This is an archive of past discussions with User:CT55555. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I have left a COI tag on the article and as is customary I must discuss with you, please, if it existential, can you expatiate on your relationship with the subject of your article? Celestina007 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Written from subject's point of view
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 when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Toronto-Addis Ababa Academic Collaboration, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, CT55555!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
WeRobotics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi @AssumeGoodWraith and thanks for your note. I simultaniously enjoy my new wikipedia hobby, but also find it a bit cold and intimidating at times, so this kind suggestion is very welcome. I wasn't aware that I was allowed to make in main space. I thought the correct process was to go through the AfC process. My track record is probably a bit like this:
Articles about mining, history, policy stuff - 100% track record of getting decent articles up without controversy
I found it very strange that someone thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Toronto-Addis_Ababa_Academic_Collaboration was promotional, I couldn't have written about it any more dryly, but there is this thing that happens when you write about teaching doctors that no matter how neutral you are, it seems to read to some people as positive spin. I'm still trying to decide what to do about that one.
Even WeRobotics which you approved yesterday attracted a chat on the talk page about if they were notable, so those moments make me doubt myself.
So what's your advice, when must I run things through AfC and when is it OK to just create them? Maybe I should just create them for when it's blindingly obvious and use AfC when I'm less certain? For example, I was confident that the Grand Bargain one was gonna make it through the process... CT55555 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd say, if you understand policy good enough, you could make articles without review, and without much fuss. If you're unsure, or you just want your work to be reviewed before publishing, go for AFC.
I've checked that declined draft too, and I think it's clear for a re-review. Maybe the reviewer declined it a bit hastily because of a history with new editors and drafts about companies. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@AssumeGoodWraith While inclined towards acceptance, I see it as not quite there, but for different reasons. See below. I think the prior reviewer was correct to decline, but wasn't as helpful as one might wish, and chose a reason I disagree with. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of the primary/secondary sources rules, and I assume in all likelihood that those academic papers were authored by people from one of the universities. I was operating on the assumption that peer reviewed academic papers were considered good sources, even if one or more authors had a connection to the program? As I see it, it's most likely that Uni of Toronto or Uni or Addis Ababa are the people writing these (but this is a lot of assumptions - are they safe assumptions? Is that what you're talking about when you tagged WP:PRIMARY, @User:TimtrentCT55555 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Ping User:Timtrent as I put this in the wrong place when I first posted, and may have confused you.
Peer reviewed papers tend to be fine, it's the passing mentions that are awkward. The para "We require..." is generic in nature. Always be sure that nay reviewer is but one person and may not be infallible. What we all want to avoid is an immediate deletion process on acceptance. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
I disagree that thsi is an advertisement, but it is not yet quite suitable for main space. My view is that it is close, but needs a final push. The issue is the referencing.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
At present the references do not quite meet that, which means there is a risk of an immediate deletion process on acceptance. I find the organisation notable, but the article to be vulnerable to deletion.
