User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 7

06:14:12, 1 September 2017 review of submission by Chalotravel
Hi, Thank you for reviewing the article. However, I am surprised that the article has been rejected citing "notability" of the subject. I have provided the various awards, recognition, media coverage about the company. These are very prestigious news companies and awards where the entire industry submit for nominations.

In fact in India, IIFL Investment Managers is considered as one of the most agile and fastest growing in the industry. The same has been covered in the various news and media.

In case there is something specific that needs to be addressed, please let me know. Will add/modify the same and resubmit.

Thank you.
 * There's actually quite a lot wrong with this article. The useage of bolding and section headlines is not in compliance with wikipedia policy. The sources listed are not properly incorporated and they mostly are press releases or WP:ROUTINE coverage. We need to see independent coverage of the company to show notability. The article also reads more like an advertisement than a neutral, formal article. Along those same lines the article is in all likelihood WP:TOOLONG for that company. I've copy pasted this reply to the article for reference. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

16:46:09, 1 September 2017 review of submission by 100.6.83.81
Dear, Sulferboy

I was hoping that I could get more specific feedback on why my article on Byron Rich was rejected. I know there is some issues with my reference's verifiability, Would you mind telling me which sources? I am convinced that at the very least six or seven of them are reliable. Also let me know if I have made any formatting errors in the reference section as well? I am hoping to edit this article until it can be approved,

Best wishes, Dave
 * We need to see coverage on the subject himself, not just articles that mention him in passing or have a quote from him. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:26:46, 1 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Aghnn123
Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. I have cited over 40 sources. After the article was declined the first time, I corrected all the footnotes to change them to the right format. Apparently that wasn't the problem, so is there any way you could tell me specifically what it is? Thanks.

Aghnn123 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of the article do not have inline citations, particularly the first two or three paragraphs. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brenda Strassfeld


A tag has been placed on Brenda Strassfeld requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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 removed 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please check for copyvio
Hi Sulfurboy and thanks for your work reviewing new drafts. Please don't forget to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Draft:St Aidan's R C Primary School, which had extensive copying from http://www.staidansschool.co.uk/COMMUNITY, http://www.staidansschool.co.uk/, and http://www.staidansschool.co.uk/Introduction. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 01:34:25, 4 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shawnraeshannon
Hello, I am attempting to track down reliable sources to prove notability. All of the sources I have are either written by the subject or contributed to by the subject ... I found a podcast interview that has quite a bit of information, but it is the subject speaking ... Would this be an approved source?


 * It likely wouldn't be enough to establish notability. For a subject to be considered notable, we need to see reliable third party coverage. If this doesn't exist, then it is probably WP:TOOSOON for an article.

Shawnraeshannon (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing D'Andre Wright, Sulfurboy.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Hi unless I am mistaken the subject does not meet WP:NHOOPS."

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Tyrone Johnson (basketball), Sulfurboy.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"hi seems not to meet WP:NHOOPS"

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

16:01:14, 3 September 2017 review of submission by Murumaheswaran
The referee has suggested that independent reliable references should be included. I believe that there are at least two of them from the Wausau Daily Herald written by independent reputed newspaper journalists/reporters. Wausau Daily Herald is part of the USA Today Network and published by Gannett Newspapers. I guess that the references might not have been included in sufficiently prominent places in the article. Perhaps, if the Uhlig article reference is moved to the very first sentence in the article after the word "education" might have helped. The two Daily Herald references are in their archives which requires a subscription -- but the Daily Herald allows free access for a period of two weeks on a temporary registration. Please let me know whether either of these two articles in the Daily Herald meet the required criteria for references. Thank you for your suggestions.
 * The issue was lack of inline citations, particularly in the first paragraph. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:02:47, 2 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tighnasi
Thanks for reviewing my first Wikipedia submission. I'm a little confused that the draft article on Áine Ceannt that the link went to, was the exact same as the Wiki page on Áine Ceannt. My submission was an edit of the Áine Ceannt page, in an attempt to provide additional information. Should I submit the article again for submission in the future if the article, as is, remains unchanged. Thanks Tighnasi (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Tighnasi (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to add to the existing article, then go ahead and do so, you don't need to write a whole new article and get it approved just to make edits or add additional information to an existing article. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

00:15:01, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Ianshaynes
Hi

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability"

I have quoted from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, and the Australian Psychological Society. If these references are not adequately notable I would like to know how else to prove an Australian Psychologists credentials. Rachael can be searched for on both of these sites as a practicing Psychologist in Sydney, Australia.

