User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 12

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Sulfurboy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ephixa
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ephixa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shaping up Elimination
Hello Sulfurboy,

I appreciate your help in shaping up my article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elimination_of_infectious_diseases

You noted that large parts are unsourced. Do you mean the parts under the section '''Regional elimination established or under way Main article: Eradication of infectious diseases'''? Those were just pasted in from their main article in Eradication of infection diseases, where they are appropriately referenced. The references do not copy. From what I can tell from FAQs, only an editor can move a section. If that is the issue, please check the original, and consider moving the section to this more appropriate place.

The two things that made me realise that an Elimination page was necessary were:

1. 'Elimination' in this sense appears on the Elimination disambiguation page, but does not link to any page. 2. There was quite a lot of info about elimination in the eradication page (the part I suggest moving, and copied in)

I have referenced practically every sentence in the new part, and those that are not referenced are clearly logically implied by what comes before and common or referenced knowledge (e.g., latency of TB can be seen in the main TB article).

thanks for your advice,

CunningNance (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter G. Demers
Article link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pete_Demers

Hi there,

I am a professional author and see that my submission has been rejected for not having a "formal tone." I have decades of experience as a technical and feature writer. I do not agree with this assessment. This article concerns a person who has contributed to professional sports, specifically hockey, in a meaningful manner. His accomplishments merit his inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, the article's citations were questioned, despite my having cited multiple mainstream sources. The article does not use "peacock language" but does include the subject's accomplishments, as one would expect. I am appealing this rejection, or at minimum I would like clear direction. I see article after article on Wikipedia, and the article I submitted meets and exceeds the style, caliber, and content of those articles.

I also need explanation about why a picture I have full rights to continues to be deleted.

At present sadly I see no logical principles at work. The subject of this Wikipedia page, Peter Demers, has made contributions to the field of hockey and sports medicine that merit note. I would like to see this page successfully published. MarionPB (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Omid Farokhzad
Hey Sulfurboy,

I have added a few more reputable citations on this page do you think my corrections are enough for acceptance- If not what else do I need to add for this page acceptance? Omid_Cameron_Farokhzad Thank you for your time

Amir NAnasa 88 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated thank you
Hi Sulfurboy. Belated thank you for all your work requiring notability and referencing expectations for the article Paul Trynka. You made a 50K edit admin account accountable for their WP:BLP article creation. This shouldn't be an exception, this should be the rule. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

approval for Shree Saini wikipedia page
Sir, I have rewritten the page according to your suggestions and made the necessary corrections. Please Approve the page Shree Saini as soon as possible. Waiting for your reply. Thank you.Pranveer786 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown


Hello, Sulfurboy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ezra Bayda page
Hi! I have updated the Ezra Bayda page with new information. I did so previously but it was removed because there was no verifiable reference given. Would you be willing to check the citation to make sure it is the correct form?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Bayda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Bayda#cite_ref-10

Mizeditor (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No. All that was referenced was an e-mail address. That is not a source. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 04:20:39, 10 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahul sharma
I am new to the wikipedia. I am trying to get this page published and I am facing citation issues. I exactly want to the know the issue with the draft lerocque as I want to correct the same. Kindly guide me. You have mentioned about the footnotes and I have already provided the references as footnotes. So, i am confused, Kindly help with the same.

Mahul sharma (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the footnotes, it is the lack of inline citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10 February 2020 for assistance on Champ Kelly submission by vandykecj12
I am new to the wikipedia. Can you please let me know what is causing my Draft:Champ Kelly page from being published. Thank you!

vandykecj12 (talk) 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons why were provided on your draft. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I read through. I have articles from reputable newspaper websites and an organizational bio specifically about this person. I am new to wikipedia so maybe I am missing something. vandykecj12 (talk) 10 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.205.1 (talk)
 * The linked sources are either not reliable sources or the ones that are reliable only mention the subject in a routine manner. All of this will be abundantly clear to you when you review the links provided on your draft. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham (February 10) - We would like to understand your requirements for "notability", as third-party sources were cited.
Dear Sulfurboy,

We have submitted an article ("Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham" - Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham) several times for inclusion in Wikipedia which has been refused, on the most recent occasion because "notability" has been questioned, even though this author is cited in several name authority files of several world libraries such as the Library of Congress in the United States and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, as well as having work recorded in WorldCat.

