Jump to content

User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Speedy deletion nomination of Florian Mehnert

Hello Domdeparis, the art projects of Florian Mehnert I wrote about were non profit. He is one of the very few artists in Germany who is doing political works and he is well known, not only in Germany also in Great Britain, Austria, Switzerland... His forest protocols (against mass surveillance) and also his project 11 DAYS (an art project against remote controlled armed drones) were non profit and gained international response. I don´t see promotional aspects. I did not wrote about his exhibitions or other personal aspects concerning his career. I tried to write just about selected projects he did. I I think they are relevant for the contemporary arts. Please tell me more precise, where inside my text you see the promotional aspects. I would like to correct the article to eliminate potential text passages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artinterested (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Artinterested: you will need to contact the deleting administrator on their talk page User talk:Athaenara. I'm afraid i cannot do anything myself I do not have the necessary rights. Domdeparis (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anjali Tendulkar (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
All the evidence that this person is related to someone who is notable does not make this person notable. The article even confirms they are low profile. There appears to be an effort by someone(s) to build out pages on each family member.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Domdeparis, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Björn Djupström

Since this article already had an AFD, normally what we do is start a new one by adding (2nd nomination) to the end of the original AFD title. I've done that here - your nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Djupström (2nd nomination). FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ultraexactzz: I nominated it using the page curation tool which seems to have a bug in it, I was just in the middle of working out the best way to clean it up. Thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The nomination of Björn Djupström for deletion

Hi Domdeparis, Thanks for nominating Björn Djupström for deletion. I am not sure whether he meets our notability criteria but there's definitely reason to discuss it - the sourcing is, as you observed, very weak. However, the AfD you started needs to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Djupström (2nd nomination) because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Djupström already exists. Could you create a new nomination page and change the AfD link in the article to point there? --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bonadea: I nominated it using the page curation tool which seems to have a bug and doesn't create 2nd nominations correctly. I was just working out how to clean it up but another editor beat me to it! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Djupström (2nd nomination) here it is. Domdeparis (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I should have realised it was something like that. That's rather a silly bug. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it happens. Issues like this one are why we have WP:BADAFD in the first place, which is where this one popped. No worries. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Grand Illinois Trail and subsections

Hey Domdeparis! I appreciate the feedback on the articles I submitted. I'll be working on those over the next couple of weeks. Today, I wanted to get your opinion of the Prairie_Trail. I made some changes there, however I'm not convinced that it fulfills the notability guidelines. In fact, I'm not sure that any of the subtrails of the Grand_Illinois_Trail fit the notability guidelines. Do you think it would make more sense to move all of the subtrail pages to subsections of the Grand Illinois Trail page? Or would it better to leave them as separate pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwatling98 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stories of the Year (EP)

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stories of the Year (EP), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being released by a notable label indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 15:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SoWhy: I had a look at A9 criteria and then at KROD, they are an independent label that has 11 bands on their books and then I checked out at the WP:CCS to see if I missed something. it says that.

"Credible claim of significance" is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely: a) is this reasonably plausible?

b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

You say that being released by a notable label indicates significance. notable labels do not always produce notable music and KROD records page was created a week ago along with all the pages associated with it by a WP:SPA Bobibob5 user in an effort to create a WP:WALLEDGARDEN around this subject. I took a quick look at the pages and they are mostly supported by blogs and webzines. Notability is not proven for any of the pages including the record label not a single one of the sources is independent reliable source with in-depth cover so i didn't think that a record label that has had it's page on WP for just a week is really notable and likely to produce notable records. Domdeparis (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they don't. But they might. A7/A9 is only for the most egregious of unremarkable content. Releases by notable labels are oftentimes covered in reliable sources, which is an assumption that is sufficient to pass the low standard of A9. Whether Krod Records is notable remains to be seen, although a quick "Krod+Records" GNews search indicates at least some coverage exists. As with speedy deletion in general, erring on the side of caution seems to be the best course of action here. If the label is indeed deemed non-notable at AFD, I'm happy to reconsider the speedy. Regards SoWhy 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Adamescu

What do you think, is it worth going for a second AfD? Sure, it's been cleaned up considerably, but half the sources still deal with his father, and the other half are largely activist press releases and editorials. - Biruitorul Talk 04:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Biruitoru: thanks for the message. I have just left a comment supporting the merge of this page into the one about his father.Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Cynthia_Khalifeh Page Deletion