Ian
 * Just because you are a practicing psychologist does not entitle you to the notability standard for wikipedia. I would review the standards on WP:BIO. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 05:19:05, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Calfree
Rejection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:California_Freedom_Coalition

Hi Sulfurboy, you have rejected my article as not being Notable. Yes, some of the references are "self-published", but most of them are not. The California Freedom Coalition is a real entity that has been covered by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Dennis Romero: http://www.laweekly.com/authors/dennis-romero-2126212 Also notable, independent articles where the CFC is the main point: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151659877.html http://www.businessinsider.com/new-calexit-california-freedom-coalition-2017-5

We have been on the local and national TV several times including Fox News (it was not complimentary): http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/01/calexit-california-break-away-united-states-tucker-carlson-debates-singam http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/Cal-Exit_-Talking-Reasons_-Strategy_Los-Angeles-433461573.html

There are more examples. This is my first page (second attempt). Please let me know if I need to incorporate the above references into the Wikipedia page or do something different. There is a very similar group that was disbanded earlier this year and they have a Wikipedia page...in fact, many of their people came to the California Freedom Coalition, so I am not sure why they would be allowed on Wikipedia, but not the CFC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California Calfree (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you found some articles that cover the CFC, however all the ones you just linked to aren't incorporated into the article. If those are incorporated into the article, it should have no trouble passing notability standards. Please also note, it is against wikipedia policy to have a username that represents an entire group or company and thus implies shared use. People need to edit from their own individual accounts. Please let me know when you have incorporated those sources so I can take a look at it. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sulurboy for the quick response.

Still learning so much! I will create a personal account. Should I just abandon this article and start a new one when I create my personal account? [sorry for this reply being inline, not sure how to reply] Calfree (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Calfree (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No just create your new account and edit normally. You can still say you are with the CFC in your name if you wish, it just needs to be individualized in some way. E.g. JoeAtCalfree Sulfurboy (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hand Drawn Records


The article Hand Drawn Records has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "All of the references relate to the manufacturing aspect, and that has a separate article about it at Hand Drawn Pressing. I can't see that Hand Drawn Records has any notability on its own, and notability is not inherited."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion/Jim Rennert -- you accepted this from AfC.  DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

09:57:13, 5 September 2017 review of submission by Shouston17
Hello, I am first time writer of a Wikipedia page so I would like to ask what I could improve upon in order for the page to be accepted. I am in the process of seeking more reliable independent sources to improve on that part but any suggestions would be very appreciated.

Thanks for your help. Shouston17 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sulfurboy and thanks for your work reviewing drafts. Please remember to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Draft:Cancer Research Foundation, which had copying from http://www.cancerresearchfdn.org/about/mission. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 23:24:27, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Eddie891
Hi Sulfurboy! I hate to bother you, however, I am unclear what you mean by 'lack of context.' This submission is for a template. I was not aware that templates had to have context, and what do you mean by context? Do you want an explanation of why the legislature meets, and how often it meets? Just wondering. Thank you.

Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Eddie, I misread your submission as a list, not as a template. That's my mistake. I've gone ahead and approved it. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:Arizona State Legislatures has been accepted
 Template:Arizona State Legislatures, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Template:Arizona_State_Legislatures help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

