User talk:CNMall41/Archive 5

Please comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tulip Retail Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tulip Retail 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(No heading listed by user)[edit]

User: skyphoenix6 Why is this not Reliable sources She is also the recipient of L'Oreal's inaugural NEXT Generation Women in Digital Award in 2012^[1] and Inc.'s 30 Under 30 Coolest Entrepreneurs of 2015. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyphoenix6 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, Skyphoenix6. Please remember to sign your posts. To answer your question, those references are about a person and not the company. The links I provided you (WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH)) will guide you through the types of references you need to establish notability for the company. If there are no references that meet those guidelines, the topic would not be notable and a page cannot be created. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones[edit]

Hi, and best wishes to the year 2019. As requested, I inform you about the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Mecir, thanks for the notice. I am not so much concerned with the introduction of negative information as I am about the WP:WEIGHT. Much of the criticism of this industry is due, but I think it is starting to get out of hand with the Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER mentality. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not so much concerned with the introduction of negative information" - negative information is not a problem. I see a problem if an editor is edit-warring while accusing other editors of WP:COI, or if an editor is introducing his own WP:OR while deleting sources he does not like, or if an editor is trying to introduce two paragraphs to the lead section of an article containing the same claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:29:42, 7 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Horeb282[edit]

Horeb282 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Blaine Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, honourable reviewers.

I need help concerning this article I've been working on since last year. The article is about an American reality TV host, Blaine Anthony. I've tried structuring the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's terms. I made lots of corrections again yesterday and hope you can help check the article while it is still awaiting review. I need your assistance this time by checking and making corrections where necessary.

Thanks

Horeb282 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horeb282, thanks for the message. The three references you introduced are Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY which should be avoided. What you need to do is add sources that talk about him in-depth and not just list him or his show. If you can do that and then ping me here again I will review. Thanks and good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hope everything is good. This is regarding the article Ravi Vadlamani, I have done enough changes and also tried to give more citations to the article. So can we remove the tags, please help me in this regard. Thanking you Nagsail (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nagsail. The proper forum would be Talk:Ravi Vadlamani. If you start a discussion there I will glad to opine. You can also review this as a general guide on how to remove maintenance templates. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on AfC submission by M3rcury27[edit]

Hi CNMall41,

Thank you for reviewing the latest submission for the AfC Draft:FutureBrand. I have included references from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Fast Company that I hope establish notability. The subject in question is also the owner of another company that does have its own standalone Wikipedia article (wiki/UXUS). Does this help establish notability also?

Your help would be much appreciated.

M3rcury27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3rcury27 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M3rcury27. I would still believe the topic is not notable. It is not only about the sources, but the depth of the coverage with those sources. Brief mentions or general announcements do not add up to notability. What I did was resubmit your draft with the new information you provided and will allow someone else to review. As it stands, I would still decline it for notability. Someone should be around shortly to give you another opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CNMall41, I can see that you have declined the draft once again, although I thought someone else would be reviewing it in order to provide another opinion - as indicated in your previous message?

I reviewed a lot of drafts since this one and didn't even remember our conversation. I just resubmitted it but I don't have high hopes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Advataxes[edit]

Did the script really drop a template on my talk page or did you do that manually? I just moved the article to draftspace I didn't have anything to do with writing it. Whispering^(t) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering, yes, sorry. The script did the template automatically. I had this happen to me previously as well. When you move the page with the script, there is an option that appears as to who you want to submit as (yourself, the original creator, etc.). Whatever selection you choose is ultimately who gets the notice when the draft is approved/declined. Sorry for the template. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, oh well. Back to more important things. Whispering^(t) 21:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review Advataxes Page[edit]

Hello, This is pursuant to your rejection of the page we submitted to be posted on Wikipedia entitled "Advataxes". I would like to bring to your attention the following comments:

Currently there is a Wikipedia page for notably Quickbooks; an accounting software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickBooks

Advataxes falls in the same broad category of that accounting software. Advataxes is an accounting software but specialized on travel expenses and with a strength on recoverable Canadian taxes. So, if Quickkbooks is published,(as well as Freshbooks, Eclipse ERP, SAP ERP and so forth), Advataxes should be published too. (the saying goes: what is good for the goose is good for the gander)

As for the external sources, there is notably a link for a press released from Levvel Research relating to the Award granted to Advataxes. According to the New York magazine Inc https://www.inc.com/ . Levvel is amongst the 500 fastest growing US private Corporation. It's a sizable organization. It's the ninth year that they grant financial transaction software awards. In our industry; it's like receiving an Oscar. You can check their link; https://www.levvel.io/our-ideas/levvel-research-2018-innovation-award-winners

As for the text itself; it is very short; only descriptive and again, the format of the page is the same as the format for the page Quickbooks. So based on the above, I am asking you to you accept to publish Advataxes within Wikipedia

Thank you Serge Vanier, CPA, CMA 514-461-1543#201 Svanier62 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svanier62, thanks for reaching out on my talk page. I would suggest that you start here prior to doing any further editing. Based on your questions, I am not sure that you have a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. There is not comparative notability, meaning that the company is not notable simply because it is in the industry with another notable company. The references you used are also press releases so they are not considered WP:IS. You will need to read WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH for what sources qualify. Finally, notability is based on what is said about the company in reliable sources. There must be significant coverage that talks about it in-depth. I cannot locate this type of coverage in my searches so unless you are able to introduce such into the article, I am not going to be able to approve the draft. Finally, your username indicates that you have a WP:COI with regards to this draft which will need to be disclosed. I will leave you a message there shortly with information on how to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Page to be Approved[edit]

Hello In-charge,

Please advice on the reasons for rejecting the page I created for Opus Kinetic. I believe I wrote it from a non-biased standpoint. Look forward to hear from you.

Regards, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.165.46 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am only one of two people who declined it, including ShunDream. Both times you were provided with reasons at the top of the page. It mainly comes down to the sources. You need to review WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH and if you still have specific questions after, leave them here and I will respond. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issue- City Express Money Transfer[edit]

Dear CNMall41, Please trust me, this subject is notable in my country. If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IME_Group, this can be in Wikipedia, then my subject can also be in Wikipedia. Please re-consider. I have given enough references/ citations. There is no exaggeration or promotion about the subject. I am re-writing the same thing the references have mentioned. Kindly check again. Also, IME_Group has not provided enough citations/ references. But I have provided at lest 2 references for each line in my article. Please do not delete. Instead, your kind suggestions and instructions will be highly appreciated. Thank you.

(Your suraj (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Your suraj, prior to looking at anything, you need to address the WP:COI notification on your talk page. Please make the proper disclosure if applicable and then we can move forward discussing the content of the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 (talk) How do I prove that I don't have COI with the subject. Please instruct me.(Your suraj (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Snickers2686. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Fatima Ali, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Snickers2686 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snickers2686 Script error? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Yes, I meant to click on something else and accidentally clicked on the unreview part. Apologies. The article is good and has been "re-reviewed" if you will. Sorry. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snickers2686, no apologies necessary obviously. Just wanted to make sure I didn't do something bone-headed. I normally can go back and find my mistakes but couldn't see anything here. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michel Temer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michel Temer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hello Lonesome movie cover.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:03:51, 5 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Srickerd[edit]

Srickerd (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Savoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you so much for taking a look! I will work on finding better sources of information to improve this article. I have tried to keep the information included as neutral and fact-based as possible, looking at this page as inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklane. I am having trouble understanding why that page was approved when mine was not.