Hello! Concerning the page that was up for deletion, I did my best to include all references in regards to Cynthia's career, awards and biography, as she is a rising star in Lebanon and the Middle East in general. I am suspecting that the reason behind the deletion is one of both: the note I got that someone tried to create the page before with no success, and the fact that I inserted the references as links in the whole article instead of citing them throughout the article and displaying them at the end as "references". If you could provide me with the material of the page in order to fix this issue, I would be very grateful, as I spent a lot of time finding the sources and linking back to them to make sure that all content is accurate. Thank you,Lennyhajj (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lennyhajj: you'll need to directly contact the administrator User:RickinBaltimore who deleted the page to see if he is willing to undelete and userfy the article. In the future if you wish to recreate a page on a subject that has already been deleted via a deletion discussion I suggest that you go through WP:AFC process as it will have problems getting through new pages review. Domdeparis (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lennyhajj, I'd be happy to do so for you. As Domdeparis said please, when you are done with creating this draft, submit it through the articles for creation process to ensure that it would pass G4, that is the recreation of a deleted page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 UEC European Track Championships (under-23 & junior)

I don't understand where is the problem, look please at events in 2016(2016 UEC Track European and under-23 and look same Notice me what I can change?

Hi @Maricel97: I left a message on you page explaining what the problems were; the page needs some serious cleaning up, the table is a mess the columns are all out of line and you do not respect the MOS:BOLD. Make a comparison with the 2016 version and you will see what I mean. Open the page you created and then click on the link to the 2016 edition and you should see what I mean. Domdeparis (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Domdeparis: I think it's good now. Some columns must be span because it's no time and if you look at higher comeptitions like 2016 UEC European Track Championships you see that.

Hi @Maricel97: the advantage of not using span is that the names stay in the same column and also you are keeping continuity with the previous years of this particular competition. They are more lisible than 2017. The WP:CONSENSUS for the last 10 years is not to use span. I would really suggest keeping the same format as the previous years as you are going against consensus. Domdeparis (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Domdeparis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may alsoo want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Being very picky, but...

ZedBlack's edits are not vandalism. I noted that you used Twinkle to add that warning; it's not like it's difficult to add the correct warning template. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @My name is not dave: I tired to add a level 3 warning for removing speedy delete tag and it came up with a vandal warning. I found that odd too. Domdeparis (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Strange indeed, worked when I just did it. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I tried again and this time it came up with a level 1 warning, it may be my computer playing up, I managed a level 3 warning too, 3rd time lucky. Domdeparis (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Mode III

Hey there. I put a note on top of the Mousterian page. There seems to be very little written on Mode III on the Fracture dynamics page, but feel free to make a disambiguation page if you like. I believe, however, that a reader of archaeology unacquainted with the terms "Oldowan", "Acheulean", and "Mousterian" might find it useful to use the Mode redirects to jump quickly from one article to the other. Unlike with fracture dynamics, in archaeology, every Mode has its own article. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nicolas Perrault III: I have created the DAB pages because even though the different Modes have their own pages they are alternative names and there are also redirects for the fracture mechanics terms that have been in place since 2006 so i really think that a DAB page is more appropriate. Domdeparis (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Monika Mularczyk

Hi, I guess the main problem is the lack of references regarding her personal life? I can link the referee profile of her husband and another article that indicates she has a son but they're both in Polish. It's literally impossible to find info about her in English outside of the official FIFA profile. Women's football and referees involved aren't as high profile as the men for the Polish female referee to feature around the web (duh).

As for her being the first Polish female referee selected for international senior event, well, one can check all the previous editions of European Champs and World Cups to find out there wasn't any Polish official selected before her. --Bullflower (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bullflower: being the first woman referee does not make her automatically notable but that points to the fact that there may be articles out there about her which will help prove her notability. She is a FIFA referee so the FIFA page on her is an affiliated source and is not sufficient. You need to find independent in-depth coverage in any language from reliable sources, see WP:RS for more info. Stories about her husband will not help it, notability is not inherited. Personal details is not what is important, the claim to notability is as a referee so the articles should really cover that in detail or failing that any aspect of her life. Domdeparis (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Mark T. Johnston notability

One assumes you have good knowledge of Thoroughbred racing to post such a notice and I thank you for your concern that a high level of quality be maintained at Wikipedia. Two important barometers to measure achievement in Thoroughbred racing in the U.S. is an Eclipse Award as a U.S. Champion, which by itself merits a Wikipedia article for the beneficiary, and reaching 3000 or more career wins. I made a mistake in thinking everyone interested in reading a Thoroughbred racing article knew certain benchmarks and have added another reference relative to the career wins where the Blood-Horse magazine (the Bible of American Racing) does a story for those reaching such a milestone. To give a bit of relevance, Mark Johnston won 3085 races in his 15 year career compared to Olivier Peslier who won only some 2500 races in 21 years. Plus, the great Yves Saint-Martin rode for 28 years and retired having won 3314 races worldwide of which 3275 were in France (where for nearly a decade I have lived several months out of each year.) Awards/honors are far more important/publicized in the U.S. than France. Thank you. Look forward to working with you on Thoroughbred racing related articles. Patrick J. L. Martin (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Patrick J. L. Martin: I am not an expert in racing but I am a new pages reviewer and regardless of the potential notability of a subject all articles have to provide sufficient sources to prove notability as per WP:GNG. I agree that the tag was not necessarily the best one, I may have clicked too quickly as we are trying to clear a mammouth backlog of 16k unreviewed pages. I have changed the tag. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Domdeparis! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice!