03:44:41, 6 September 2017 review of submission by 101.100.171.100
We have taken the time to make sure that the press article sources (in the External Links and References sections) cite every single one of the factual points in the draft article. Are we supposed to highlight specific places where they make the reference? We are happy to be explicit so that it is easy to verify the sources but the Reference section may become very wordy - thus our question. Can u perhaps give us one quick and simple example on how such citations should be made effectively without being excessively wordy?
 * I would recommend reviewing WP:REFB. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Manjhgaon
Hey there! I get (kind of -- if I understood completely, I wouldn't be posting this here) your reasoning for reverting my CSD for Manjhgaon, though I still feel like it should be deleted. It provides no context whatsoever and doesn't have any sources cited. I'm going to propose deletion, to give it a bigger time-frame and allow the author to hopefully fix it. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 04:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I take it back. You've thawed my deletionist heart -- I'm not going to PROD. ɯ ɐ ɔ  💬 05:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PROD is super acceptable and probably what I would have done in this instance. Sometimes if you get a trigger happy Admin they would go along with your A1 labeling, but I would guess about half of them would say it isn't A1 and tell you to either go the PROD of AfD route. I've had a myriad of articles like that come across. Basically my rule is, if you could at least have a general idea about what it is (I'm not sure what if it was a city, county, village, but I do know it was some sort of place that people live) then A1 probably doesn't apply. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Sulfurboy (talk) Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article for submission IAN COCKERILL. I have noted your concerns and have posted a (long!) question on Teahouse - thanks for pointing me in that direction. I am sure it will be useful for this and future articles. I hope to resolve your concerns satisfactorily and resubmit the article once the corrections have been made. Best wishes Collins Collins Mtika (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Confused by page being marked as possible bombardment
I'm confused as to why my page for Nicole Evelina is marked as possible bombardment. I was not trying to make something look important. I am from the academic world and we are taught to cite all sources. I thought that was what Wikipedia wanted since pages are often marked as needing additional citations. That is what I was trying to avoid. What is the middle ground? How do I fix? NB393 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)NB393 9-6-17
 * The article honestly looks more like a CV than a neutral, formal article. Having a laundry list of mostly obscure and insignificant awards is not wanted or needed. Sources should denote notability and should show significant coverage of the subject, not just mention the subject or be WP:ROUTINE coverage.Sulfurboy (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Establishing Jake Levine's Notability
Hi, Sulfurboy.

First of all, thanks for your work as a new page patrol. It says you're not likely to help better articles and so I did send this to the teahouse and online chats but I thought I might ask you directly as well.

My article for the poet and translator Jake Levine includes numerous established Korean news outlets and an american one, and the subject's bios from famous, noteworthy presses and magazines. He is an important figure in contemporary Korean poetry in translation, and one of the news sources (Korean) says so. If I translate and direct-quote that line, will it help? What else can I do to convince others that he is noteworthy?

Thanks.

Soeunseo (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm adding more information after discussion at the Live Chat page. The helper said I should try to message you about the reliability of the sources I already have, since interviews and news articles about the subject are usually good enough to establish its notability.

I won't go through all of them, but the biggest, most important ones.

°Boston Review: I took the subject's bio from here. To ensure Boston Review's notability, please see http://bostonreview.net/about °Kyunghyang News (news.khan.co.kr) is a Korean newspaper established in 1946. It is one of the biggest news outlets in Korea. In the interview I used, it says that "As Deborah Smith rises as a hot topic for allowing Han Kang's Vegetarian to win the Man Booker prize, Jake Levine has become a topic of discussion as well. In the poetry scene, they even say that "Good translations have given a wider readership to Korean poetry, and a lot of that is thanks to Levine". °Hope School Camp is a famous English camp in Korea and has partnerships with Chungshim International Academy (one of the most elite secondary schools in Korea), KBS (Korea Broadcasting System, the single biggest broadcasting network in Korea) and more. From here, I took his resume. °Munjang Webzine is the biggest and most famous online literary magazine in Korea. Jake Levine's continued work there, as well as his collaboration with one of Korea's biggest poets, Kim Kyung Ju, and MC Meta, also famous, attests to his notability. °Founded in 1889, Granta Magazine is a very well-established American literary magazine that ranks among the Extremely Challenging Fiction Markets in Duotrope's database, with a near 0% acceptance rate. °Guernica Magazine is an American poetry magazine that ranks among the 25 Most Challenging Poetry Markets in duotrope's database. It has an acceptance rate of 0.64%. I retrieved Levine's bios from Guernica and Granta. Not only are the sources themselves reliable, but Levine's participation as a contributor to these magazines establishes his notability. °The World on Arirang is a broadcast station established in 1996 to deliver Korean news to readers worldwide. I included a video of Levine's interview from this international station, which should speak to Levine's notability.

I hope this helps you see the reliability of my sources. If that is not the only problem, please let me know what else I can do!

Thanks.