Srickerd (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srickerd, thank you for the note. Wikipedia notability is based off guidelines, not other articles already in Wikipedia. In order to show how the company is notable, you will need to present sources that talk about the company in-depth. You can view these guidelines at WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. It is not just about keeping things neutral and fact-based, it is about having the type of significant coverage required by the guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	efxaristo Mariaxxmm (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Unihertz versus Published Fairphone[edit]

Can you please explain how Fairphone meets the standard you set for Unihertz? It seems to be the same - publicity about a couple products, but not much about the company. Should Fairphone be deleted, to be fair? PTMY (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PTMY, thanks for the question. I did not evaluate Fairphone, I evaluated Draft:Unihertz. Any evaluation I do is based on guidelines and policies (specifically WP:NCORP in this case), and not other items that already exist in Wikipedia. The standards are not set by me, but the community through consensus. If you feel a page does not meet guidelines, you are more than welcome to recommend it for deletion.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on AfC submission Castbox by Amywrights[edit]

Hi CNMall41,

Thank you for your feedback on my recent submission Castbox. I have addressed the case of WP:REFBOMB you noted in my original draft. Please let me know if you have any additional feedback. Thank you! Amywrights (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amywrights, please resubmit the draft. I will take a look when I have a chance but by resubmitting it you will ensure that it is ready for review as there are other reviewers who may get to it before I do. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of StealthChat[edit]

Hi CNMall41,

I made an article last week on StealthChat and it got deleted due to the speedy deletion rules on wikipedia. It has been in my notice that there was another article deleted on the subject due to unambiguous advertising. It was understandable for the previous article but the one that i made is more on the general information on its product. Therefore, could you help me to figure out how can I avoid the speedy deletion if the page intention was totally different? (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2019 (PST)

iwanindraprasto, there are instructions on the page in the deletion notice. However, I see that it has since been deleted. If you feel it should not have been deleted, you are more than welcome to request it be undeleted at WP:DRV. Make sure you ask the deleting administrator first. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Skyrora[edit]

Firisell (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CNMall41, According to your comment for Draft:Skyrora (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skyrora) I inform the following: I can confirm that I have had no involvement with the previous creation and deletion of a Wikipedia page for the company Skyrora, I have no concerns regards this. I can confirm that this page is not intended to be advertorial, I have no involvement with the company Skyrora, however, given the recent growth in the UK Space Industry I believe that every company involved in this rapidly growing and exciting sector should be represented with information available online for the public to read and learn from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firisell (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firisell, thanks for the note. You say "no involvement with the company." Do you have any connection through a friend, family member, or other acquaintance. Are you in any way compensated (or will you be compensated) for your work here on Wikipedia? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 I am not an employeed of Skyrora. I was first informed about the company through a friend who joined on a fixed-term contract as an intern. They no longer work there but I have followed the progress of Skyrora since. There will be no compensation for the text I am attempting to post here, however, I am happy to change this if you feel it is too positive or advertorial for Skyrora Firisell (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firisell, no need to use the ping on someone's talk page since they will automatically receive a notification without it. As far as the disclosure, I will WP:AGF, but it seems stange that while you "believe that every company involved in this rapidly growing and exciting sector should be represented with information available online," you decided to choose a topic that was recently deleted and likely created by a paid editor. As such, it's a little too fishy for my taste and as such will not be reviewing it. I would have too much of a bias against it as the creation of the draft by a non-paid editor seems too convenient under the circumstances. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you need to think about your disclosure a little more. You were the one who uploaded the logo for the company and allowed its use under Sharealike 4.0. The only one who can do that is the copyright holder which means you in this case. So either you are related to the company or you uploaded the logo under a fraudulent claim. Not sure which, but I would advise that you please re-read WP:PAID and WP:COI. Having a conflict of interest is not an issue, but failing to disclose it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for your comments. I understand how this must look, I can only reiterate that I am not an employee of Skyrora and am receiving no financial incentives to create this page, however, I will suspend my attempts to do this for now as I do not want to cause any further issues. I can confirm that I got the logo that I uploaded to the website from my friend who previously worked at Skyrora, as this is available in the public domain I did not understand the copyright issues relating to this.

Please comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:XY - The Persistent Company[edit]

Good Evening CNMall41,

Thank you for taking the time in reviewing the XY - The Persistent Company draft.

I wanted to confirm your feedback, with 11 sources only the 2 that you mentioned were reliable. With the 2 reliable sources based on your feedback I will not be able to use them. The reason I wanted to check was due to one of the other articles being from the San Diego Union Tribune, and wanted to confirm that the other 9 sources would not be allowed to be used.

I greatly appreciate your time and help.

Hannig25 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Hannig25 2/26/2019[reply]

Hanning25, that is my assessment, but others may have a different opinion. The San Diego Tribune is a reliable source. However, the article is more of a general announcement and not in-depth about the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I deleted Forbes and CNBC. I did add a new source https://coincentral.com/what-is-the-xyo-network. With that new source added, since that source breaks down more information for the company can I use that source and have the other sources remain as they confirm details for the wikipedia page? I appreciate your help! ````Hannig25 3/3/2019

Hanning25, a source breaking down information about a company does not necessary add up to notability. References need to follow the guidelines of WP:ORGCRIT. Without those, the page will unlikely get approved by anyone. Of course that is just my opinion and you are welcome to resubmit for others to provide a second opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help on SkyWay Group site appreciated[edit]

I'd just like you to know that the valid comments you made about the SkyWay Group article relating specifically to the use of 'many countries including' and over-reliance on the FSMA press-release were listened to and that they resulted in changes to the article. I've further attempted to pay attention to and learn from what you suggest about the notability of the companies by painstakingly fact-checking the financial regulatory agency links. It must be very irritating to have people dramatizing what you are trying to do and I thank you on the beforehand for not officially taking me to task for it. I certainly didn't mean to challenge your good faith and I agree that if there's consensus on the non-notability of these companies then the article should be removed. I went, however, to the WK guidelines you mentioned and specifically listed them as they relate to the regulatory warnings, which I've since adjusted and expanded thanks to your advice. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zaxander, it's Wikipedia so I don't let it irritate me. In fact, the WP:SPAs and WP:ADVOCACY has taken over in the discussion so I don't feel I need to add anything further. Despite stating and asking numerous people commenting, no one has addressed the simple issue of WP:ORGCRIT. Administrators will see that an take it into consideration accordingly. It is not a vote count for AfD, it is about the quality of the arguments. On a side note, you mention "we" several times in your comments on the AfD. Can you expand on that? It makes it sound like you are discussing the topic offline or you represent an organization for which you are editing on their behalf. Wanted to ask you while WP:AGF as I am sure there is a reasonable explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Good to hear you're not easily phased. Actually, I only started using 'we' when another user recently said that about changes that were being made in a general sense. I had the impression they were referring to the fact many people were working as a team to help improve an article. They were referring to the fact that as there was not enough verifiable scientific information, 'we' should change it so that it reflects the issues we do have verifiable references on. They were referring to 'we' as in 'me and you (and others in a team)'. In Indonesian they have separate words for 'we'; kami means 'me and you inclusive' whereas kita means me and others, but not you (exclusive). This is far more specific. If I say 'we' I meant 'me and you and all other participants' and not 'me and other specific people'. This is evidently easily misinterpreted and I'll be more careful that people know what I mean. I've always meant 'we' in the inclusive collaborative sense.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I tried in any case to learn from this experience. I'd certainly be curious to know what you think of the argument I made after going to the WP:ORGCRIT page you suggested and checking the regulatory warnings against these criteria. I did make a genuine effort to learn all I could so that the decisions I made were informed. If you think the combined influence of so many regulatory warnings are insufficient for notability, I'd like to know it. I obviously hate the idea of misinformation for corporate advantage. But the idea of me making uninformed decisions that could mislead people horrifies me even more. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zaxander, no need to ping someone on their own talk page. The notification will automatically go to them. Thanks for the "we" explanation. As this is English and not Indonesian Wikipedia, I didn't draw any inferences to any other cultural language. The bank references do not meet the criteria in my opinion. They are actually primary sources and also considered insignificant coverage under WP:ORGCRIT. If the page is kept, this information would need to be removed from the page unless there is a reliable secondary source reporting the same. If there is any other discussion about the deletion, please make sure to include it in the proper forum at the deletion discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I just meant that English can be ambiguous in this way and I'm glad you pointed out what I said could be misconstrued. I didn't mean that you should know what I meant. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the introduction of the section on 'The Lithuania Scandal'. After reading your concerns I checked it again myself and I saw the immediate problems with it. I included all the facts from the references in a list following your entry on the talk page; if there are other people who consider that these facts should be included as well they can always make their own proposal. Any advice appreciated. –Zachar (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant discussion needs to remain on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

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 {{rough translation}} 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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Pell[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Pell. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (What Happens Here, Stays Here) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating What Happens Here, Stays Here.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on "What Happens Here, Stays Here".