What it needs is better referencing, by which I do not mean more referencing. Look for two to three paragraphs about the collaboration in your sources. Not got that? Replace that reference with another
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 when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Toronto-Addis Ababa Academic Collaboration, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wong (Professor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks very much @User:AssumeGoodWraith your advice a few days ago was very helpful and made me realize that the AfC process was optional once I reached a certain point. If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by not being able to review them? CT55555 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
If my track record of good writing has biased you towards assuming my upcoming writing is good, I'd be happy to direct you toward examples of my bad writing, to solve that. lol CT55555 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Biotechnology companies established in 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Giraffer(talk·contribs)16:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ads Up Refugee Network logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ads Up Refugee Network logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi CT55555! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Further reading: below references?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caryma Sa'd until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Sure, you're entitled to create articles in mainspace now, but that doesn't give you the right to bypass the AFC process with articles that you had already created in draftspace before you were able to start articles directly in mainspace. The entire purpose of AFC would be completely disembowelled if that were how it worked, because then all anybody would ever have to do is create their draft, wait a few weeks and then move it themselves without actually submitting it for review, which would completely defeat the entire purpose of AFC. So if you started an article in draftspace under the AFC process, then you have to let the AFC process play out to completion, and can't just move it yourself. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bearcat: actually, I do not believe that is a "rule", but CT5 I do agree it is best practice and I think you do benefit from your article's being reviewed by AfC. I know its a pain but by skipping it, some of your article's are now ending up at AfD. Too many of those instances may lead to restrictions. With that said, I think you are also benefiting from engaging at AfD so you can get feel for the community's perspective and how the notability guidelines are interpreted and enforced. I hope you take this as friendly advice which is my intent. S0091 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@S0091: (and @Bearcat:) I welcome your advice. If you are correct, and it's optional, then I think the path I took (moving obvious ones into main space, and leaving the ones I'm not sure about in AfD) seems sensible. I have two in AfD, but both went through AfC process, so there is no correlation or causal link between me moving into main myself and AfD. I'm optimistic that both will survive AfD process, both are about clearly notable people as I see it and overwhelming consensus on the first one supports this analysis. The other one only got AfD'ed a few hours ago, so I can't tell community consensus yet. CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, CT5. My understanding is AfC is only required if you are paid, strongly encouraged if you have a COI (to the point of effectively being required) or are under some other community imposed restriction do so. Bearcat, if there is something stating otherwise please let us know but I have seen this come up on the AfC talk page. It is frowned upon by some (if not many) but not restricted. S0091 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, again, the point is that the entire existence of AFC is completely meaningless if all anybody ever has to do is wait a few weeks and then just immediately bypass it themselves as soon as the mainspace creation privilege has been opened up for them — if that were how AFC worked, then nobody would ever actually have to follow the AFC process at all, because everybody could always just wait out the clock and then bypass AFC review themselves. It also warrants mention that one of the pages involved was one that I had previously rejected for not really having any obvious or properly sourced notability claim (Draft:Henry Joseph Maloney), and while some further work was done on it after that, it's still not at all obvious that there was enough work done on it: even now, it still depends far, far too strongly on primary sources, with not even close to enough genuinely reliable or notability-building ones, and it still doesn't make any notability claim "inherent" enough that an article about him would be entitled to park on such weak sourcing. So it's not even close to being an "obvious move candidate" as of yet, even if creators moving pages themselves were an uncontroversially accepted part of the process. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm following, in good faith, the advice that others gave me. @Bearcat:, if I may say, you seem to be making a fair argument based on what you think the rules should be, rather than what the rules actually are. I don't think this is the place for that. In the spirit of collaboration and consensus and hopefully common sense, what if I suggest a path forward: How about if you have any bona fide skepticism of any of these article, I'll volunteer to put them through AfC process. And if you don't, we let them stand in mainspace, where they will be reviewed anyway? cc @S0091:CT55555 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC) PS regarding the specific article, I significantly researched and redid it since the initial feedback, so I hope you saw that.
Had I seen any evidence that you've actually reached an accurate understanding of what constitutes enough work to render an article keepable, I'd have been perfectly willing to let it just slide as a minor issue not worth fighting about. The fact that you think something like Draft:Henry Joseph Maloney was already good enough in its current state to skip a second review is precisely the reason why I can't just let it slide. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I echo the request from S0091 for you to point to the policy that supports your assertion that I have broken a rule to move these to mainspace. CT55555 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a core principle of WP:AFC, explicitly stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, that "AfC submissions must be reviewed in accordance with Wikipedia's established content policies and guidelines." Accordingly, I repeat my request for you to show some concrete evidence that your personal assessment that any of the pages you moved were "obvious candidates" for mainspace was correct. We don't write policies to describe most of what the rules of this place are: "policies" only cover very, very general principles of conduct such as civility and harassment, and we very intentionally don't write "policies" to cover every individual thing that any person might ever think of doing (not least because of the principle of beans, under which if we try to anticipate everything anybody might ever think of doing, we might inspire people to try something they wouldn't thought of doing if we hadn't put the idea in their heads).