Soeunseo (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Boston Review and Granta Magazine sources are just your basic author bios. These can even be submitted by the author themself. A simple entry for an author is not a source that denotes notability. IF there were actual articles about the author written by these sources, then that might be a different story. At this time the sources simply don't denote notability at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Khalifah Whitner

Hello, My article has been tagged for several reasons. I have created a small article on an author who has contributed in the field of ESL both in children's books as well as Audio books. I don't know if ESL is popular in the U.S but in Asia it is. When I compared my small article with other authors quotes and reviews of their work was placed in their articles. I am not trying to talk about the author in a subjective manner. I am quoting reviews of their work and art style. I am new at making articles and still adding information. Please point out specifics so I can make corrections. In terms of notability, this person is well known in many areas, and she would fall under the Creative professionals in terms of notoriety "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:ARTIST WP:AUTHOR WP:CREATIVE Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I received information for Khalifah I Whitner under her ISNI which is the ISO certified global standard number for identifying the millions of contributors to creative works and those active in their distribution, including researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual creators, performers, producers, publishers, aggregators, and more. It is part of a family of international standard identifiers that includes identifiers of works, recordings, products and right holders in all repertoires, e.g. DOI, ISAN, ISBN, ISRC, ISSN, ISTC, and ISWC.

She and her books are being featured in Canada book fair as well as the Frankfurt International Books fair and the China International Book fair. Wiki publish many articles who are just overnight youtube video makers and contributed nothing but making videos online. Is article selection determined by who ever reads the article and feels this person is not important enough to them. I am new and just posted the article yesterday and less than one day my article was asked to be removed. I contributor should have time to build their article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlezahra (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that the acceptance or publishing of other articles has nothing to do with yours. Just because one article has been accepted doesn't mean another one should. If you have issue with another article in the mainspace, then I would recommend tagging it. If you think your page is improved enough to be published, then you are welcome to re-submit it.Sulfurboy (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The selection of publishing articles should not be bias every article should be judged the same, based on the rules not personal feelings. Please be specific with the problems seen in my article so I can fix them.

19:04:53, 6 September 2017 review of submission by Skyhenge11
Hi, thanks for your helpful notes in regards to why the draft for Gjika Amplification, that was declined earlier today -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gjika_Amplification -- was not up to wikipedia standards - I believe that I have addressed the issues you suggested (formalized the tone by deleting certain parts, rewriting others, and replacing "Bob" with either "Bob Gjika" or "Gjika"); and took out the "peacock terms" as outlined in the link provided.

I would appreciate very much if you would re-assess the page, and if I failed to adequately fix the issues you cited, I would like to get busy on those, as well as any other issues that you might not have mentioned earlier. Thanks!
 * The article would need to be re-submitted before it can be reviewed. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ok, I re-submitted it, thanks! --Skyhenge11 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Skyhenge11

Re: Draft:Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala
Hi Sulfurboy. Re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Priya_Hiranandani-Vandrevala, at this time, I cannot find any additional significant published, reliable, secondary sources that would support the notability of the subject. In fact, I now see that one of the more substantial existing media articles – number 4 – has disappeared entirely from the Internet and, based on some quick research, I believe the publication in question may have gone out of business!

That said, given the subject’s ongoing business activities, philanthropic efforts and association with such organizations as the World Economic Forum, I guess it is always possible that some significant coverage may emerge in due course.

So, my question for you now is as follows: Can the article at least be maintained in the Drafts namespace for six months, during which time I will monitor the Internet for any new significant sources?

Thanks very much to you, SwisterTwister and Gbawden for all your assistance to date. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. I would maybe place a note on the talk page of the draft as to your intentions and just make sure not to re-submit it until it is ready. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that advice. Since hearing back from you, I came across the following feature article about Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala that was published in India's Business Standard, which according to Wikipedia is India's second largest business daily: http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/her-father-s-daughter-112012100043_1.html. In your opinion, would the addition of this reference be sufficient to address the notability concerns? Also, there is a profile about her on the World Economic Forum site, as follows: https://www.weforum.org/people/priya-hiranandani-vandrevala/. I removed this from a previous draft after it was rejected, thinking the WEF bio was redundant. However, I have subsequently noticed that the profile of another WEF Young Global Leader profiled on Wikipedia used such a WEF bio as a supporting reference. Thanks again, and best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:08:53, 7 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mauritiusboy
Hi Sulfurboy, I am not sure how to use this talk page but I put a lot more research into the article and more citations.. Thank you for your pointers. Mauritiusboy (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Mauritiusboy (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about Papadimitriou Draft Rejection
The reasons for rejection center on notability and references. And I understand those guidelines. What I don't understand is how the current references are not sufficient. There are nearly 30, most of which are from the likes of Time, The Washington Post, and Washington City Business Journals. I have also seen many CEOs with stand-alone entries, separate from those of their businesses. Please advise. Thanks!