Your justification for refusal of our submission claims that the work of this author cannot be cited by independent third-party sources. However, official name authority files are THE independent third-party source for authors (whether for written work or moving images/films).

Please help us to understand why the addition of this author to the Wikipedia database continues to be refused, and what we can do in order to overturn this refusal, as almost every single person with whom this author has ever worked on major projects in an authorship capacity currently belongs to the Wikipedia database, which clearly seems to confirm notability not only in the quality of work completed, but also by association.

Many thanks in advance for your time.

ArtHistoryHistoiredelart (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting external links does not qualify as properly sourcing an article. The one reference you do have is primary. I would advise reading the linked articles provided on the draftspace as these would have readily answered your questions. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Piers Bijvoet Actor Page
Hi Sulfurboy, thanks for looking at the Piers Bijvoet page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Piers_Bijvoet). The note you gave was: "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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

How many different articles/media outlets should a person be featured in before they would be considered "significant coverage"?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActingMovie (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no set number. It is a matter of quality more than quantity. Further I can tell you with just a cursory search, this person is not even remotely notable enough yet. I would consult WP:NACTOR to see what qualifies someone. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back...
Hey Sulfurboy! Welcome back and good job at hitting the AfC backlog hard. The backlog has been stupid for a long while not helped by two big hitters being blocked for being stupid. Just wanted to say your efforts have already been noticed and appreciated. You've already done the most reviews in the last week # and 8th already for the last month #, and a noticeable spike in the daily reviews. Hope life's treating you well, all the best KylieTastic (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks KylieTastic. Yeah the backlog is crazy! I feel like when I was last active anything over a month was crazy long. Well as a warm up I've been sorting through the easy ones, but hopefully that clears the slag for reviewers with specialized knowledge to come in. Glad to see you still around! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neasa Hourigan
See also Neasa Hourigan, by different editors that did not go the AfC route. That one has sufficient ref to support a viable POL notability. I agree the draft didn't have suitable ref, but maybe its tagging should be updated so that nobody bothers continuing to try to work on it (rather than the mainspace one). DMacks (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Revised page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nested_partitions
Hi, thank you for reviewing the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nested_partitions. I've revised "The method" section to distinguish it from the copyrighted content that you pointed out. The algorithm itself remains the same, as it is what the algorithm should be - it has been written in a succinct manner by the authors of this algorithm, and I'm not sure there is a better way to represent it. This is my first wiki page, and I greatly appreciate your guidance to make it happen! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvchen99 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we discuss the page you just declined?
Hi Sulferboy, you tagged my submission as a subject that's not notable, and while I realize it's subjective, the subject is very much notable. I'd love to talk with you about your decision to decline, perhaps I need to swap out sources to better prove my point, but I assure you it's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.27.177 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Part Time Rangers
Hi there,

This is my first article and I was wondering if there was any specific information you require to approve it? I've added more references, but would love to know what else is required

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Part_Time_Rangers

Really appreciate what you do, I listened to a podcast with Jimmy Wales and was so impressed by what you do. You and your fellow moderators are internet superheroes :)

WilliamDeanePTR (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) William 12/02/20
 * Nearly all your sources are either primary, unreliable, or only mention the subject in routine coverage. Links for assistance and what is considered a credibly source have been provided on your talk page and on the draft's page itself. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:25:17, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Canada4life
Hi. Writing for clarification as to why my submission was rejected. I've been trying to get a page for this important Ontario energy sector union. While I understand that the references don't heavily feature the union in question, the Society of United Professionals, when I look at other labour unions that have Wikipedia pages some have zero references. I'm confused by what seems to be an inconsistent application of the rules as it pertains to labour unions. There is no dispute that it is a union of more than 8000 members that has existed since the 1940s and that is actively involved in the labour movement in Ontario. It came to my attention because other articles referred to the union (see: Bruce Power) with a red link.

Can you provide guidance? I believe that it is important to give labour unions wikipedia pages as they are important participants in the jobs market and in politics.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate any assistance. Canada4life (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because other pages exist doesn't really mean anything WP:WAX. The information provided on the draft page says it all, it doesn't matter whether this group is notable or not, what matters is whether the sources prove the group is notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)