So just because I can't point you to a page that has the imprimatur of policy doesn't mean that there isn't a rule — one of the core principles of Wikipedia is that we have "policies" to tell us what to do, and "guidelines" to tell us how to do it in specific contexts where application of policies might come up for debate, which means understanding what's appropriate and what isn't involves a lot more than just looking for "policies" alone: it also involves familiarizing yourself with guideline statements like "AfC submissions must be reviewed in accordance with Wikipedia's established content policies and guidelines" that are articulated on project pages instead of formal policy documents.
And incidentally, as for that "prior advice", I'm certainly seeing AssumeGoodWraith suggest that you consider starting pages in mainspace from now on — but I'm not seeing any indication that they ever told you it was okay to just bypass the AFC review process on drafts that had already been reviewed and rejected previously, without submitting them for a new followup review first. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Bearcat if you want to see the bit where AssumeGoodWraith said to move them, scroll up about two topics to the barnstar and the chat that follows. CT55555 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If i May chime in here, what Bearcat is saying is manually moving to mainspace articles which you once submitted via AFC is in itself defeating the purpose of AFC. @S0091, your interpretation of what AFC is, is not incorrect but simultaneously isn’t also an all encompassing truth, Infact WP:AFCPURPOSE is in variance with your interpretation of what AFC is, as aforementioned you aren’t incorrect as your interpretation is one of “the many truths about AFC” but it is not “the all encompassing truth” Bearcat I share your frustration, if the articles aren’t meeting our notability criteria then I believe AFD's would be the next best option or route to optimize. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@AssumeGoodWraith: (or anyone) don't feel bad, this is good discussion happening and a way to learn. I understand what Bearcat and Celestina007 are saying but there is no "enforcement" per say other than moving it the article back to draft or AfD. Neither are long term solutions, meaning if an editor consistently publishes articles that are not ready for mainspace that is a big issue and one the community will ultimately not tolerate. My advice to CT5 remains the same in that the articles they write benefit from AfC. S0091 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If I ever said to move afc drafts to mainspace, I don't mean declined drafts or draftified mainspace articles. Think of it as using the draft space as a way to turn off your device without losing the article. If that isn't allowed, then I probably haven't read policy about this stuff enough. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nhial Deng and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nhial Deng, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Just an fyi since you're making a lot of Toronto articles, did you know you can merge various Canada sub-projects into the main Canada template? See eg at Joseph Wong (political scientist), where I took the Toronto template off and added toronto=yes into the Canada template. You can add differing importance levels this way too. Cuts down on banner clutter, especially helpful when you get someone who's like "a woman pianist born in 1880 in Prussia, who moved to Toronto and started a music school for German-speaking girls in Canada" or something (8+ wikiprojects, but you can reduce it to 5 banners). -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, neat! I'm afraid that's totally out of my wheelhouse in every way (I'm surprised it doesn't already exist, I guess?), so all I have to say is "good luck with that", but: good luck with that! -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know that this one is doable. On the first page of my Google results for her, I get her LinkedIn (result #1), her name on the sunshine list, and... no mention of her book. For the most part, for a wikipedia article about a person, you're looking for whether someone has already written a biographical article about them somewhere. And that's definitely a no here. I might suggest mentioning her on the article about her organization, but there are two problems there: 1) I don't think her organization is notable, and 2) I don't think there's a lot of information here that would be useful on a page about CILT either. May I ask why you're trying to make a wikipedia article for her? That's a genuine question, not a leading one or sarcasm. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi asilvering Thanks for the tip. As for why: most of what I'm doing is to try and increase coverage of people who are working to improve the human condition, with extra emphasis on people who are from equity-seeking groups. This is one of the first articles I tried to create and I first submitted it before I understood the policy on primary/secondary sources so I now just feel bad that I seem to be failing on get an article up about someone who is doing a lot of good stuff (but most of the reporting on it is her being quoted in the news). Specifically I read about her work and she seemed a good candidate, I've not done enough on disability-themed articles so far. But maybe I'll drop this one and head to the Project Disability page and find better candidates. CT55555 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
You might have more luck looking for people who have worked to improve the human condition - that is, people nearing the end of their careers, rather than people who are still in the middle of them. But in general you will run up against the coverage bias problem as soon as you step away from men, and of course the problem only deepens once you start adding on other major coverage biases (not white, not English-speaking, etc, etc, etc). There's a reason under 20% of the biographies on Wikipedia are of women, and that reason isn't "because Wikipedians don't think women should have encyclopedia articles". If you've got enough French to translate articles from fr-wiki (or any other language/wikipedia), you might find some good subjects there. Notability guidelines aren't the same across the different language projects, and many articles in other languages are so poorly referenced I simply would not bother trying, but a subject having an article on another language's wikipedia is a reasonably good sign that they're notable enough to stick around here, and translating is much, much easier than writing from scratch.
