Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Happy New Years S0091! Wishing you a happy and healthy 2024. :) PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @PigeonChickenFish! S0091 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there S0091. Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you but it's been over a month since I last submitted the page Draft:Blockchain-based Service Network under Afc. Could you kindly inform me what is the next step and what should I do now? Bensaujana (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Bensaujana it is currently not submitted. If you wish to submit it, click the blue Resubmit button at the bottom of the last decline message on the draft. Right now, the estimated wait time is over three weeks but could be shorter or longer as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate your help! I've submitted using Afc for review. Have a great new year! Bensaujana (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I see that you reviewed my article of Rose Harlean as declined at this time. To answer your comment, the article was deleted on French wikipedia because I used a VPN while creating the article which resulted in my IP address being blocked to edit. It happened a few days ago and an appeal is underway. In terms of published sources, Têtu is the biggest LGBTQ+ magazine in France and the sourced open letter has been an important stepping stone in the representation of trans people on French screen. Rose Harlean is one of the few openly trans actresses in France and although mainly independent, her career is already a decade long. Les Inrockuptibles, in which she gave an interview, is also a famous magazine in France. Her filmography can be checked on IMDb but also on French equivalents such as Représentrans and Allociné. I also categorized the page Rose Harlean under Trans Actresses because like many others in this list, Harlean's career is blooming but facing difficulties in appearing in mainsteam websites and articles. The last thing I want to point out before asking you to reconsider is that she did wrote the open letter in the magazine Têtu but the article was published independently and Harlean was sought to write on the subject as one of the rare French openly trans actress of her time. EspoirsCinéma (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @EspoirsCinéma What she has written or said are primary sources and not independent regardless of the publication so cannot be used to establish notability and several of the sources make no mention of her so not useful (and should not be used because they cannot verify anything about her). She does not meet the notability critieria for actresses because that requires multiple major roles in multiple notable films and it appears most of her roles are small parts or in non-notable films/works.

In order to meet notability, multiple reliable secondary sources that have independently written in-depth about her are needed (not interviews, her writings, press releases, etc.). Before I declined it, I did check Google News and ProQuest which has several major French newspapers and also the reason I checked the French Wikipedia (i.e. maybe an article about her existed there that had better sources) but came up empty because as you say, mainstream press is not covering her. That also indicates an article about her may not be possible at this time, see WP:TOOSOON. Two of the deletes on the French Wikipedia also mentioned lack of appropriate sources but be aware each language is their own project so has their own policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be on another and vice versa, with the English Wikipedia generally being more strict. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to rush anything, but I think you'd win, what with 80k edits and a clean block log. I don't see anyone else having brought this up on your talk page. What do you think? Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Mach61 thanks for the thought but I am not interested in becoming an admin because I don't think I would find it enjoyable. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I created an article about a polish startup that is currently doing an innovative project and you flagged it as something to be deleted because you that of it as a promotion. I was only using information from the internet and I wasn’t trying to promote anything. I wanted to create an article as part of my uni assignment and I was working on it for a couple hours and it got deleted the second I submitted the draft. I still don’t have any idea why 46302Julia (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @46302Julia since the draft is now deleted, I cannot see it so am unable to give you specifics. However, I suggest reading Your first article and Words to watch. I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm the author of the draft Draft:Rex Heuermann, can I still impove it and, In my opinion, he's deserving to have an own article since he is in the news right now, and he's the alleged killer of Gilgo beach killings and he's found guilty of 4th degree murder on the first trial Jlvshistory (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jlvshistory yes, you can continue to work on it and you can use material/sources already in the Gilgo Beach serial killings just be sure to add attribution in your edit summary (i.e.something like "copied from Gilgo Beach serial killings"). You are also welcome to start a discussion on the Gilgo Beach serial killings talk page to see if you can get consensus for a stand-alone article about him. Though I think it will be unlikely unless he is convicted. There was debate about even naming him per WP:BLPCRIME. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alright understood Jlvshistory (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 2603:8000:713F:79F:A567:86EB:690C:834A (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Art Venegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dont understand why 18 citations coming from sources like the LA Times, YouTube interviews, Track and Field News, and major college Athletic website profiles are not considered to be reliable sources. And how can 18 citations be too few to meet the number requirement? 2603:8000:713F:79F:A567:86EB:690C:834A (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Art Venegas