Dear Domdeparis,

Thank you for your comments and explanations on the page I created. The organization depth makes totally sense. This is why we included the listing at the WFEO. To the point, we are a network and will hopefully soon become a registered nonprofit organization. Do you have advice for other references a network like we could give? Most organizations that report about us, are also affiliated. WFEO however, is not directly affiliated and FEANI is not a member in our organization, neither EYE is a member of FEANI. I appreciate your advice!

Kind regards Frederik 10:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FrederikSchSp:. Wikipedia articles are not meant as a WP:SOAPBOX for organisations. All organisations have to meet general notability guidelines and yours does not. You must as a conflict of interest editor declare your conflict of interest. If you cannot find any independent in-depth coverage. FEANI clearly mentions EYE in their membership list page so the source is affiliated. The WFEAO page is a directory of an engineering association. As it stands none of the sources are sufficient to prove notability as per Wikipedia definition. Do you have any other sources that talk about the association that are not linked in one way or another that would be considered as being in-depth ? Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Deomdeparis:. I agree with you. People were asking for information about EYE and why there is no Wikipedia page. What would be the best way to solve this? The people should create the page by themselves? I think it would be the best to setup a page as a start and then actively ask people that are not directly affiliated to edit the page.
EYE is no member of FEANI, but there is a Memorandum of Cooperation. WFEO is not associated with EYE, we are just listed in their directory of notable engineering associations.
I added another source (conference report) from a person who is not member of EYE and also not directly affiliated with EYE.
Thanks again for your advice!
FrederikSchSp (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi @FrederikSchSp: as editors we should not be creating pages about subjects that are not notable as per the criteria in WP:GNG. There is every chance that this organisation is notable as it exists since 1994. You should really be able to find independent sources that talk about it. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You were right, found two papers that are mentioning EYE already before I joined the organization. I am sure there will be coming more indepent sources soon. :-) Thanks again! FrederikSchSp (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus

Dear Domdeparis, sorry to disturb you, but I rarely visit WP:EN. Nevertheless I have noticed that you have tried to correct contributions of Carolus on notably Belgian nobility. When I was still active on WP:NL, I had many contacts with him over many years and followed a big part of his contributions: most of them proved to be false and unreliable, since he doesn't dispose of the right and recent sources but relies on internet and mainly outdated ones. I consider him as an extremely unreliable contributor, and I am afraid he has now found WP:EN (being blocked on WP:NL) to add lots of rubbish on his favorite subject he hardly knows anything about, and on which he is able to write simple basic nonsense. Best, Paul Brussel (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

hi User:Paul Brussel it's not easy to communicate with him. He seems to be a little bit obsessed with Belgian nobility and is convinced that he is the only one who is able to understand the articles he edits. He has come up against a couple of administrators and is being closely watched so unless he is careful he will end up getting blocked here too. I would suggest that when you revert or modify his edits you make it very clear why you are doing so on the talk page to avoid being accused of wikihounding. But he's such an aggressive editor he will end up shooting himself in the foot I think. Domdeparis (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Domdeparis! I will try to follow it but I doubt whether I will check all his additions here. I indeed know that communicating with him is very difficult and that he suffers of this obsession with Belgian nobility, reason why I have never understood why he never consults the most recent and most reliable sources on the subject. Notable experts on the matter are User:apn and User:Andries Van den Abeele who both had many troubles with his contributions. Paul Brussel (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, like this is easy: deleting important correct sources and then say the other is wrong, and you are right. haha.--Carolus (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; I have removed not notable members or persons that are not members of the family at all as well as several complete errors. I suppose you have used all the following important sources for this family (as I did):
  1. Several tômes of the Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique (1850-1950);
  2. Paul Janssens, Luc Duerloo, Armorial de la noblesse belge (1992), p. 673-675;
  3. Etat présent de la noblesse belge (1999), p. 372-387;
  4. Jean-François Houtart, Anciennes familles de Belgique (2008), p. 101;
  5. Etat présent de la noblesse belge (2013), p. 291-307.
Paul Brussel (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, i did, I did read in the Etat présent, for the current family, so what is the problem?--Carolus (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you did, then you did very badly since you inserted many errors, and, as said before, like on WP:NL, false information. And that is the problem. Paul Brussel (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you give a real example, instead of accusations? What did i do wrong?--Carolus (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
My sources I have put back in my library, and I am not going to check everything again, although this is always necessary in your case but costs far too much time;
  1. You have again used, as usual, old and outdated sources for additions that are evidently wrong;
  2. You have added many, many persons who do not belong and don't have the name of d'Udekem;
  3. You made the whole family counts, although you should have known that this applies only to the closest relatives of Mathilde;
  4. You indicate a mariage of Henry, although you should have known that this is only a religious, no official marriage;
  5. You make relatives baroness although you should have known that she is of untitled nobility;
These are only a few of the things that make your contributions totally unreliable and/or false. Paul Brussel (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

