally end up avoiding AfD altogether. Literally the last time I can remember an article I wrote being nom'd was because it seemed obvious the subject was notable, it was a subject I try to avoid creating in, and I was annoyed enough with myself for spending my time there that I decided to go ahead and move it. Less than 24 hours, BOOM, AfD, and I probably spent twice as much time to ensure a keep as I would have if I'd just decided not to be lazy and never ended up at AfD in the first place. I'd rather not waste time when it's so easy to avoid. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It shouldn't lead to an AfD, because the word 'Multiple' means two. Editors that assert that multiple means three are simply incorrect in my opinion, and would be misapplying the guidelines.

If you take issue with this, the best approach would be for you to resolve this interpretive ambiguity via an RfC, instead of trying to argue to me that 'multiple' does not mean two.

I don't think two SIGCOV sources are 'insufficiently sourced' when two sources complies with the guidelines. If it complies, it is sufficient.

If I only had one source, I would leave it in my userspace for being non-compliant. However, in the case that I have two sources; because it is compliant, I would be comfortable moving the articles from my userspace to the mainspace.

If editors want to misapply the guidelines and delete articles which are compliant with the 'multiple' source requirement, that's on them. Their decision to misapply the guidelines isn't going to influence my decision to follow them as written.

I think the best approach would be for this to be resolved by an RfC, but as you may be aware I am currently banned from WP:Space. Perhaps I'll raise one myself if this account gets unblocked at some point. Jack4576 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a misapplication. It's a difference of opinion, and I suspect there's no RfC that could get consensus on either number because most of us recognize we need to be able to use some judgement instead of simply applying a toggle-switch. There could be subjects I'd accept with two instances of comprehensive coverage in top-level reliable sources that are outside the locale/niche; for me other factors come in at that point. But with three instances? Over the hump, for me.

And the thing is, if we've got those two, it ought to be child's play to find a third instance; the local rag or some niche publication would almost certainly take it up. Writing an article shouldn't be about "what's the bare minimum I can get away with?" Valereee (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is not a mere difference in opinion. There is one correct interpretation, and the two proposed interpretations are mutually exclusive.

My view is that multiple can mean ‘two’ is relatively obvious, and editors that don’t follow that rule are misapplying guidelines as they are written.

I accept there is an active interpretive dispute regarding which should prevail. This should be resolved through an RfC.

In the meantime I will continue to apply the correct interpretation unless consensus indicates that the other interpretation is the preferred one. Jack4576 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We appear to be having a difference of opinion on whether this is a difference of opinion. :D Valereee (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting the question as "what's the bare minimum I can get away with" is frankly insulting Valereee. Sometimes worthy subjects only have a limited number of SIGCOV sources. This isn't laziness, it is occasionally a necessity. Especially when documenting cultures outside of the dominant Anglosphere. 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Jack4576 (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Multiple" can mean "more than one", but it can also mean "many". If "multiple" in the guideline is supposed to always mean "at least two", it should say so unambiguously. That wouldn't be unheard of; criterion #1 in WP:BKCRIT requires "two or more" sources of certain kind.

DoubleGrazing referred to GNG, which says "multiple sources are generally expected" and ORGCRIT, which says (under WP:MULTSOURCES) "[t]he word 'multiple' is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product", adding "a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area". It'd still be fair to say that generally the unspoken minimum is more than two, because cases where less than three sources are enough are rare.

My final point is based on hypotheticals, but if someone's articles are often deleted, they're probably wasting their own time. What could be worse for them (and likely in some cases for Wikipedia) is that if enough people feel that the article creator is wasting the community's time too much, it doesn't matter who was ultimately right or wrong when the ban hammer strikes. Politrukki (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only editors that are wasting the community’s time are those that incorrectly assert that ‘multiple’ means more than two.

Those editors waste the time end energy of other contributors by creating deletion discussions where they shouldn’t be created.