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

crowdshipping[edit]

Hello CNMall41, I wrote an article about crowdshipping and would like to provide further explanation to why the page should exist. After reviewing the following documents, please let me know how the page can be edited and suitable for your approval. Thank you. 2014 Issue in Focus by United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General raises concerns over a new innovation as crowdshipping in the brief titled Using the ‘Crowd’ to Deliver Packages. Quote from the document: 'Crowdshipping is a subset of the larger “crowdsourcing” movement. Essentially, crowdsourcing involves the use of technology to marshal a large group of people to accomplish something.' (all grammar was preserved). Source: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/using_the_crowd_to_deliver_packages_0.pdf 2014: 1st International Physical Internet Conference. A collaboration between CIRREALT Interuniversity Research Center, Université Laval, Québec and Canada Research Chair in Interconnected Business Engineering has created a research paper titled Crowdsourcing delivery: New interconnected business models to reinvent delivery. Here is a quote from the paper: 'Crowdsourced delivery is an answer to the growing expectations of customers for faster, more personalized and cost efficient delivery service. It exploits technological potential (geolocalization, mobile apps) and the social trend of sharing and collaboration (Rifkin, 2014). For two years, crowdsourced delivery has been bursting. Several start-ups have been launched and some have attracted millions in investment. Currently leading are Posmates and Deliv that have respectively acquired investments totalling more than 22 and 14 million US$ (Lawler, 2014a ; Lawler, 2014b).' (all grammar was preserved)Source: https://www.cirrelt.ca/IPIC2014/PDF/1027S.pdf 2016 The Owl Foundation; Breakthrough from Innovation to Impact, Volume 1. The extensive document covers relevant topics such as Europe's Energy Impasse, The Oslo Breakthrough, and the Future of the Arctic. Global Logistics is also covered in the document, and crowdshipping is one of the main sub-topics of that subject matter written by Alan McKinnon, Professor of Logistics at Kuehne Logistics University. Quote from the document: ‘Crowd shipping’ is its corollary in personal travel: encouraging passengers to use their spare carrying capacity on cars, bikes, buses and planes to carry parcels for other people. Crowd shipping has had an innocent start with a few cheerful websites, 19 but it does raise serious questions about liability and security. (all grammar was preserved)Source: https://issuu.com/theowlsfoundation/docs/breakthrough_2016 2017 Journal of Business Logistics published a research paper by Valentina Carbone, Professor of Supply Chain and Operations Management at ESCP Europe, Aurélien Rouquet, Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management at NEOMA Business School & CRET-LOG, and Christine Roussat, assistant professor at Blaise Pascal University & CRET-LOG. The title of the paper was The rise of crowd-logistics: a new way to co-create value. Here is a quote from the document: 'Bearing in mind the dearth of research on this topic, our purpose is to develop an initial conceptual approach to these initiatives, that we term "crowd logistics", meant as “initiatives that tap into the logistical resources of the crowd to perform logistics services”. This article is structured in six sections. The first section reviews the (scarce) literature that relates to crowd logistics. The second section presents our methodology, which is based on the study of 57 cases of emergent crowd logistics initiatives. The third section highlights the main differences between crowd logistics and traditional business logistics.' etc (all grammar was preserved) Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbl.12164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichnerska (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Klichnerska, You are more than welcome to make that argument on the draft page - you can copy and paste your comments on the draft talk page - and resubmit. Someone else can review and provide you with another opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Bill Bryant (golf executive)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Bill Bryant (golf executive).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Bill Bryant the golf executive. Note that the article is currently an "orphan" meaning that no other Wikipedia articles link TO it. This makes the article tough to find for interested readers. See WP:DE-ORPHAN for pointers.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doomsdayer520. I think the issue was from the page move. The links were there but pointing to the original page, not the new name. I fixed them so they point to correct location. Thanks for the review. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ruth Macrides[edit]

The standard for academics is not WP:GNG or WP:ABNYBIO, but WP:PROF. Meeting WP:PROF is sufficient, and notability is proven by the published work. Inher case, books by the very most prestigeous publishers. I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Draft:Edwin Chapman--the named professorship explicitly meets one of the criteria for WP:PROF, , but I am not accepting it yet, because it is worded too promotionally. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I never have an issue about another reviewer overriding an AfC decision. Thanks for the advice on WP:PROF as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Motusbank[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Motusbank. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia[edit]

Hi CNMall41,

I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to submit an article. And it seems like my draft is not matching what I submitted? I have a lovely draft that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, but somehow none of it came up in my submission? I copied my source information and am trying again. This is what I thought I submitted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stuart_Patton&action=submit

But it looks like what I actually submitted was just:

Stuart Patton Article[edit]

Is there a way to get my draft, the one with many refrences, links, and good information, submitted for review? Thank you! Amy.hworth

Amy.hworth, there is a "submit" button in the decline box near the top of the page. You are free to resubmit the draft at any time but I strongly suggest you make sure any noted issues are addressed prior to doing so. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Authentic Brands Group logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Authentic Brands Group 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aristotle for Everybody book cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aristotle for Everybody book cover.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tunapanda Institute[edit]

I am not sure, if that's the right way, but I updated the article about the Tunapanda Institute, created last year, and added some sections. Because you reviewed the last time, please review it again, if it seems to be okay now. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tunapanda_Institute)

Please comment on Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, 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:

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.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill 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.

Backlog drive coming soon

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.

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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Princess Michael of Kent[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Michael of Kent. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Fine work on transforming The Leading Hotels of the World from a promotional mess into a respectable article. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the love. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Axios (website)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Axios (website). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adira's Dream (film)[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your message. You're absolutely right - I do have a conflict of interest in regards to this film as I am the director of it. However I would like for information about it to be out there but since I don't know any Wikipedians I had to do it myself and hope someone kind would reach out to help. I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to using the platform as an editor - would it be at all possible for you to proof it? Please rewrite where you see fit. I've tried to cover as many links to the project as are currently available. The film is not yet released but will be premiering at Madrid International Film Festival in August 2019, where it is nominated for best sound design and for best story. Their website should have all the details (just to prove this is a real and credible project!) Willop357 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on user's talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you'd had a chance to read my reply on my user page? Willop357 (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willop357, I just replied on your talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New ref for WWW[edit]

Hi, I added a new reference to establish notability for Women Who Weld; specifically, another feature article on Women Who Weld in the Detroit Free Press that was published on June 06, 2019. I would appreciate it if you could review the new reference/submission. Thank you! Samanthaindetroit (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Samanthaindetroit[reply]

Hi, Samanthaindetroit. I took a look and while the reference you supplied is good, I am on the fence about notability for the organization. I think it would be best to have another reviewer from AfC look at it in due time. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supriyarednam (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)== Request on 10:55:22, 19 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Supriyarednam == [reply]

Supriyarednam (talk · contribs)
- User:Supriyarednam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello

Supriyarednam (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huge learning curve[edit]

Hi CNMall41

Thank you for the quick review, comments, and the information links. I agree that the content comes across as an advertisement. My goal was to bring exposure to a great design that my two friend's had developed. Not sure how I could word it so that it could be included on wikipedia. This is all new to me.