again, give a serious example?Name?--Carolus (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Like old times: I give examples but you don't accept them. I would advice you: go back to reliable sources and check again very carefully what you did wrong in this article. For now I am finished with this and you. Paul Brussel (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as i know is Henri d'Udekem still bachelor, so i do not understand your point. And i folow your advice, however the sources you name are not the only ones; there is no limited list of sources i need to folow, and of course you are free to help and correct other people. --Carolus (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Désolé, Domdeparis, de vous avoir ennuyé avec tous mes messages. Je m'arrête ici: ce Carolus me prend trop de temps peu agréable et sans résultats. Bien à vous, Paul Brussel (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

knolledge

You just have proven you know nothing about the Belgian hierarchy. Second? Very sad indeed if you cannot name the actual ranking of the Belgian nobility.--Carolus (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You just proved, Carolus, that you don't know what is to be considered high and not high nobility. In general, high nobility are those families listed in the first and second part of the Almanach de Gotha, later on: Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, now: Gothaishes genealogisches Handbuch. In those you can learn that very few Belgian families are to be considered of high nobility. Ruffo di Calabria, of which queen Paola of Belgium is a member, for example is not of high nobility. On the other hand, Arenberg, De Croÿ, De Ligne and De Lobkowicz are. Even the very recent princes, but old family of De Merode are not belonging to the high nobility families. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Carolus: you are right I forgot that there are 2 other ranks even lower than a baron but that said a viscount is most definitely not high nobility unless in Belgium there is a clear definition. @Paul Brussel: seems to be rather more knowledgeable (with a "w"and just 1 "l") than both of us so maybe we should let him explain it. Domdeparis (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
About high nobility, the article on the Almanach de Gotha and successors are quite clear and I have little to add to what I said before. I think indeed I have some knowledge about nobility, notably Dutch, Belgian and French, but I am afraid Carolus won't accept that: as said before, he has proven to be in these matters, although obsessed by the topic, not very reliable, to say the least. (As said also before, I have followed this person on WP:NL and WP:FR for many, many years, and without great pleasure.) Paul Brussel (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

House of

Hi Domdeparis,

I see you have a similar concern with this "House of" naming format for non-royal or non-sovereign houses. It really is out of control, I agree with you. If you need any help, please let me know in fixing this issue. Gryffindor (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Gryffindor: I do have an issue with it. I got into quite a long discussion here after some of my page moves were reverted by User:PBS I really thought it would be uncontroversial as House of is a neologism for Noble families that were not royal dynasties.
The discussion got no where so I dropped the subject. I don't know if there is any way of getting a consensus on this. Since Game of Thrones everyone seems to think that House and Family are synonyms! The Library of congress manual of style that User:Peaceray quotes seems to back up the use of "House of" for royal dynasties and what I noticed is that the Medicis had the title of Royal Highness. I personally would be for all noble families that were not royal dynasties losing the House of unless there is a sufficient number of sources pointing to this as its common name. That said common name should not take precedence over the correct name. Have a look here about Diana, Princess of Wales. There are over 23M Ghits for Princess Diana and only 674k for the article's title. I think that consistency is more important than common name for a single article. Domdeparis (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. I have not seen one convincing argument as to why non-royal non-sovereign families should be called "House of", where it this supposed to go? Gryffindor (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
ps: I have posted my views on this talk page Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of, hopefully some sense will come in and this ridiculous format will go away. Gryffindor (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Kay Lee Ray

Why was my Kay Lee Ray article deleted? It got deleted before I even saw the request for deletion. She has notability as a wrestler. I used reliable sources and I was still trying to add to the article. I can see it being deleted if I didn't used credible sources or if she wasn't notable. She's going to be in a tournament of notability soon. I don't understand. Thanks HC7 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@HC7: it was speedily deleted because it had already been through a deletion discussion and the article that you created showed no more notability than the previous article. You also deleted on the talk page the notification about the previous deletion discussion. This is not a wise thing to do because you it looks like you are trying to hide the fact that it had already been deleted. this is the second article (along with suicide boys) that you have recreated on a subject that has been deemed as not notable via a deletion discussion. If you wish to recreate an article on a subject that has already gone through the deletion process it would be better to submit it as a draft as an article for creation WP:AFC or it will be deleted systematically and your recreating it may be seen as disruptive and may lead to a block for you. And I would avoid calling it "your article" as you do not WP:OWN the articles you create. Domdeparis (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Beamery