Surfjk (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to link to the draft. Also understand that already existing articles doesn't mean another one should be created. We are concerned only with looking at your article. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 04:44:50, 8 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by AnRoCa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnRoCa#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Save_Cambodia.27s_Wildlife_.28September_8.29

Surfboy declined, because "Sourcing typically just mentions the comp in passing."

I don't understand what i have to do, in order to get the page approved. I did everything the reviewers requested.

Kindly help.

AnRoCa (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to see third party coverage of the subject, not just articles that briefly mention the subject in passing. This is needed to show notability. If such articles don't exist, then the organization does not meet our notability standards. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

15:56:19, 8 September 2017 review of submission by Bws7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) States that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Augustus White is the Ellen and Melvin Gordon Distinguished Professor of Medical Education and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Harvard Medical School. This appears to meet the notability requirement (criteria #5) for academics/professors as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines.
 * You're correct in your assesment. When I first reviewed that title, I wrongly thought it was an award not an awarded chair. I will go and approve it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

23:39:40, 8 September 2017 review of submission by BrendonTheWizard
Hello, I noticed that the cited reason for declining this draft was that this subject is covered on the Atlantic hurricane season, 2017 article. However, if you have not yet done so, I request reading in full our discussion on that article's talk page to more fully provide our rationale for requesting that Hurricane Jose has an article separate from its current status as a redirect to the season's article. For additional context for the rationale behind this draft submission request, comparing it to the talk page's discussion process in drafting, writing, and publishing Hurricane Irma may be beneficial. I was asked by the following editors to publish it as of 8 September 2017: Orthorhombic, Jdcomix, EBGamingWiki. Editor Yellow Evan stated that the only problem with the draft was not a lack of notability on the subject, but rather a lack of content in the draft, prompting us to add the content necessary. (I noticed that the other users' contributions did not carry over when moving it from my Userspace to a draft, which is very unfortunate.) As was done with the Hurricane Irma article's draft, a precedent had been set that the time most appropriate to make a standalone article on a hurricane deviating from the season's article was when the storm nears landfall. We published Hurricane Irma less than 24 hours before the draft was started, shortly before it begun impacting the Lesser Antilles. Now that Jose is expected to make landfall on the Lesser Antilles by tomorrow, editors have called for publishing it now. Per the reasons stated in the Atlantic hurricane season, 2017 talk page, the article's rejection reason being that the subject can be found on the seasonal article may be considered inappropriate, and reconsideration of the draft would be beneficial. Thank you! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jake Levine Notability (Again... sorry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jake_Levine#Jake_Levine

Hi Sulfurboy,

Thanks for your reply about the author's bio page. I didn't know how to move archived talks back to the main page so I've made a new topic and I'm pasting our previous conversation here. I hope that works for you. Please read under the line of *'s to refer to our earlier conversation.

So among my sources, there are articles written about the author. The link to Kyunghyang (http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201605312145005&code=960100#csidx1ed1f6d68a1b2f4842600265b6bba0a) and Navercast Big Issue (http://navercast.naver.com/magazine_contents.nhn?rid=2867&contents_id=131181) are interviews with the subject and solely about the subject. I heard that interviews are not independent sources because they are dependent on the subject's responses. However, each of these interviews opens with a paragraph that describes the subject before the QnA, and Kyunghyang quotes something said about him by someone else. I can translate these first paragraphs for you if you'd like. The TV interview with Arirang is another source, but recently I added a related source (http://www.arirang.com/Tv2/TVCommon_NoStaff_Archive.asp?PROG_CODE=TVCR0633&MENU_CODE=101481&view_seq=20452&Page=1&sys_lang=Eng). This is a introduction to their episode and describes the subject without depending on his responses.

Are these enough to establish his notability?