Maxwho (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia can be a huge learning curve. Please go through the links provided on your talk page and if you have any questions you can always come here and ask. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cubatabaco logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cubatabaco logo.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Journeys (company)[edit]

Hello, added some more coverage found in the WSJ archives and more newspapers to Draft:Journeys (company). These were harder to find because they are from the early 2000's, but it's an older brand so maybe it shows the coverage has been there over time? People looking up this brand wouldn't know what "Genesco" was so its own page seems to make sense, do the addition sources like WSJ help?--103.62.50.223 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does look better. I will let someone else review it as I am probably biased a little towards the company since I am very familiar and shopped there years ago with my kids. I don't want to approve the draft simply based on how I feel about the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also new to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello CNMall41

Could I retrieve the Draft: Frank Elkouri article and resubmit with changes?

How were you able to determine the copyrighted material was copyrighted? It was not apparent to me.

I am certain the owner of the copyrighted material will allow publishing the Frank Elkouri material. How would they convey their permission to use the article?

Thanks for your help. This was my first submission and there was a big learning curve.

LarrySCompton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryscompton (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larryscompton, you would need to request the administrator (RHaworth) if you would like to retrieve the draft. I highly doubt that will happen since the material has copyright violations. You would need to start from scratch and ensure that no copyright information is included. Also, you say that you are sure the owner of the information would allow its use? This statement eludes to knowing the owner of the site which could indicate a WP:COI. Are you in any way affiliated with Frank Elkouri? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for article[edit]

hello respected CNMall41 as you said my article or draft Sangramsingh thakur they did not appear constructive, because I do not have so much information of subject, So maybe you will not get my article creative or constructive. Allow me to publish the article Whenever I get more information, I will publish it.--Shilpaga05 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article not approved[edit]

Hi @CNMall41, this is in reference to article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GlobalLinker disapproved on your end statting not notable for Wikipedia.

Topic 'GlobalLinker' is a multinational organization working with governments and trade bodies in countries like India, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and suitable references have been provided on the page. Still it has been marked as not notable.

It has coverage in respective newspapers of the countries and even central bank of Singapore recognizing it.

Help me with the thought process, so that page can be modified.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksndls (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aksndls, you need references that meet WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I am unable to find any that meet such criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Qualifacts Article[edit]

Hello,

Recently I submitted an article for Qualifacts, a leading company for electronic health records that's based in Nashville with a national reach. I believe you reviewed the article and did not approve it. I'm reaching out to you to see if you would help me get this article created for Qualifacts. If you would like to create this article or help me by collaborating, that would be highly, highly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahpedia13 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judahpedia13, I left a comment on the draft. Please review WP:ORGCRIT to determine the type of references you need to place in the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VNMall41, the references that I have provided are all of leading publications/newspapers of the region. Let know if it can't be leading publications. what sources should I add. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksndls (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the references currently in the draft, I would advise that you re-look at WP:ORGCRIT and use the table provided to determine if those references are suitable to show notability. They are not in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NxStage website logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NxStage website 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guesty logo.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Guesty logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swiss Institute Contemporary Art New York logo.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Swiss Institute Contemporary Art New York logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AgFunder logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AgFunder 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

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.

Backlog

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.

Move to draft

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.

Notifying users

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.

PERM

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.

Other news

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.

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)[reply]

Hello, new to Wikipedia[edit]

It seems that my draft has been rejected because it is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", which I don't understand why. After reviewing all of the submission rules for a biography, it seems that it checks every mark. The person titled in the article is well known in the automobiles business in Lebanon, and is looked upon by so many people interested in the industry. I've edited the article and emphasized his Guinness World Record breaking, which is a notable achievement. I hope you take another look at the draft.

Thank you for your time. Mohammadk97 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mohammadk97, notability is not based on being "well known" or being "looked up by so many people." Notability is based on significant coverage in WP:RSes that are independent of the topic. A good place to start is WP:42 which gives an overview of notability. The current draft uses press release (not independent) and blogs that are not considered reliable for Wikipedia. As such, it does not check every mark so to say. The specific guideline for this draft would be found at WP:ANYBIO. While the subject has received recognition for a world record, the specific recognition is not significant in my opinion. You are always free to clip on the "ask for advice" tab left on the draft decline and receive a second opinion from another editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Botond Roska[edit]

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your comment to Draft:Botond Roska on July 2. 2019, asking whether I deny being 'paid' by Botond Roska to promote him. I do not. Botond Roska is one of two co-directors of the IOB foundation, an academic institute for molecular and clinical ophthalmology research in Basel, Switzerland. I am the part-time communications manager of this academic institution. So yes, in a way he indirectly pays me, as next to our Board of Trustees he is one of the decision makers when it comes to assigning Foundation money to specific roles and responsibilities.

When I published his profile draft under a user name which made this very transparent, then I was told by one of the first reviewers this is against your rules and I should choose a user name which 'hides' my affiliation. I did, even though I have no reason to deny my affiliation at all, am happy to make this fully transparent for everyone at all times. Sabine-retina aka sabine.rosta@iob.ch

I'm not trying to 'promote' a 'wanna-be' scientist or someone seeking the international limelight. Botond Roska is being internationally recognized, there's really not need for any kind of questionable promotion. It is just a matter of making an entry in an index. Several people asked me why they cannot find him on wikipedia in English, while there's a German page, that's why I set up this EN draft.

Sabine retina (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC) July 2, 2019[reply]

I am going to copy this to your talk page and respond there so others reviewing the draft can see the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone charts listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rolling Stone charts. Since you had some involvement with the Rolling Stone charts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. JTtheOG (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Notability of article[edit]

Hello CNMall41 as you said on dated 15 June 2019 my article Draft:Sangramsingh Thakur is not capable as Wikipedia Notability after that I have added some references. May be now my article capable as Wikipedia Notability so please check the references and message me.--Shilpaga05 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shilpaga05. The references you added still do not show how the topic is notable. You are free to ask for a second opinion from other editors but I am not inclined to approve the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Baby Annie help me[edit]

Help me for knowing what type of reliable resources should be added for Draft:Baby Annie by Chinnu1215 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the link on the draft and your talk page on WP:RSes. If you have questions after reading that guideline, please let me know. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ExOne Company[edit]

Hello There. The prior reviewer on this article asked me to add citations to improve notability, and you're asking me to remove them, so I'm a little confused about which ones to keep. If you could kindly provide me with more guidance I would appreciate it. I'm happy to scale them down, but was hoping to add these engineering book references would be helpful in establishing both notability and credibility. Best, Sarahannwebster (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahannwebster, no, the prior reviewer commented that you need "more external news sources independent of the subject." Nothing in there simply says "more." As a paid editor, you need to be aware of the guidelines on Wikipedia as you will not get much help otherwise. Please follow the links provided on your talk page, especially WP:ORGCRIT which will show you what references are needed. It is about quality, not quantity. And yes, independence as mentioned by the previous reviewer. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, thank you for your reply. The citations I added from the prior reviewers's remarks were the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, but I will go back and carefully review the sources and resubmit. The engineering books cited, some of which are in their xth editions as text books do seem to meet the standards for Wikipedia. Kindly let me know if you don't consider those good sources. Thank you, Sarahannwebster (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahannwebster, based on your response, you did not carefully read WP:ORGCRIT. Simply being in the WSJ or USAT does not mean that it is acceptable. The coverage must still meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a chart at the link for ORGCRIT which can guide you through what references are acceptable or not for establishing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, I have closely reviewed the ORGCRIT and REFBOMB content and removed and/or edited various citations, and will resubmit momentarily. As you requested, I am pointing out the 2-3 main notability citations here. I've also moved them up to the first sentence of the entry for clarity on this point: 1-2. ExOne (a spinout of ExtrudeHone) is most notable for commercializing the first metal 3D printer(s) using binder jetting technology developed at MIT, as cited in the book passages referenced below: Gibson, Ian; Rosen, David; Stucker, Brent (2014). Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing. Springer. pp. 205, 208, 214, 215, 216, 218. ISBN 9781493921133. Further supported here: Rosato, D. V.; Schott, Nick R.; Rosato, Marlene G. (2001-11-30). Plastics Institute of America Plastics Engineering, Manufacturing & Data Handbook. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780792373162. 3. Additionally, this comprehensive/significant article in USA Today about 3D printing that appeared on cover of the Money section. It establishes that ExOne is one of the leaders in additive manufacturing, also known as 3-D printing and shares some detail of their novel printing method: Davidson, Paul (2012-07-11). "More goods come from 3-D printing; Digital magic could remake, revive U.S. manufacturing". USA Today. p. MONEY; Pg. 1B. For your reference, I’m also attaching the article pulled out of Nexis, which shows that it’s comprehensive and significant with the references to ExOne highlighted: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1nkz69vfq8uktzg/screencapture-advance-lexis-com-proxy-lib-wayne-edu-document-2019-07-15-05_22_11.pdf?dl=0 Sarahannwebster (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Xellia[edit]