Hello Domdeparis, with regards to your comment about the references at Beamery, lots of those are reliable sources that has been used to reference other pages like Avature. I am really not sure what more i need to provide as good references. Thanks a looking forward to hear back from you. /AhmadAssaf/ (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help Kostoulas

Dear sirs, I am not trying to do vandalisms to wikipedia article but my colleagues and I are trying not the page Kostoulas be deleted. I would appreciate if you could correct the errors and make that page a correct wikipedia article. Yours sincerely, W220greeCE team — Preceding unsigned comment added by W220greece (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @W220greece: the article has already been deleted twice as not meeting the notability criteria, you were advised to create it as a draft so that others could advise you. You did not do this you moved it directly to the main article space. You have not added any sources that prove it meets WP:NORG in my opinion. If you disagree then please lay out your arguments on the deletion discussion page or add on the necessary sources and signal your modifications on the deletion discussion page. Please do not remove any deletion templates on the article page or blank the discussion as you did with the IP address, from what I can gather you are an employee of the company so you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and it would be better not to edit this page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Domdeparis: The Greek article on Kostoulas has been deleted 5 times so far! User W220greece and several IPs were promoting Kostoulas in Greek WP, even by using tricks like this: adding a wiki-link to the then Kostoulas Greek article, by taking advantage that the name of Greek footballer happens to be Kostoulas!). →34kor34 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Domdeparis. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 14:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Domdeparis,

Your account has been added to the group of Articles for Creation reviewers which gives you access to the Helper Script. Reviewing of submitted drafts is a function for helping new users to understand how to comply with article guidelines and/or notability and approving or declining new articles. Please be sure to read the tutorial at Reviewing instructions again, and if you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at AfC reviewer talk.

  • Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong, even if they used the Wizard.
  • You will be asked by users to explain why their page is being rejected - be formal and polite in your approach to them, even if they are not.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good reviewing. Take your time to review an article.

The AfC tool does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this tool, you may ask any administrator to remove your account from the list at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

09:40:24, 4 September 2017 review of submission by BGerasimov


Hi and thank you for your feedback and your help with improving this article. I don't have the time to read a lot of the Wikipedia guidelines, so I just followed the structure of a similar page - the journal Feminist Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Review). This Wiki page has less information than the one I created and similarly, mostly references its webpage, and not external sources. I'll appreciate it if you can advise what kind of information I should add that references newspapers or journals that you mention. The page basically presents facts (which can be verified on the journal's website) and not claims that should be supported by external references. Thank you.

@BGerasimov: all article have to meet WP:GNG and this one is about a journal and should meet the criteria WP:NJOURNAL. The different criteria are listed here WP:JOURNALCRIT. I suggest that you have a good look at them and try and find the sources that prove it meets at least one of them. If the other page is in a similar state then it will need more sources. I will have a look and add a tag if necessary. Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Ok. i want to have more time to rewrite the article. KoreanDragon (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@KoreanDragon: you can start when you like by using your sandbox or a draft but the copyright violation material has to be deleted. Domdeparis (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

got it. i am also trying to use my own wordsKoreanDragon (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote it in my sandbox and removed that material. Do you think it is original the text? KoreanDragon (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Lannoy -Prince of Sulmona

have you any idea why someone named Philip de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona? The source i found, he should be the 2nd Prince of Sulmona...very condusing. By writing this branch i noticed the irregularity. Thanks,--Carolus (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unreviewing action: User:ChenqiMou/sandbox

There seems to be some confusion, in part because we have the word "review" used in two different senses.

In the case of this draft, I both reviewed the page in the AfC sense, declining it because it failed to establish notability through a suitable reference AND I reviewed the page with the NPP page curation tool.

The standard for reviewing a page in the NPP sense is very different. It just means that I've checked the page for meeting certain minimum content standards and either tagged it appropriately or released it as "reviewed". I see nothing about the draft that would make it ineligible for this NPP standard of "reviewed".