Soeun

Hi, Sulfurboy. First of all, thanks for your work as a new page patrol. It says you're not likely to help better articles and so I did send this to the teahouse and online chats but I thought I might ask you directly as well. My article for the poet and translator Jake Levine includes numerous established Korean news outlets and an american one, and the subject's bios from famous, noteworthy presses and magazines. He is an important figure in contemporary Korean poetry in translation, and one of the news sources (Korean) says so. If I translate and direct-quote that line, will it help? What else can I do to convince others that he is noteworthy? Thanks. Soeunseo (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Hi, I'm adding more information after discussion at the Live Chat page. The helper said I should try to message you about the reliability of the sources I already have, since interviews and news articles about the subject are usually good enough to establish its notability. I won't go through all of them, but the biggest, most important ones. °Boston Review: I took the subject's bio from here. To ensure Boston Review's notability, please see http://bostonreview.net/about °Kyunghyang News (news.khan.co.kr) is a Korean newspaper established in 1946. It is one of the biggest news outlets in Korea. In the interview I used, it says that "As Deborah Smith rises as a hot topic for allowing Han Kang's Vegetarian to win the Man Booker prize, Jake Levine has become a topic of discussion as well. In the poetry scene, they even say that "Good translations have given a wider readership to Korean poetry, and a lot of that is thanks to Levine". °Hope School Camp is a famous English camp in Korea and has partnerships with Chungshim International Academy (one of the most elite secondary schools in Korea), KBS (Korea Broadcasting System, the single biggest broadcasting network in Korea) and more. From here, I took his resume. °Munjang Webzine is the biggest and most famous online literary magazine in Korea. Jake Levine's continued work there, as well as his collaboration with one of Korea's biggest poets, Kim Kyung Ju, and MC Meta, also famous, attests to his notability. °Founded in 1889, Granta Magazine is a very well-established American literary magazine that ranks among the Extremely Challenging Fiction Markets in Duotrope's database, with a near 0% acceptance rate. °Guernica Magazine is an American poetry magazine that ranks among the 25 Most Challenging Poetry Markets in duotrope's database. It has an acceptance rate of 0.64%. I retrieved Levine's bios from Guernica and Granta. Not only are the sources themselves reliable, but Levine's participation as a contributor to these magazines establishes his notability. °The World on Arirang is a broadcast station established in 1996 to deliver Korean news to readers worldwide. I included a video of Levine's interview from this international station, which should speak to Levine's notability. I hope this helps you see the reliability of my sources. If that is not the only problem, please let me know what else I can do!

Thanks. Soeunseo (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) The Boston Review and Granta Magazine sources are just your basic author bios. These can even be submitted by the author themself. A simple entry for an author is not a source that denotes notability. IF there were actual articles about the author written by these sources, then that might be a different story. At this time the sources simply don't denote notability at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Soeunseo (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

16:09:09, 10 September 2017 review of submission by Linnaean Street
Hello Sulphurboy-

Thanks for reviewing my biography of Ann Sutton. It's my first go at creating an article for Wikipedia, so I am grateful for your feedback, especially as I know all Wiki editors are volunteers.

My article was rejected as it did not meet the minimum requirements for citations. However, I had not included inline citations because the article did not include any of the four things you require them for: direct quotations, statements that have been challenged, statements that are likely to be challenged, or contentious material.

I certainly agree that had I included any of these I would have needed inline citation. But as I had not, I had included a general list of sources at the end.

What's your recommendation on how best I should proceed? Would it be acceptable, for instance, to re-title my final section as "General References" to follow the Wiki guidelines for: "a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs."?

Very happy to take your advice, whatever you suggest.

Thanks for your time and guidence,

Linnaean Street (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Linnaean Street

FYI
Since you accepted the (revised) draft of Gurdeep Pandher I thought you might be interested in this sockpuppetry case. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:16:33, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yourfriendbam
Hello, I do not understand the reason this article has been declined.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified"

I have added many references and citations from credible sources, including some titles with significant readerships which have been published for decades!

Please let me know what more I can do to get this wiki page approved, the sources I've cited are credible and the information surely verifiable. I'm a little perplexed, appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

YourFriendBAM Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

19:40:41, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Sarah Josephine
Hello, I am wondering why this got declined? I understand that you need as many citations as possible, but to be fair I have seen bands have just as many or less and become verified. How many does one need to become verified? Thank you for your time Sarah Josephine (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to see independent and substantial coverage of the band from third party sources. The sources listed seem to mention other bands or the subject only in passing.