Okay, so linking to another Wikipedia language in the home country of the company is not a reliable source? Should I link to each of the sources that the wikipedia cites in the original language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetazic (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Machetazic, Wikipedia, regardless of the language, is never a reliable source. Everything in your draft must be cited to the original source. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Matt William Knowles[edit]

I cleaned up the repetitive references. I think the articles that most establish notability are The Wall Street Journal, Fox Carolina, Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood Reporter, Wanda Group Official Site, Financial Times, SCMP, and Variety. Theos1919 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theos1919, thanks for the message. I see that you already resubmitted the draft for review. I transferred your message here to there so that the person reviewing can see the information. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Geo Verbanck (English)[edit]

Hi,

the lemma about the sculptor Geo Verbanck exists already for some time in Dutch and French.

What is needed to convert the English draft, based on the Dutch and French lemma's into a Wikipedia article?

Thanks for your advice,

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAN52 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JAN52, the draft has not yet been reviewed. I simply cleaned up some of the formatting. The best thing I can tell you is that existence of an article in another language Wikipedia does not give that article inherent notability on English Wikipedia. When you translate, make sure to include all of the references from the article in non-English Wikipedia that you translated from. Upon review, an editor will likely leave comments on any additional things needed in order for it to be accepted for English Wikipedia. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Raul Calvoz[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Raul Calvoz. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

College basketball and football articles[edit]

I found more basketball and football articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:140D:4903:B8AE:E2D4:8CEA:761D (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Sources for Review[edit]

Hello, I submitted a draft article for Qualifacts Systems (a leader in Electronic Health Records) a few weeks back and was told that the sources didn't meet the 5 criteria. I've gathered the below, seemingly credible sources and am hoping you can tell me which sources check out. Can you please respond with the source numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) that meet requirements?

Source 1. https://books.google.com/books?id=Dzh2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&dq=%22Qualifacts%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRt9vm2uHiAhWns1kKHfSaDEcQ6wEINTAC#v=onepage&q=%22Qualifacts%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

Source 2. https://books.google.com/books?id=gYhGR_SeoN0C&pg=PR10&dq=%22Qualifacts%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWyObF6L7jAhXFWM0KHQzPCwYQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=%22Qualifacts%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

Source 3. https://books.google.com/books?id=IvAhAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Qualifacts%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Qualifacts%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDh8Cp6b7jAhXZW80KHeDuD9UQ6AEIMDAB

Source 4. https://books.google.com/books?id=yW3pkEHHW-YC&pg=PA88&dq=%22Qualifacts%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDh8Cp6b7jAhXZW80KHeDuD9UQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Qualifacts%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

Source 5. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kony-quantum-powers-qualifacts-carelogic-123000526.html

Source 6. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/07/09/1880345/0/en/OPEN-MINDS-Qualifacts-CareLogic-Launch-The-Value-Based-Care-For-Behavioral-Health-Community-An-Online-Resource-for-Value-Based-Care-Reimbursements.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahpedia13 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judahpedia13, if you are presenting me with a press release after being told to review WP:ORGCRIT, there really isn't anything else I can do for you. The link is a short section and even has a chart to help you understand what references we need to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A.Celli Article unjustified deletion[edit]

Hello, Could you please explain to me what you mean when you say that my references are not valid and guide me on how to make them right? the article "Toscotec" has the same kind of References but it is not declined. Please help me fix my mistakes' because I don't understand what I am doing wrong. The Toscotec article has the same type of References. Why is their article up and mine isn't? Can you please give me a deeper explanation on why my references are not valid? Thanks for your help, Please reply to me ASAP! This is a very important matter! Paperdudes2019 26/07/2019

Responded here. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what should I do, step by step, in order to get this article published? Nobody helped me. Why? it's very important that this article gets published as soon as possible, so would you be so kind to tell me how to make that happen, please?? Thanks for your time!

Why is it "very important this article gets published as soon as possible?" What is your connection to the subject of the article? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of a paper and nonwovens newspaper based here in Lucca. It's called LuccaImprese. I have absolutely no direct connection to the company, but I worked really hard to get this information and I would love to be able to post this! it is "very important this article gets published as soon as possible" because I have been trying to post this for over a month and I still don't understand what I'm doing wrong. However, that is not the point. How can I publish this article? What am I doing wrong exactly? How can I fix it? Thanks for you help in advance.

You were given advice on what was needed. Beyond that, no one here is required to write the draft for you. I can tell you based on my online review for sources that this doesn't meet notability guidelines so there really isn't anything that can be done to "fix" it. I am not sure how else to help you out. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make it notable then? also, I am not asking you to write my article, I am asking where exactly in my draft I am mistaken so I can localize the problem and fix it.

You don't "make"something notable. It becomes notable when reliable secondary sources feature it in in-depth coverage according to WP:ORGCRIT. At this point, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bioss company logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bioss company logo.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Acollard16/sandbox[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Acollard16/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/zephyrhills-selects-company-to-operate-planned-tennis-center/2324995. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, not sure if it matters but looks like the script left this on my talk page instead of the person who actually created the draft. Just letting you know in case you wanted to notify that user. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, CNMall41, I should have noticed that the wrong user was notified – and actually I shouldn't have G12-ed it anyway, as there was a clean version to revert to. Apologies, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, no apologies needed. I knew it was something with the script. Just wanted to give you the FYI in case you wanted to notify the submitter. Cheers. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Green_Car_Congress[edit]

Since Green Car Congress is one of the most wanted articles from March 2019 and I'm familiar with environmental news sites, I worked on drafting it, not realizing there was a fraught history until later. The site and its publisher do meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To be clear, I have no connection with either.

The challenge in drafting this was that Mike Millikin is widely regarded as a subject matter expert so most reliable journalistic sources quote him as such. That said, I'd argue that Grist, Mother Jones, and Treehugger are all reliable sources for this entry.

Would an article about the website be more likely to get accepted as a shortened stub? Or should I try drafting an article about Mike Millikin instead that mentions his site?