I have reviewed the tutorial you recommended and cant see what is wrong with my sources. Can you be more specific? I am using such things as LA Times, YouTube video interviews, major college Athletic Dept sections of their websites OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft Article before replying. This is currently discussed in a lot of places, including my and GoingBatty's talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Victor Schmidt, yes I see there are several discussions. @OLYMPICHAMMER I added a citation for you as an example, see footnote 1 which was #10 in your list. It is now cited next to the content it is supporting, once in the first paragraph then again in the last paragraph, and now listed in the References section. Note, the footnote numbers are automatically assigned in the order in which they are first used and the References section is populated automatically when citations are added in the body on the text. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victor, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear S0091. You just declined my draft for Jamal Nusseibeh, citing puffery. Your comments reveal a lack of information or research on the subject. For example, you say that my comment that his father, Sari Nusseibeh, is considered Palestine's leading intellectual is puffery, is belied by Wikipedia itself. Sari Nusseibeh's own Wikipedia page says that, and additionally, that "In 2008, in an open online poll, Nusseibeh was voted the 24th most influential intellectual in the world on the list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals by Prospect Magazine (UK) and Foreign Policy (United States)." That's hardly puffery. I kindly request that you reconsider the submission. Thank you. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Wikiusers2024 I am not the editor who declined your draft due to puffery. I was the first editor who declined the draft due to sourcing and notability issues. You updated and resubmitted it then @Utopes declined it citing puffery. I have pinged them here so they are aware of your concerns. S0091 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notif. This may be true, @Wikiusers2024: which is why I'll instead link MOS:PUFFERY which gives a textbook example of it (and happens to also use a "top 100 most influential" list). Just because someone is on a list of 100 influential people, doesn't mean it's acceptable to tout their name as "the most prominent intellectual" without this context. The article states that Nusseibeh is "a source of innovative ideas", which is opinionated no matter how I look at it. And I'm not convinced that calling someone a "thought leader" in the first sentence is neutral; "scholar" could be better? Those were the main issues I had though. Feel free to resubmit the draft if you'd like another opinion by a different reviewer. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! My bad. Thank you for referring it over. And thank you for your comments, which I addressed by adding a bunch of secondary references. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! My bad. Thank you for referring it over. And thank you for your comments, which I addressed by adding a bunch of secondary references. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikiusers2024 no problem! It happens even with experienced editors. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your comments.

I have a few thoughts and several questions.

First, you mention that none of the Forbes [Forbes.com] articles are reliable so they should not be used. I understand and agree with what you are saying about sponsored content and Forbes.

But please note that Forbes Magazine publishes its content on Forbes.com and this content is also prepared, edited and fact checked by staffers at Forbes Magazine. In essence, they Forbes and Forbes.com are one and the same. The exception, of course, relates to sponsored/promotional content being noted above.

I cite references 14,15,16,17,18 and 20. Please note that Sergei Klebnikov works for Forbes and this means BOTH Forbes and Forbes Magazine. He is not a contributor. I am more than happy to delete references 25-28 which are contributed pieces by Mark Tatge, which also happens to be me.

Reference. No. 30 is a reference citing the methodology for the list. It was published by both Forbes and Forbes.com. It offers factual information about the veracity of the list. Are you saying this is not helpful or warranted to source?

As far as the books being sourced through Amazon, I can easily change the citations for the books and merely cite the title, author, publisher and date of publication and ISBN no. as has been done by other authors citing their volumes or quoting from books they have written. Please see: Daniel Lyons, American Writer and former Forbes editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Lyons

Next, i have a question about another issue: I have third-party independent sources, but the actual article is behind a paywall. It cannot be accessed without a subscription. How should this be treated? I attempted to overcome this by offering a PDF of the article hosted on Dropbox.