I guess I would also argue that this draft article wouldn't achieve the aims you have anyway. Unless you're defining "increased coverage" simply by "increased number of Wikipedia articles". It's just a few bare sentences. How would people get to this hypothetical article on Wendy Porch? Is it needed to fill in gaps where other Wikipedia articles are pointing to her name and just coming up with a red link? No, right? So people would probably get here from google. Google would get them her CV (more comprehensive than this article), or the website for CILT (more useful than this article). In this case the article isn't really helping a reader who needs to learn more about Porch, and it's unlikely to be someone's first introduction to Porch either.
In general I think it's a good idea to identify gaps you can fill from within Wikipedia, rather than creating something completely new. That might mean expanding stubs (there are so, so many), but it can mean creating new articles too. As an example, I recently started a new article on Nikolai Utin. This was a coverage gap I noticed while reading Elisabeth Dmitrieff. That also got me Narodnoye delo. For the price of one article on a man, I now have four women with redlinks coming from at least three articles. If I manage to fill those in, and I think I will, I'll have created a nice little set of new articles at the reverse of WP's usual gender ratio. Then I'll go find somewhere else to do the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. asilvering That's great advice about working on stubs rather than new articles. My motivation for the templates was around the same logic (nobody will read things if they are not linked from somewhere else) so I tried to join up articles that cover the same topics. I created a second template Template:Pharmaceutical_Affordability_and_Access for the same reason. I think I'll focus more on improving existing articles in future. A lot of the ones on the topics I care about have been poor for a long time. I appreciate your guidance on this (slightly less so on Jorts, <joking sarcasm>.) CT55555 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually that's quite brilliant, I can see the high importance, but low quality articles on the topics I care about and can write about. This is a great foundation for starting improvements. Thanks. asilveringCT55555 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Depending on the Wikiproject (some are more on top of things than others), you'll probably also find a lot of articles that have been improved way past stub-level, sometimes even years ago, but not re-reviewed. Maybe even some that are already close enough to GA-level that it won't be too much work to push them over the line. Happy editing! -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Sources are interviews or brief mentions.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tam Coyle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tam Coyle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tahir Amin (lawyer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tahir Amin (lawyer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Thanks for following up so quickly on my suggestion, CT55555, and welcome to Women in Red. I see that you've already received a number of constructive comments on the project's talk page. In particular, I think you will find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. You might also be able to find some inspiring people by browsing through our Redlist index which contains a list on peace activists. I see that our Wikidata list of feminists contains quite a few human rights activists. In any case, we'll try to help you along with your work in these areas and try to prevent further refusals or deletions. As I said before, just let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
On 16 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Six Months in Sudan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian doctor James Maskalyk's book Six Months in Sudan was based on his blog? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Six Months In Sudan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Six Months in Sudan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kp2016rockin 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Vipperman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michael Vipperman, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:CT55555. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