Many people who have seen the site referenced repeatedly by journalists and book authors over the past 15 years wonder what it is. My goal was to help them by answering that question. I'd still like to get there. Verdancialia (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verdancialia, Length of a draft does not matter. The notability of the topic is what matters. Saying that something is notable does not make it notable. You will need to show sources which talk about it in-depth in order for it to qualify for Wikipedia. If you are looking to answer people's question about what it is, that is what an "about" page would be for. Until it meets notability guidelines, Wikipedia would not be the place to post such information. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer: A Wikipedia article for Green Car Congress goes beyond an About page and shows the site's significance, which it certainly has for sustainable transportation news and analysis. This isn't some random blog or vanity project. The references I used in the draft are well regarded environmental news outlets that each have a Wikipedia entry — they are not "unreliable" — and several of the articles do go in-depth about the site's origins, focus, and how it became an authoritative news source. Verdancialia (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two claims that you have made. The first is that the topic is notable, yet have not provided evidence based on Wikipedia guidelines. The other is that references are not unreliable, which again, did not provide anything except your opinion and not Wikipedia guidelines. The fact is, treehugger may have a Wikipedia page but this does not make it a reliable source. The Daily Mail has a Wikipedia page but it is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. You would need to search the WP:RSN to see any current or past discussions about the sources. According to the noticeboard, treehugger is not likely to hold weight as a reliable source. The other references, as stated on the draft, are either brief mentions or not independent. Interviews are not independent and cannot be considered for notability, yet there are three interviews used as references. You are free to resubmit the draft but I am not inclined to approve it without the required referencing. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft (Grain)[edit]

Hello! I have taken some time to rewrite the article that was declined several weeks ago, and I was wondering if you might have a spare moment to take a look at it and see if it's improved? Your insight means a lot to me and I tried to reduce the amount of biased language.

It still reads like an advertisement for the company instead of a Wikipedia article. I will leave it for another reviewer as I would likely decline it as it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:32:50, 2 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by GaryHollfelder[edit]

GaryHollfelder (talk · contribs)
- Draft:FabSoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm new to your site and I'm trying to follow your instructions, sorry if I am not doing it correctly. The last reviewer suggested that my article sounded like an advertisement and I can see their point so I removed anything that might be considered an advertisement. I can see my partners like Xerox listed and I'm looking for the same type of listing, do you have a template or instructions related to this type of listing?

Thanks,

Gary Hollfelder

GaryHollfelder (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GaryHollfelder, Wikipedia is not here to keep you on a level playing field with your partners. The first thing you need to realize is that we are an encyclopedia and not a promotional tool. Next, please review your talk page where there is a notice about potential conflict of interest and make the appropriate disclosures regarding your relationship with the topic. Finally, even if you remove promotional information from the draft, it still needs to be supported by WP:RSes which meet guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GrabOn[edit]

Hi, This is regarding the article on GrabOn. It is a coupons and deals platform with six years of standing in the market with proper attirbutes and credentials. The article is not an advertisement nor is it an undue publicity to the company. It can be compared with Groupon. Since it provides deals and discounts on almost every purchase and they are genuine and authentic, I submitted for creation. Thank you Jayanagas (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanagas, I left a comment at the help desk so we can keep the discussion there for others to opine as well. Basically, this reads like a pure advertisement for the website rather than an encyclopedia article. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CSI Ammanoorkonam[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CSI Ammanoorkonam, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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.
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, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. 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. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting my client's page "Shweta Rohira"[edit]

I need to know, why my client's page was rejected. There was a duplicate page created which I asked to take down. Now there's a claim IIthat the page is Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which I don't believe it is. The page name is Shweta Rohira which is in my sandbox. Please guide me with the reason why you rejected the page and help me with getting our page published.

Responded at WP:COIN. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copypasting content[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Wild Bill (TV series) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Wild Bill (TV series). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Wylie pedia @ 14:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was this was main space pages, not drafts or userspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Deletion Tag for Bharathi Cement Article[edit]

Hi, I added unique content with the proper reference for Bharathi Cement Article. Can I know the reason for adding deleting tag in Bharathi Cement Article? And also help me in improving the article and also requesting to remove the deletion tag.

--Thinkbreaker (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thinkbreaker. The correct location to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharathi Cement. Being uniuque and proper do not count towards WP:ORGCRIT. Also, you created the page, it was deleted, then you created it with a slight name variation which is an attempt to skirt the system. This gives the appearance of WP:UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jennell Jaquays[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennell Jaquays. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to project revival[edit]

Dear user, I, with Willbb234, are a attempting to revive the Wikiproject Requested Articles, of which you are a member. If you wish to be a part of our effort, feel free to add your signature in it's talk page. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enivak, I would be more than willing to help with the project. My concern, which is why I have stepped away, is because there are many requested articles that don't meet guidelines and no one is active enough on the project to remove them. We need a system of requesting articles and having editors do a quick check for notability. Then, if they meet the basic threshold, put them on the list of requested articles so other editors can write about the topics. Otherwise, it takes too long to go through the entire list to try to find one that is notable. I found a few during my time, but it is painstaking going through the entire list. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, Thanks for replying to me! About the members, i want to believe this is not a problem, if the old members (like you) will rejoin. About the script you say, it is a perfect idea, but there are 2 problems: 1) If ew say the users to do a notability check, if they are paid to write about that, they will ignore the warnings and will post that thing. A good idea to resolve that is to make the script to make itself the notability check, and if it finds that the entry is not notable, it will remove it. 2) I have spoken a little with Willbb234, and i understood that he is not very willing to add various scripts in the project (i oppose his opinion, to say the truth). Because you had the idea, you can convince himself to do that (i support you), because you know more things from me. We happily await you, Eni vak (speak) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's similar logic to those who oppose AfC but I don't necessary agree. There is no perfect system, but it is a good wall to help from spam and paid editing. I am not talking about a script per se as I don't think Wikipedia needs anymore scripts. What I am saying is to have people leave their suggest articles and then other editors can go through them and add them to a list for potential creation. My comment above is about time. There are people who want to create Wikipedia pages (such as myself) but are not going to take the time to go through hundreds of duds in order to find one to create. If we as editors go through them and put them on a list for those who want to create them, they will spend less time looking to see it the topic is notable (as a preliminary, but not final check has been completed). We could then involve all of the other projects such as WikiProject Cannabis who have requested articles on their topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if you don't make it easy for people to participate, they won't participate at all. That's what keeps AfC going as there are a few of us who help weed out the crap so that others have an easier time of reviewing and approving/declining submissions. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Article revision[edit]

Hi CNMall41,

You recently left a comment on an article I am working on and I have since done corrections to this page Chiori Daniel Cole but no changes has been revised since then. I have gone ahead to publish this page as an article on wikipedia.

Please can you help me check these reviews and see changes that I can make to make this article a wiki approved one

(Theundagroundng (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, waiting to hear from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theundagroundng (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I still disagree with the article being acceptable for Wikipedia so I created a deletion discussion for the community as a whole to make that decision. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

CNMall41, Draft:Lightricks has undergone a lot of work since you first rejected it and has even been updated by a senior editor. Would you mind taking another look? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hey, I put all the edits I was planning on making in context for Assemblyman Chad Mayes under the State Legislature section. Please let me know if there are other issues I missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknobel (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Boris Johnson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review Qualifacts Draft[edit]

Hey, I submitted a revised version of the Qualifacts listing about a month back and am wondering if you could give it another review. I believe it fits the criteria that was advised by you and the other reviewer.

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qualifacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahpedia13 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of businesspeople[edit]

(Asking here because I'm interested more in the principles rather than the specific instance. I don't want to be misunderstanding WP precedent.) I was wondering if you could explain to me about the notability ~~guidelines~~ precedents for businesspeople. Is a bias towards wealthier people with effective self-promotion skills appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Is it enough that a person has a few non-critical (and I hate to use the word but it's true) puff-pieces written about them? Or is starting a successful business inherently notable?

