User talk:Bfry1981

Your submission at Articles for creation: Real Context News (September 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Slywriter were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Real Context News and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Real_Context_News Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slywriter&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Real_Context_News reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey there Sly, thanks for the response. I don't understand yours though because you write "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" when the site is literally cited as an expert source or even has its articles adapted and republished, naming Real Context News as the source, in "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and I listed some of those with specific links (literally NATO, Small Wars Journal, Byline Times, SOF News, Real Clear Defense (citing a reprint of content originally first published on Real Context News), MuckRack, Feedspot including RCN in some very high company in its top foreign policy websites... I feel those sources do exactly what your comment says my article does not do and am thus confused, would be happy to discuss to clear up any confusion... Bfry1981 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Having it's articles adapted and republished does nothing for notability. Need independent sources that discuss the subject itself. Slywriter (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the response. Maybe I need to categorize the news site differently?  It's basically an online magazine and the other notability requirements for different categories would consider some of what I've included to be possibly meeting the notability requiorments:  From the web notability requirements:
 * Web
 * Criteria[edit source]
 * Shortcut
 * WP:WEBCRIT
 * Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
 * The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.
 * These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
 * Newspapers, magazines and journals[edit source]
 * See also: Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)
 * Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
 * have produced work that has received a well-known and significant journalism award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times
 * have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
 * are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area
 * are frequently cited by other reliable sources
 * are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets
 * Publications that primarily carry advertising and only have trivial content may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper (if notable).
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers,_magazines_and_journals
 * These criterion do mention both receiving an award (like the top 60 accolade the site has received for 3 years now) and being cited in notable media count, so how I leverage that in the article, do I have to recategorize?
 * Does any of this make sense? Thanks again for your time.
 * Otherwise, I am trying to figure out how smaller news websites achieve notability, as they may get their content picked up and sited by notable sources but actually having an article written about them from an organizational standpoint is rare... If a news website is repeatedly cited or having its content republished by notable, independent, credible sources, shouldn't that count?  Otherwise it's prohibitive against smaller sites that are actually getting respect and credibility from notable outlets. Bfry1981 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't care that Feedspot ranked it Top 60. That is not a notable award as defined above. As to the rest, there is no evidence shown that the site is frequently cited in reliable sources. Muckrack is considered user-generated (as are small journal and any others that allow you to submit your work). Muckrack also makes pretty clear that you need to make the disclosures required under WP:COI as your username implies you are the operator of RCN.
 * As to other journals, other stuff existing means nothing to Wikipedia. Poorly sourced articles do not mean we accept other poorly sourced articles.
 * Wikipedia is not here to help you advertise or establish legitimacy, if independent sources are not discussing the website and if high quality reliable soruces are not regularly citing the website then there is little chance of establishing notability. Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying these sites are not notable and/or poorly cited. MuckRack is just one of the sources I mentioned.  Others are notable and have WikiPedia entries
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Wars_Journal Bfry1981 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah thats not a great entry. Good chance it wouldn't survive if challenged. Mostly sourced to itself, not independent sources Slywriter (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My computer crashed when I was trying to finish that message. We also have these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byline_Times and, of course, NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO and there are some others
 * Those are three notable sources (espcially NATO) with their own WikiPedia entries citing me as a credible expert, recommending my work, and/or republishing my work. Sure, SWJ and Byline aren't AS notable a other outlets but they passed the threshhold for warrnating entries and their WikiPedia entries were approved.  The entries for SWJ and Byline aren't anything special, very basic, but good enough to have been accepted as entries and that is all I am asking for, it seems like Real Context News is being held to a higher standard than them but they are media outlets that do get read and cited and quoted by large public audiences, which is what is happening with RCN more and more as it gets cited more and more often (it has been cited other times by these sources I just didn't include every instance).  There is a range difference between "great" and still being allowed to have an entry approved without being "great," is there not? Bfry1981 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Byline is borderline notable, so also not a great example. To be honest, you have a better argument for yourself being notable than Real Context News. You are welcome to re-submit for a different reviewer or seek additional guidance at WP:AFCHD. Either way, please make the required disclosures of WP:COI and take a look at WP:AUTO for the pitfalls of articles about yourself or company. Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice. How would you recommend I write up myself? Bfry1981 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did make the required disclosure, BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bfry1981 Bfry1981 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Real Context News (September 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Real Context News and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Real_Context_News Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Real_Context_News reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey there Angus, I was somewhat confused by the earlier response from the other reviewer. I know some edits would still have to be made, but, I HAVE provided numerous notable, outside, credible sources referencing or republishing my material, NATO, Byline Times, Small Wars Journal each with their own Wikipedia entries.  Obviously Byline Times and Small Wars Journal are not large entities like NATO, but they still passed the threshold for earning Wikipedia entries and I am just trying to get one along those lines for RCN.  Both Byline and Small Wars Journal are cited in other notable/reliable media frequently.  I have, thus, provided numerous "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject,"  one of which is the premier defensive military alliance on earth but the other two of which also have their own Wikipedia entries and meet that criteria.  Obviously RCN is not a top-tier news outlet but there has to be some threshold/entry point for lower-tier outlets that get quoted, cited, and reprinted by "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" without themselves being the subject of other news coverage but with their coverage being deemed credible enough by "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to be cited, quoted, and reprinted repeatedly by entities with their own humble but still approved Wikipedia entries...  The other reviewer downplayed the notability of some of these except they STILL have their own Wikipedia entries and are respected outlets.
 * I appreciate you taking the time to respond but why can Small Wars Journal and Byline Times have entries approved on simmilar parameters but not RCN? I'm not giving RCN an A for notability but, as I mentioned, there is obviously lower tiers of notability that still receive article approvals and I think I am at least close to that and should be considered without being rejected outright by the claim I do not have multiple "reliable sources," as I do! Bfry1981 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Real Context News
Hello, Bfry1981. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Real Context News, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Real Context News


Hello, Bfry1981. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Real Context News".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)