If you want to assert the (IMO) incorrect view that the word ‘multiple’ means ‘more than two’ on this website, you’re more than welcome to assert that in an RfC.

I’ve never seen ‘multiple’ defined as strictly ‘more than two’ in any of the major English dictionaries.

I don’t accept your ‘unspoken minimum’ as fair. If you want to asset that view; speak it, and do it through a community-vetted RfC.

In the meantime the spoken & unspoken view of many others editors on this website will be that multiple can and does mean two. Jack4576 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve never seen ‘multiple’ defined as strictly ‘more than two’ in any of the major English dictionaries. - Ah, but the OED first definition is:

Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes, results, aspects, locations, etc.; manifold.

which does not say more than two, it says several, many or manifold. All of which do mean more than two. The OED definition of several includes

As a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many. (The chief current sense.)

So there you have it. Not that proof by dictionary tells us much about what editors intended with the usage here. For that I would suggest Politrukki has provided the answer. Certainly to me, multiple is always more than two (notwithstanding the very clear guidance of when we don't need multiple, but just a couple of sources), but that is because I would go with the mathematical definition. Again from the OED:

A quantity which contains another quantity some number of times without remainder; a quantity which is the product of a given quantity and some other, esp. one which results from multiplying the given quantity by an integer.

As there are no integers that produce 2 as a multiple (excepting 2 itself), 2 is excluded. So we have two dictionary definitions at least that exclude 2. But maybe not multiple definitions.

The last thing to say is that I have seen this debate (or a close variation) before. It was many years ago on a USENET group and became rather heated. I watched it all with some bemusement and my takeaway was this: people can get very invested in the meaning of words, but at the end of the day the concepts are a touch fluid. Both participants might argue their point forever, but the very fact of the disagreement showed the valid lack of agreement. The advice of Valereee is therefore good. If you just took the effort to provide more sources, a lot of time would not be wasted in notability considerations and discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out re: the OED

Well, Webster defines it as 'more than one' so ...

What would save more time is if the Wikipedia guidance was resolved definitively on this issue through an RfC. In the meantime, given "valid lack of agreement" I'll be making the decision to defer to Webster.

If other editors wish to entertain themselves by attempting to remove articles with two SIGCOV sources that would otherwise pass muster, then that's their prerogative Jack4576 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really think it helps to cite dictionaries, but if we are citing them, let's cite them properly. I note that one definition from Merriam Webster does say more than one. It also has these definitions:

the product of a quantity by an integer

and

something in units of more than one or two.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I don't see how my pointing to one of the definitions wasn't 'proper'... Jack4576 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Donvale Christian College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donvale Christian College. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 06:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 26 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bill Dunn, an Indigenous Australian pastoralist approaching retirement, sold his station at half-price to the Jigalong community despite receiving full-price offers from non-Indigenous people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top of the Town (brothel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top of the Town (brothel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrible nomination. Some of the sources are obviously not primary. Its concerning that you're unable to recognise that. Additionally, I'd encourage you to read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Nowhere is it stated that GNG can only be satisfied through secondary sources. Jack4576 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jack, just to note, I moved your new article to draft space, Draft:Miscellania (nightclub), as right now it wouldn't pass WP:GNG and could be deleted. In draft space, you will be able to work on expanding it. I'd recommend finding sources that demonstrate the club's notability (has it won awards? have famous artists played there?, etc.) When it's ready for mainspace, it should also be added to appropriate categories and Wikiprojects. Best of luck with it! Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’re probably right. It’s a shame this site’s guidelines are enforced so restrictively. I think a club as important/influential as Miscellania to the music scene deserves a page. Will see if I can locate further sources. Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Almost Friday Media. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justiyaya 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya, sorry, similar to above I can't see the article passing WP:GNG. Be very aware of press releases, they really shouldn't be used in articles. If you need any help with notability feel free to ask me to review your sources before starting an article. You could also ping me if you have any questions :D Justiyaya 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jack4576, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Could be the move, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Could be the move.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|BuySomeApples)). And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]