In the context of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Bell_(Australian_entrepreneur) I'm seeing mostly non-NPOV content sourced from non-NPOV interviews. Much of Bell's media notability comes from the fact he ran a large marketing company which he cashed in, placing him among BRW's Young Rich List of 100 people—which the corporate guidelines suggest are explicitly irrelevant markers of notability.^[1]Simon Wright (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "...inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists..." WP:CORPDEPTH

The deletion discussion is the appropriate forum for this which is where I directed my response. However, editor conduct is NOT for that forum so I will bring up a few things here. Regarding questions about the specific guidelines asked on my talk page, I would suggest understanding these WP:BEFORE making a deletion nomination. While everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, doing so without understanding could be considered disruptive. For the specific item you quoted (BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME), this is not a guideline. The correct guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. You are always welcome to withdraw the nomination and bring it back to AfD if you feel it still doesn't meet guidelines after understanding these. It was also brought up by another user (which should not have been as AfD is not about editor conduct) about being an WP:SPA which is fine as we always welcome users here regardless of experience. But, looking at some of your work it appears that you have more of a WP:COI regarding some of your edits. With that in mind, do you have a connection with Nick Bell in any way?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even heard of Nick Bell before this week. The article came up in a mostly unrelated Google search and it immediately struck me as self-evidently out of place though the latest edits do tone down the hyperventilating. Regarding BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME I'm sorry that I misspoke when I said guideline—though I'm surprised you're taking to a mere semantic argument to school me on Wikipedia policies. I haven't spent a lot of time on Wikipedia over the past ten years but I'm rusty, not a newbie. I have contributed extensively prior to 2008 albeit under a pseudonym. (Which I don't want associated with my real name for reasons wholly unrelated to Wikipedia.) Prior to submitting the AfD I analysed the then-current backlog of businesspeople AfD submissions to make sure I wasn't totally off-base. I must say I saw numerous examples that seemed to be very close parallels of this one. I'm curious—what is your opinion about the notability (not the article quality) of Ric Clark and Sanjiv Puri? Simon Wright (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using examples is not a good idea in Wikipedia. Each page is different and should be reviewed individually. No one is "schooling" you in that context. You came here to ask for clarification and I opined. While you deny a connection to the topic, there are obvious connections you appear to have to others and would welcome you to review WP:COI prior to any further editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you say that. I wasn't planning to come back here but while chatting about this experience someone on my team mentioned that our logo appears on one of Bell's company's pages, though we've never had any contact or interaction with that company. Also in 2013 our lawyer received one piece of ultimately pointless correspondence from a lawyer representing Web Marketing Expert, the company Bell sold in 2017. Worth mentioning for the sake of full disclosure. Whatever, I'm bowing out of the AfD... But I still think it's unsettling that someone building a personal brand through lightweight interviews to score free media mentions for his companies equates to encyclopaedic notability. It's a crazy world we live in. Simon Wright (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with respect, when you claim that my statements are "conflicting" when on one hand I say "there is no dispute that the sources are valid" and on the other I'm saying "predominantly uncritical media sourced from direct interviews" I vehemently disagree. These statements are decidedly not in conflict. The validity of sources as evidence for claims made in the article is entirely separate to the validity of sources as contributing to notability. It's been a long while since I've been an active Wikipedia editor but I would have expected any active editor to understand that distinction. Simon Wright (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do understand the distinction. The initial statement about the references was in your nomination. Your nomination should be about NOTABILITY, not supporting references. While I have no issues discussing things, it seems like you are now here just to argue. I don't do drama so you are welcome to leave the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that my directness has been interpreted as argument and drama, I am sincerely only interested in understanding your perspective. If you read the nomination again, you can see it was entirely to do with notability and the ability to support notability. It surprises me that Wikipedia has seemingly lost any concern for WP:UPE with respect to SEO professionals and the strategies around negative SEO. Again, apologies for the perceived drama; signing off. Simon Wright (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Direct and confrontational often go together. Anyways, you now make an accusation of UPE. Can you tell me which accounts were involved and the evidence associated with each so I can make a report to WP:COIN? Also interested if you are saying the person who approved this through AfC is a paid editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I have a smoking gun, it's not like I have access to NSA tracking technology or know the personal lives of the IPs and SPAs that built that page up from nothing. But I've had my astroturfing spidey-sense forcefully tuned from nineteen years of running Whirlpool. We know that SPA Wikiuser235 wrote 90% of the biography for an Australian person who ran a web marketing company and now a reputation management company that outsources to employees in India. I suppose it could be entirely coincidental that his reputation is then managed from an Indian IP and then a suspiciously eager weeks-old India-focused account that cites Wikiuser235's following of Wikipedia process as evidence of notability; when it's pointed out that Wikiuser235 is an SPA, he attacks the nominator with a red herring of whataboutery. Maybe it's all coincidence. Maybe Bell's willingness to manipulate Wikipedia content for his self-interest was a short-lived flaw in his personal ethic. But in my estimation no unaffiliated observer would be so quick to go personal at someone questioning the notability of a marginally interesting businessman from a faraway country. Simon Wright (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, accusations without evidence. What evidence do you have that Bell "manipulate[ed] Wikipedia content for his self-interest?" It seems like there is something more to this story than you are willing to elaborate on. We WP:AGF here in Wikipedia and unless there is something other than your "astroturfing spidey-sense" we treat the article as such. I don't see anything promotional about the page nor do I see a lack of notability. At this point, you are beating a dead horse trying to get a page deleted that is otherwise notable. If there are COI concerns, they need to be addressed at COIN, not AfD. Any additional pleading (call it my "spidey-sense) needs to be addressed at the deletion discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you're not interested in anything other than winning the argument. Signing off for realsies this time. Simon Wright (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with anything I do or say, WP:ANI is linked here for you. Other than that, you already admitted your personal connection and now admitted your connection with at least one other of Wikipedia where you are editing. So, prior to casting aspersions, make sure you know what you are getting into. I don't put up with drama so you can now stay off my page. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rolling Stone Magazine Cover September 2019.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rolling Stone Magazine Cover September 2019.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SOMOS Group Draft[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

Was wondering if you could take a moment to re-review this submission of mine.  I think I fixed it, but also, was wondering if you could give me some advice.  I would like to move the Content box down and the "SOMOS Group" Section around the infobox.  Anything would help, total novice here.

Thanks for your time

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

I see that you removed the prior decline notice which needs to remain on the draft. I will add it back for you. When you are ready for a review, you can resubmit the draft and either myself or another reviewer will take a look. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

Backlog

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.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, 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.

Deletion tags

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.

Paid editing

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

DannyS712 bot III 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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Wittington Investments[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wittington Investments. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Boul has been accepted[edit]

Jack Boul, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mine, but okay. Likely a script issue with AfC. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Willsome429. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tyler Bass, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willsome429, I actually marked it for deletion so not sure why it was marked as reviewed. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird all around I guess. Sorry for the confusion! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Not sure what happened. Either my fat fingers or a mistake from the script. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bank FInancial logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bank FInancial 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even remember when I did this or what it was for. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isomag Corportation Deletion[edit]

Good morning, or evening. I received a message that you wanted to move the page I made to be deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomag_Corporation

I am a student, trying to get this page made, and I am having trouble doing so. I am happy to make changes that follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, and I am going to continue expanding upon the page in the future. I was trying to get a little done each time I submit. I'm sorry if this is the wrong area to address this issue. I am finding Wikipedia difficult to navigate. If you could point me in the right direction to either the proper discussion or what was wrong with the article, I will be happy to fix the issue.