This seems to be a recurring problem since many, many news sites that were open to the public are no closed and have erected paywalls. This is certainly the case with citations No. 4, and No. 10. Please let me know what you advise. I will await your response and sage guidance. Best wishes. Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnnydeadline as for Forbes, any article that identifies Klebnikov as a contributor is not reliable nor are those that are sponsored content, identified with declarations like "in partnership with", "presented by" or "in conjunction with", which is every single Forbes article you cite. You can cite paywalled sources (see WP:PUBLISHED and WP:PAYWALL) but just be sure they are about him, not what he or those affiliated with him say. Otherwise they are useless. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Klebnikov works for Forbes. He is a staff writer who helps prepare the magazine's lists. Shook Research did the research for the lists. Klebnikov is NOT a contributor in the same sense of people who contribute to Forbes.com and are paid on a per view and per article basis. This is different. Klebnikov is on salary at the magazine. You can view his bio here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/?sh=6d2f6c223a70Bold The lists Forbes publishes involve considerable research. These appear both in the magazine and on the website. The lists can be viewed here: https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#5a726f9db274. The lists are not paid for by the people on the list and they are not edited or paid for by advertisers. The advisors have no say in how they are ranked or not ranked. The lists are NOT sponsored content. Rather, the lists are empirical and have a defined methodology. Citing these lists is no different than a reporter who writes a news story for Forbes and quotes outside sources, or empirical studies that are prepared by an outside source in business or government. Many Forbes stories are generated this way. I know, because I used to be a Senior Editor at Forbes 1999-2007. In reference to the lists ranking advisors, the outside research is prepared by SHOOK Research. The methodology developed to prepare the lists is disclosed on the site and in the magazine. For the record, the lists are published on both Forbes.com and in Forbes magazine, an edited, fact checked, vetted source. They are not sponsored content. There is a distinction and this should be allowed. Thanks, MT Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I should note that the word "contributor" does not always mean sponsorship or advertising. Many non-staff writers who are journalists are deemed "contributors" since they are freelancers. I agree with you in regard to Forbes.com since contributors issue needs to be examined carefully. There are people out there who represent themselves as one thing, but are in fact another. It should be noted that freelancers are paid and often do good work that is empirical. The work is fact-based, verifiable and accurate. Contract freelancers would rather be called reporter, but publications don't do this since they don't want to pay benefits. The individuals are simply low-paid labor with no benefits. It has nothing to do with the quality or substance of their work. Simply excluding all contributors shows a lack of understanding of the structure of news gathering, and quite frankly, is unfair to freelancers and the valuable functions they perform. Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• NyanKatGrrrl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:IOSYS discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reliable sources: Should I cite the spreadsheet on the IOSYS website directly, or do I need to cite the individual pages for each release? Notability guidelines for musicians: Not sure what the issue is here, I am only moving the discography section of main article to a new article because of size. The notability guidelines say nothing about notability specifically for discographies. NyanKatGrrrl (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @NyanKatGrrrl IOSYS is a primary source and not independent so not helpful for notability and should only be used sparingly. What is needed is in-depth coverage, such critical reviews from reputable critics/publications, about their work. See WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some guidance. The issue is more so IOSYS (the band) does not demonstrate notability so is vulnerable to deletion so if I were you I would focus much more on the main article than the discography. I took at look at the Japanese Wikipedia article thinking it would provide better sources but it is worse shape then the one here, with primary sources and conflating the production company and the band with no sources demonstrating notability. S0091 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh and you are right, the are no guidelines specific to discography notability, just like there are no guidelines specific to many topics, for example food, because they are covered a under a broader guideline. In this case is it a mix of WP:NMUSIC and WP:NLIST. S0091 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dear editor,

you have declined my draft page about an electronic music festival in turkey. according to you, my citation didn't qualify as 'reliable' - while I am able to add new citations from famous newspapers, I wouldn't prefer doing that, for a good reason; I don't think the organizators of this music festival will be happy about that. Why? It is because they position their festival as an alternative rather than mainstream festival. If you will be unconvinced by my following argument, only then I will send email and ask their permission to add some 'popular, mainstream' news or magazine articles.