So what are you doing? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I may be wrong but a sandbox article should not be reviewed with the NPP tool as it is not listed in the new pages. If you leave as reviewed once it finally arrives in the main space it will bypass the the NPP and will be referenced directly in Google. Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I definitely think you are wrong about one thing. The NPP feed has a selector which allows one to select userspace. If the NPP tool appears for a page, it's almost always a sign that the tool can be used.
On your other point, I'm not sure. I've been asking at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers about userspace NPP review standards and got a range of advice. I'm afraid I may have tested Kudpung's patience. But this issue you raise about potentially bypassing NPP when a sandbox moves to mainspace is a good one. As far as I can see, when an AfC reviewer moves a page from Draft: to mainspace, it is not subject to NPP review even though the log does not show that it is either reviewed or patrolled. I'm looking for a case where a user moves their draft from a sandbox to mainspace to see if it's any different. As a result of doing userspace patrolling, I have a few sandboxes on my watchlist now and I may be able to see this when it happens. We can keep this thread open for a while, I hope, to see if we can get a better resolution. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is now resolved. NPP userspace has purposes besides controlling NOINDEX. I regularly find accounts that need UAA reporting or userspace pages that raise copyvio concerns or are otherwise in need of reporting, tagging, or responding. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:11, 7 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RJamenadan


Hi Domdeparis! Thank you for reviewing my article on Atef Eltoukhy. I just need a detailed and simple explanation of why you rejected my article.

You said that, "the vast majority of the sources are simple listings of the subject publications or patent applications. these are not sufficent to show notability. WP:GNG requires the sources to be in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. these are not"

You also said, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

What do you mean by "significant coverage", you mean longer more detailed articles? What if they are papers published or things invented by the subject?

What does that mean? Do you mean that each paper published or patent invented has to have an in depth explanation of what they are about?


RJamenadan (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit

This was unhelpful. The solution is to fix the issue, not hiding it by removing information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. The templates generated errors messages so I saw no reason to leave them and I didn't have the time to fix them. Glad you had the time to do it though. Thanks. Domdeparis (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not giving enough of a crap to fix issues isn't a reason to remove the infobox. The error messages are there for a reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Not a case of not giving a crap as you say but more a case of having priorities. As you may not have noticed I looked for sources added them and I improved the article but of course that you don't say anything about all you're interested in is calling me out on my talk page. I would suggest that you might try to be a little less bitey and maybe explain what the problem was and how I could have been more helpful. I spend a lot of my time reviewing and improving articles and I make errors as everyone does but this is the first time someone has accused me of not giving a crap. Thanks for your encouragement! With an attitude like yours you will end up discouraging hard working editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia. There are nearly 2000 articles created waiting for review and God knows how many new pages that we are trying to trawl through so that Wikipedia doesn't become a repository for useless and purely promotional material. So rather than calling out the volunteers like some kind of hysterical primary school teacher try being a little more understanding. Domdeparis (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I have just looked at my edit and understood my error I look at it way too quickly and thought this was a user adder content that was generating an error message rather than a maintenance template drawing attention to an error in the infobox. My bad and I apologise for that it is a good lesson for me to take more time before removing content. I presume that your bitey attitude was because you thought that I had realised what I'd done and was literally being unhelpful. If that is the case I understand a bit better but even so maybe assuming good faith would have been nicer and explaining where my error was rather than just calling me out would have sufficed. Anyway I understand why that annoyed you now which I didn't get at first. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Everyone screws up now and then, don't sweat it. Cheers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:41:30, 10 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by NataliaWozniak

Rejection of the article about 

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for reviewing my article. That was my third rejection and I still don't know what should be done to make the references good enough. I didn't get an answer from my previous reviewer and the situation is making me a bit upset. I found additional sources, I added them, there are more of the references than in other articles of comparable artists e.g. Jake Clemons and still it is not enough. Please let me know how I could improve my article, I would really like to finish this one and start to write another one.


NataliaWozniak (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Natalia Wozniak

Hi @NataliaWozniak: I'm afraid I don't know really what to say. Not every musician is notable. The sources don't show that he meets WP:NMUSICIAN and if it has been rejected 3 times maybe it just isn't meant to be. Each article is judged on its own merits and not in comparison to similar articles. The number of references is not what is important but what is in them. Please don't take it personally Domdeparis (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

William Lambe (philanthropist). Many thanks for letting me know that this article has been submitted for review. I noticed your comment about the article needing a 'lede' and for the text to be broken up. If it's not too much trouble, I would be grateful if you or someone else editing the article would mind doing this as you know what you are looking for. Thanks. Alternativecarpark (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Robertgombos. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Aurimas Majauskas, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert G. (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

William Lambe (philanthropist)

Fair enough - now I know what a 'lede' is I'll do the editing you suggested. But what has happened to all of the links in the main body of this article? It took me ages to put them in and now they've gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternativecarpark (talk • contribs) 11:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 00:16:09, 13 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by VegasGuy702