Best, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeu1130 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeu1130 - Students normally have a notice on their user page about the class they are in so that it in. They also receive direction from the class about "mak[ing] changes that follow the guidelines of Wikipedia." Strange I guess. Anyways, I recommended for deletion as I don't feel the topic is notable. If a topic isn't notable, no amount of editing is going to make it notable. You can start with the guidelines at WP:FIRST and then also opine in the deletion discussion if you feel it should not be deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly! I will work on adding my information to my page. As I noted before I am new to Wikipedia (in terms of contributions) and I find it difficult to find where to go. I looked over the WP:First page, and it definitely appears I need to add more sourcing, my approach of starting small may have been the wrong approach. We're trying identify green technologies, and this is one of the three I am to write about over the semester. Thank you again for your guidance. Mikeu1130 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SOMOS Group Updates[edit]

Hi CNMall41 - I have made significant changes to the SOMOS Group wiki draft. I added more information about their products which are quite well known within the Latino market in the US, along with about 20 new sources. I hope this lends more credibility to the company (interestingly, a couple of the smaller companies under the SOMOS Group umbrella already have Wikipedia pages). Hoping to get my first page approved and published! Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldiff23 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, page needs to be submitted which it now is. Someone will review it in time. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Stamets[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Stamets. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Honda Ridgeline[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Honda Ridgeline. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help - Michael Ernest Kassner[edit]

You approved an article I wrote about Michael Ernest Kassner. I misspelled the middle name as Ernst. How do I fix the name of the article? I corrected the spelling in the text but don't know how to do the title. --Someni (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I think it is done now but can you check?--Someni (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Walmart Canada Bank[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walmart Canada Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:21 Savage[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:21 Savage. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Hello CNMall41,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 814 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.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 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.

This month's refresher course

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Community Wish list

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)[reply]

Please Review Qualifacts Draft[edit]

Help! It's been almost 3 months and my article has not been re-reviewed. I've published a refined article for Qualifacts, based on wiki feedback and am awaiting disapproval/approval. Please take a minute to review it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qualifacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahpedia13 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lana Del Rey[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lana Del Rey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Erica C. Barnett[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erica C. Barnett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Stein - Wikipedia page, 1st, 2nd and 3rd edits 2019[edit]

Dear CNNMall41,

Thank you for your kind feedback on my first Wikipedia entry, the Wilfred Stein biography, and my apologies for not adhering to Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.

To the best of my knowledge, I have now added the missing citations. Can you please check, if the entry aceptable for publication now?

Kind regards, Thomas

Thomas Litman ( Tlitman (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

Hi, Tlitman. As I was the editor who made the original decline, I think best to leave it to another editor for a review. I see that it has been resubmitted and will be reviewed in turn. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, review a company[edit]

Could you take a look at this article HYPR Corp? It's a stub, I recently took up the task to start editing/updating it as PAID editor. I am doing this in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID, I know that you are more familiar with these type of articles from your participation in the companies wikiproject, do you think its okay to remove the UPE tag? its been there for two years. Kriptocurrency (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kriptocurrency, it looks like you have spoken with Spintendo on the talk page about various edits. To answer your specific question, you should not remove the tag at any time. The tag is there to let readers know that someone with a close connection to the subject has a COI or been paid to edit the article, likely leading to NPOV and promotional issues. So, address anything that may be against NPOV or promotion by requesting the changes on the talk page. Once you feel you have it down, you can request for the tag to be removed on the talk page. It anyone would like a second opinion on the page being NPOV once you have made your request, I will gladly opine, but generally you can work directly with Spintendo who is more than fair when dealing with COI requests. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck to you too Kriptocurrency (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wei Biao Wu[edit]

Thanks for taking a look at Draft:Wei Biao Wu. I felt like your comment deserved response. If you're coming from a typical university's IP address, then the MathSciNet link contains reviews of most/all of his publications (as it does for most math papers published). But I think the kind of profile you're talking about tends (for academics) to get written upon someone's retirement, or at a 65th birthday conference, or similar. I estimate Wu to be in his mid-40s, based on date of PhD. And Wu unfortunately seems to be especially non-self-promotional — I wish he'd at least put up a GS profile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, after thinking about it some more, I did find a graduate textbook that has an extended remark on Wu's Proc Natl Acad Sci paper. And I reached out to some statistics colleagues to see if they know of any other sources, particularly on that paper. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Falcon fixes[edit]

Dear CNMall41,

Recently I have made some updates at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CityFalcon to make it compliant with Wikipedia rules. Please review the updated article when you have some time and let me know you decision Gevlar (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I took a quick look and unfortunately I still don't see the references that show how the topic is notable so I would likely decline the submission again. What I will do is leave it for another reviewer so that you can have a second opinion and maybe someone will approve it as written. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam National Second Division 2019[edit]

Hey buddy. You have rejected this draft a number of times. I've only just come across it - so i added references to the official federation showing results etc. What else is need to have this page published? Thanks John arneVN (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to respond when someone opens a statement calling me "buddy" without knowing me. However, I will address that I have not "rejected this draft a number of times." I declined the submission once because instead of addressing the comments left by the original reviewer, you simply resubmitted the draft. I also see that you left a note on the talk page of the project so I will let someone else handle your request. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy - You aren't sure how to reply to someone being friendly to you and calling you 'buddy'? Perhaps I should add that where I come from 'buddy' is definitely a term of endearment - I was being nice and polite. If I did resubmit without editing - I apologise, I thought I had added a source for 4 pieces of info (all to one reference page) - which now appear, so perhaps I added after I resubmitted - not sure. Anyway, apologies for trying to sort this out. I'll leave this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John arneVN (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Arnett[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Arnett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:05:18, 27 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by KarenAplin[edit]

KarenAplin (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Alec Bennett (engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for looking at the page I am writing on Alec Bennett (engineer).

I believe he *does* meet the WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines since he has won a prize from the Royal Meteorological Society: this meets guideline 2: "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national ... level." I have cited an independent source for this award. Could you please reconsider your rejection? Many thanks

KarenAplin (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, KarenAplin. How is the award from the RMS a "highly prestigious academic award?" I can find few sources that talk about it. Maybe teh Symons Gold Medal awarded by the same institution could be considered such but I don't see hos the FitzRoy Prize is one. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to CNMall41, the Fitzroy Prize is listed by the Royal Meteorological Society - the principal national society, established in 1850 for all working in meteorology - as one of their prestigious prizes and awards for distinguished work, in the same section as the Symons and Mason medals (which are awarded in alternate years):

https://www.rmets.org/nominations-2019

KarenAplin (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what references say what you said above? That is your interpretation, not what sources say. You can argue the point on the draft page but it will need to be reviewed by someone else I am not inclined to approve it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Grand Canyon University[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Canyon University. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Harvey article[edit]

You approved an article for Alex Harvey. It says he’s an actor but his main profession is director. Can this be changed? --Wasabibibi (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabibibi, if you are referring to Alex Harvey (actor), I believe you are correct. I don't actually see any acting credits whatsoever. I will make the page move. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Supriyarednam/sandbox[edit]

Hello, CNMall41. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} 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! CptViraj (📧) 09:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. 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.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG 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.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

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

Redirect autopatrol

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 DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

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.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia: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 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Zweig Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the copyright issues on my new piece on Jason Zweig. I have gone through it thoroughly, added new information and removed anything that could be considered copyvio. When you get a chance, could you look the page over again, I believe that it now meets Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems, I am happy to improve the piece. Hedgefunding (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

As to draft:Pinnacle Group, it in fact has robust references to that $2 billion company that show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Read the many articles devoted to the company, that are cited. You however said that was not the case. Perhaps user:DGG can give his view. --2604:2000:E010:1100:DD91:39EC:A04:3AE8 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Robust" references are not the requirement of WP:ORGCRIT. Each reference I reviewed somehow fails at least one of the prongs listed in that guideline. As far as @DGG: is concerned, I always welcome their opinion, but it is strange how you would cite a user who doesn't appear to have any edits to that article. While still WP:AGF, I am wondering if you have any other accounts you have edited from other than the IP address you are using. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave my view, at the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:DGG. CNMal1141 - my computer on its own (not at my doing) changes IP address periodically, you must have seen this in other accounts, and since I start a lot of corporation articles I often see user:DGG commenting so I thought his would be a good insight to also have. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3D5C:22C7:F8BA:262C (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] lorealwomenindigital.com

[2] inc.com

[3] "...inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists..." WP:CORPDEPTH

[1]

[2]

[1]