19:42:48, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Sarah Josephine
Here is the link to the page that got declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godless_Throne

I am wondering why it got denied? I have seen band pages with minimal citations and it's verified. How many more do I need to get verified? Thank you! Sarah Josephine (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to see third party, independent coverage of the band. Everything listed is for a former band. Also, wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:36:31, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Thomas Saibot
Hi, I submitted an article that was declined. I tried to create an entry and described the product lines of my favourite microphone brand LEWITT, and I tried to stay as descriptive as possible. I have linked to several sources on the net talking or reviewing LEWITT products. The reviews always say that the article contains too much ad talk, but I can not understand why, as I am simply describing their product line. Also when I compared it to much more known brands with longer articles, and from what I have seen they contain similar phrasing. In fact, I took them as a reference, eg Shure. Can you please help me figure out, what exactly I need to adapt?

Thanks in advance. Thomas Saibot (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to see coverage of the company itself, not just individual reviews of the products. And yes, brands like Shure have more extensive articles, because like you said they are more notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:38:21, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yourfriendbam

 * updated message with link as per your FAQ*

Hello, I do not understand the reason this article has been declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alluri

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified"

I have added many references and citations from credible sources, including some titles with significant readerships which have been published for decades!

Please let me know what more I can do to get this wiki page approved, the sources I've cited are credible and the information surely verifiable. I'm a little perplexed, appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

YourFriendBAM

Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend reviewing the policies at WP:REFB Sulfurboy (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ninja Edit master
I'm often reviewing the sources for a AfC and refreshed the page just to find out you've gone and reviewed it already. Have a kitten for all the hard work you are doing at AfC.

 Whispe ring  04:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC) 

15:30:00, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Mpbrown257
Hi, I am wanted to ask why the references did not sure enough notability for the Draft page for Draft:Primordial Radio?

All links are independence of the actual company and actually written about the Radio Station as opposed to the being about the station itself? Also, given the level of investment through Seedrs, there aren't many radio stations that have ever achieved that, so I was wondering how the those bid itself and the numerous 3rd party articles about the equity fund not make the Radio Station noteworthy?

Cheers

Mpbrown257 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All the sources that aren't primary (eg interviews) are just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the starting of the radio station. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok I think I may have miss understood the links. I was under the impression because they had to be third party, that the references couldn't actually be the station's execs talking. In that case the links can be changed to the interviews I have if you are saying that interviews are suitable? Would podcasts also be suitable? Or would podcasts fall under as direct content?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpbrown257 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

04:25:25, 12 September 2017 review of submission by 70.59.20.131
I read the notability guidelines and I am not sure why this page was rejected. I saw on your page that you got a degree in English and Political Science, so it may seem opaque because this article is inherently (extremely) technical. Unfortunately, this cannot be bypassed in any reasonable fashion because it is based on abstract ideas pulling from multiple complex fields of math.
 * Lol, I'm not sure what you think my background in education has to do with my ability to infer wikipedia policy. But the reason it was rejected was not due to its technicality (which actually in itself can be a reason, if context isn't properly given to the uninitiated reader). The reason it was rejected was for notability concerns. Please review the guidelines as linked in the rejection. I'd review something like Simplicial complex to get a better idea of what we're looking for in an article such as this. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the notability guidelines are not followed. I gave references to notable sources and have edited it so that there are links to other relevant wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.20.131 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

02:45:46, 13 September 2017 review of submission by Jack molyneaux
I respectfully ask that you re-consider this subject's (Dave Donaldson's) notability. The John Bates Clark (JBC) Medal, awarded annually by the American Economic Association is arguably the most notable academic achievement possible for a young (under 40) economist. Roughly half of the pre-1980 JBC recipients have gone on to win Nobel prizes in Economics (those winning it after 1980 are still relatively young for Nobel laureates.) This year's award itself prompted a 500-word article in the New York Times, and a 1,000-word article in The Economist.

The JBC Medal Wiki page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark_Medal) includes links to *every* previous medal winner, except for Dave Donaldson. Note also that the content of my article largely mirrors the content of the other recent JBC Medal recipients.

This seems ample evidence that if the entry I drafted today is not published, another one soon will be.

If a more complete description of his theoretical and methodological contributions is needed, I can provide it, though I think that these contributions are best added over time as we gradually become more aware of their significance.
 * The subject may indeed be notable, but you need to provide the references to prove this. In particular, BLPs require inline citations for nearly all claims, which are absent in your article. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

review for Draft:King's Centre for Risk Management
Hi you added an under review tag here to the above draft 16 days ago, are you still reviewing? Domdeparis (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi any chance of a reply? the tag is still on there. Domdeparis (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted and published. Sorry for the delay. Was catching up on a few days worth of stuff. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for replying. Domdeparis (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)