My argument is that, Wikipedia has a list of electronic music festivals. Please check; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_festivals

This is extremely useful list for electronic music addicts like me; however, not complete list! I would like to add more festivals that I have attended.

please again check some of the festivals in this list. For example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintercase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillits, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Days_Off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Station

I don't really need to add more - but there are many pages without a single reliable article. And this is quite normal; most of these festivals are attended by underground electronic music fans

isn't it interesting that wikipedia give permission to make a such great and helpful list but then accept some of festival pages and decline some others. Hoplopkop (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hoplopkop What the organizers want matters not because Wikipedia is based on what reliable source say about about a topic (good, bad, indifferent) and they do not own or have any control over content (see WP:OWN) so if better sources are available you should use them. Being useful is not an valid argument for an article (see WP:USEFUL). As for existing articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability guidelines have changed over time so what may have been acceptable even a year ago, may not be acceptable today and articles are judged on their own merit, not against other articles. Hundreds of existing articles are deleted everyday for not meeting current policies and guidelines and it may very well be the articles you listed should be deleted. S0091 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the articles I had listed should not be deleted because they are useful. While what is useful is subjective - these pages are about music festivals that host thousands of people across the world. Wikipedia became the first port of call for anyone researching any subject for good reasons: first, it motivated people to contribute their knowledge - the wisdom of crowds - second, it opened the way that knowledge moves freely - above all wikipedia succeeded in part because it guaranteed the most correct information. i understand your concern on reliability yet please don't tend to ignore the fact that most of the electronic music festivals emphasize ‘alternative’ - their pages shouldn’t be judged on the merit of ‘scientific’ or ‘popular’ or whether they have ever appeared on the most heavily used newspapers or journals - Hoplopkop (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hoplopkop In order for a topic to warrant an article it must meet the notability criteria. Period. Again, things like usefulness, popularity, etc. do not matter. All that matters is multiple reliable independent secondary sources have written about in-depth about the topic. YouTubers with millions of views/subscribers do not have articles because they do not meet the criteria. Likewise, some small businesses have met it. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you need to prove via sources the topic meets notability. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and the time of volunteer editors. And no, Wikipedia does not guarantee correct information and is not a reliable source (see the disclaimer at the bottom every single page and WP:CIRC). Never, ever solely rely on what a Wikipedia article states. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the WP:BURDEN is on you and all other editors who want to add any of the US team as gold, not the note authors, because only the IOC can officially award medals, which they have not done so here. This is one instance where WP:PRIMARY sources trump secondary, because it concerns a matter where only the official opinion matters. In any case, secondary sources are unanimous that the medals have not officially been given, and that both Russia and Canada are going to appeal, so this is not a mere formality. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jasper Deng it was not my intent to change the medal. Another editor had changed it then Ілля Криворучко changed it back and added the note. I reverted their edit because the note is not sourced but did not notice the previous history regarding the medal. I have no issue with using a primary source but currently there is no source (at least that saw). Did I miss the source? If not, can you add it or leave it here and I will go back and add it? I did do a Google search before I reverted but didn't find one. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly didn't search hard enough because a cursory news.google.com search of Kamila Valieva reveals a lot of them, such as [1]: "The IOC is responsible for reallocating medals and its executive board is next scheduled to meet in March." I would recommend not editing this topic area because it's fairly complex and I don't think you fully understand the situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jasper Deng I am not sure why you are mentioning Kamila Valieva as I have never edited that article. ?? S0091 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you are the one who reverted Ілля Криворучко on that article. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted her for reasons other than you reverted her. Also, Kamila Valieva is the exact subject of this whole situation–again underscoring why I do not believe you understand this situation enough to be making edits about it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear S0091, i have addressed your comments here and improved the article by making improvements here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bazzi and including references to show notability. I would appreciate your feedback and time. Thanks a lot. Randomreader162 18:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on John H. Robinson (Viginia politician, born 1857) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]