In regards to the Michael Tiranno the Tyrant aka the Tyrant Knight Page you had reviewed, I would like to separate it from the Seven Sins, Tyrant Ascending wikipedia page. How can I go about doing that, as I feel this is a character that should have their own page? I agree that there should be only one page as it is redundant to have two, but I would like for the character to be separated from the series itself, as he is the protagonist in upcoming comics, movies, and books as there is more and more info out there on him. Figuratively speaking, The Seven Sins Tyrant Ascending book is like Casino Royale in 1953 by Ian Fleming the author who created James Bond. In such the first book Fleming's protagonist was JAMES BOND - the franchise is always about the hero James Bond, not Casino Royale. The Film for Michael Tiranno is not based on the first book, but is about THE TYRANT, same goes with the comics and the book series. Michael Tiranno, the Tyrant is the branding. Which is why the character Michael Tiranno needs his own individual page. Thank you! VegasGuy702 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


VegasGuy702 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@VegasGuy702: I'm afraid that you can't by any stretch of the imagination compare this subject to James Bond. There are 55 novels, 27 feature films, featuring Bond and a whole industry around the character, For the moment there is one start quality page on a book featuring this character, the book the seven sins is about this character and the film that may or may not be released in 2019 is based on the book the seven sins so yes it is about the character but no more than the book is. This is really a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article about the book could be improved with some of the information that you have added but until the character becomes more well known in his own right there is no need for a separate article. Please read WP:BKMERGE which is a Wikipedia guideline and backs up my arguments. Domdeparis (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anjali Tendulkar (September 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As Legacypac said before: All the evidence that this person is related to someone who is notable does not make this person notable. The article even confirms they are low profile. There appears to be an effort by someone(s) to build out pages on each family member. There have been no changes to the article just a resubmit. Whispering 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Whispering 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:16:17, 13 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahaaprasaad


Thank you sir, I will edit the contents suitably and re-submit for review and approve

Mahaaprasaad (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cornelius Macarthy‬

Hi Domdeparis, thank you for your message and comments regarding the aforementioned article. I have adjusted the formatting of the references, hopefully resolving the points you've raised. I've also removed your tag, do let me know if there are any further issues. Many Thanks! Bubanti 1 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:18:19, 14 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahaaprasaad


Sir Today I have made corrections based on the observations you have made in your comments and re-submitted for review and approval/publishing in main space. Thank you. Mahaaprasaad (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

12:21:07, 14 September 2017 review of submission by Hicotech


Hi Domdeparis, thanks for reviewing the "Klub vojenskej histórie Svoboda" article. It has been declined and I got your points. However I would like to ask or clarify further steps. Organization is mostly known in the CZ-SK reenactment community and not everything is online. It is possible to post more links to newspaper articles about events organized by organization, videos in which members of organization were involved or other activities like renovation of military equipment (In Slovakia and Czech republic there are many public monuments made out of cannons, tanks or other heavy military machinery). However many of those do not directly mention KVH Svoboda, but rather the 4th Shock Battalion or just "some reenactment organization" in general. Do you think that would make sense? I didnt want to overwhelm article with information which might look like not relevant on the first sight. About members. As far as I know it has 12 active members which again might not look much compared to other reenactment organizations but as they state their concept is to "keep member-count low to promote close cooperation with a proactive attitude, rather than recruiting a large amount of members of different directions and qualities". Thank you for your reply and advices. Hicotech (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with Cranford Canoe Club Submission Rejection

Hi, Hoping you can help with my submission about the Cranford Canoe Club.

I could use a bit of help with a twice rejected submission - [[1]]

This place has tremendous historic and community significance. The Cranford Canoe Club is probably the most recognized last standing of 18 clubs in the town known as the "Venice of New Jersey". I have spent weeks researching to provide citations from local newspapers on its history. It's part of the fabric of the town of Cranford New Jersey and is going to be 100 years old. The local Cranford Historic Society has provided input as well from the Cranford Historical Society archives. I have just updated information from the local Cranford Historical Society that has reviewed and prepared additional information that I have just updated.

This is now the second time where someone has said that the topic is not significant enough or warranted to be on wikipedia. There are a number of people that can't disagree more. There are over 20 cited references as well, a great deal more than any other article or topic I have ever created on wikipedia.

I have made additional updates and would like to have the article reviewed again based on this information. Or please tell me what I need to add to have it approved.

@Brooksbetz: Hi first of all please don't post images to talk pages unless they are absolutely necessary. Secondly I'm afraid it is unlikely that the subject will ever be notable enough. It fails WP:NORG. The coverage is very very local. I don't know what the readership is of the Cranford Chronical but I don't believe that coming from a town of 22k people it's going to be massive. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD for more info. Please also remember to sign all posts on talk pages. Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Admir Čavalić help in reviewing

There seems to be too much self-published stuff in there, that's for sure. But after you weed out the chaff there does seem to be some mainstream coverage - not a lot, but some - I'm thinking primarily about that N1 TV show and the Klix.ba coverage. I'm not exactly sure about the latter, but there's plenty of references to Index.hr on articles about Croatian people and as far as I recall, by and large they were simple indicators of the topic being reasonably notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Joy: that's great thanks for you help. I'll do a bit of tagging and try and clean up the sources. Cheers.Domdeparis (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

21:23:46, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Ornella Vallana


Hello Domdeparis, I would like to understand what type of media would this article need to be included in the encyclopedia. It's a place that is internationaly recognized but it does not have many media press show-ups since it's more word of mouth. People related to electronic music around the world now it, everywhere.

Let me know what type of info do you need to be able to have enough notability.

Thank you!

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For tireless contributions on working to reduce the NPP backlog. Thank you! Alex ShihTalk 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arthur Estopiñán

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arthur Estopiñán, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:G4: page is not similar to deleted article. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: ok thanks for that, is there any way for an editor who is not an admin to check before nominating? Domdeparis (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really, no. Valid concern, but the old article read like PR firm copy and wasn't wikified at all, and the deletion discussion centered around that. You could try AfD again on the basis of notability if you want. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Previously Reverted Article

Hello Domeparis, today an article I was working on Michael Philip Reed, had been previously reverted to its redirect state to the page of Steam Powered Giraffe. Michael was a musician and producer for this band until 2014 but has other discography to show and no established page himself but rather just his article that redirects to his previous band. If I added a reference section to the article, would that be enough to verify it? I have also contributed to other Steam Powered Giraffe articles such as Album One and The 2¢ Show, updating their personnel track list and their information on members. I take it that in order for a source to be credible it has to be found online in order to justify it, but is a person credible? Personally knowing some members of the band I was able to get information that is otherwise unknown elsewhere in order to better show the history of the albums. I will have to do more research on citing on well, since I'm not sure if that's just a hyperlink added to a word that takes it to a difference article or something else entirely. I will use the sources you provided me in my talk page to learn as well, but I wanted to go to you to try and understand and discuss further since you seem to know a lot on the matter of editing pages. Thank you, StevieHaley (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message. Before going any further in editing these articles you should read WP:COI as you have a declared connection with the band. It is very hard to have a neutral point of view about acquaintances. You should also read WP:NMUSICIAN as to be perfectly honest the way you had started the article it is very unlikely that he will meet the notability criteria. If after reading it you are really convinced that he meets the criteria then I would suggest using the sandbox to create the article. i can have a look at it if you like afterwards. All information in an article has to verifiable and that means backed up my reliable sources. Please read WP:RS to understand what that means. Domdeparis (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In terms of notability, I started the article in a very casual way and intended to work on it over time, but wanted to place something rather than nothing to get started. I understand it was too informal for wikipedia but I was unsure what else to put for a placeholder while working on it, but perhaps going to sandbox would be better. I believe he does reach the notability criteria because other members of Steam Powered Giraffe such as David Michael Bennett, Sam Luke and Isabella Bennett all have articles of their own and the same criteria that Michael Philip Reed has as shown on their pages in records to the albums they've worked in. This is what has led me to believe that an article would be appropriate for Michael Philip Reed. While it may not be for musicians, could I turn this article into a biography for a living person? I will read up on the provided information given, thank you.

Thank you, StevieHaley (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just been looking at the other articles and I'm afraid to say that the sources on them do not prove notability either. I have tagged them for improvement and unless sources are added I will be nominating them for deletion. Amazon and the band's own web site is nowhere near what is required. The topic specific criteria are just a yardstick to help judge potential notability to avoid speedy deletion or proposed deletion. All articles have to meet WP:GNG and even if the article meets the topic specific criteria sources that are secondary reliable and with in-depth coverage have to be found. Domdeparis (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if that is the case than that makes total sense. I was curious as to whether or not the rest of the band should have independent articles based on the fact that some did and others did not, but if the others that do don't meet the criteria then I understand why they may be nominated for deletion. This experience has taught me a lot in regards to independent musician articles vs. full band articles such as Steam Powered Giraffe vs. their members. Due to criteria and needed reliable sources I will more than likely be leaving Michael Philip Reed's article alone as well as the other band members of David Michael Bennett and Bunny Bennett as I am unaware of sources outside of what is already located on their pages may be (which in conclusion don't meet the requirements in the first place, now i have learned.) Thank you for this help and insight on this topic and I will take all of this into regard when editing articles in the future. Thanks, StevieHaley (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

CSD declined

Hi Domdeparis, I've declined the CSD you applied to Draft:Tobacco Playbook as it does not meet the criteria of G10 -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: The article is a list of supposed tactics used by the tobacco and soda industry and carefully chosen sources to back up the accusation; The article is not neutral it makes claims that this playbook is real but it amounts to WP:OR. It may or may not be true but this is clearly an advocacy article against big-soda and big-tobacco. Even the lead is accusatory. Domdeparis (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domdeparis/Archive_2&oldid=1050175604"