User talk:Lopifalko/Archive 3

The Why Foundation Article

Hello Lopifalko, thank you for your help so far with the article I've created. You wrote that I could ask you for help, so that's what I'm doing.

Since your comments I've expanded the article, and I've added more references, in an effort to get the organization accepted as notable. Would you advise me to try and submit the draft for review or should I always ask users such as yourself for feedback before submitting an article?

Thank you again for your help! --Kammarad (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kammarad: Hi. Thanks for your additions, I've been following along a bit. It can take 3 months to get a review but I'm here willing to review ASAP. Which of the sources are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? It needs to be more than a passing mention of the organisation itself. I was struggling to find more than, I think, one. I've not looked at the sources exhaustively yet though. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Hello, I've located six sources that are, as far as I can tell, at least independent, reliable and secondary. Whether they all provide significant coverage, I'm not sure. I will provide links to them here, and I would greatly appreciate if you would look them over and tell me which ones might be accepted as proof of notability.

https://www.documentary.org/feature/why-world-foundation-promotes-human-rights-through-docs https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/m_features/there-are-over-forty-million-people-living-in-slavery-around-the-world https://realscreen.com/2016/09/15/dr-tv-doc-chief-mette-hoffmann-meyer-to-step-down/ https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/kultur/medier/dr2-mister-markant-journalistisk-chef https://montsame.mn/en/read/132879 https://realscreen.com/2014/09/23/steps-intl-rebrands-as-why-foundation-names-ceo/ Thank you, your help is much appreciated. --Kammarad (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kammarad: Sorry it took me so long to get to. Thank you for singling these sources out, the documentary.org and cbc.ca are worthwhile sources; and the dr.dk source has some value but not to the same extent. I have published it. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: No worries. Thank you for publishing the article, and for all your help and work. I will continue to add to the article, please feel free to check in once in a while to see how it is doing! --Kammarad (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Hi, sorry to bother you again. Someone has put a box on the article saying that it is still lacking notability. I've since added a lot more sources, but not much is happening. Do you mind going over it again? Here is a list of the new sources that in my opinion establish notability:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/539993/discussing-human-rights-through-films-the-why-film-festival-2020/ https://danwatch.dk/seks-nye-dokumentarfilm-skal-aabne-verdens-oejne-for-moderne-slaveri/?cn-reloaded=1 https://fyens.dk/artikel/mennesker-til-salg-k%C3%B8b-en-slave-for-581-kroner-2018-10-15(8) https://globalnyt.dk/content/serie-af-dokumentarfilm-saetter-fokus-paa-moderne-slaveri https://www.lacapital.com.ar/escenario/documentales-acercarse-la-otra-cara-del-mundo-n1690027.html https://pleasure.borsen.dk/fri/artikel/11/223192/.html

If you would help me out I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Kammarad (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Antun Domic

Greetings Lopifalko! Thank you for your valuable comments regarding the article "Antun Domic". I have attempted to receive all your inputs. Added several secondary sources. Take Care! --Tdk20063 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Revised draft

Hi Lopifalko Thank you for your valuable comments regarding the article " Muneer Al-Ali". It has now been revised and done what is required...Have been re-submitted. For your kind care.Haywi (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding article at National Board for Wildlife

This page at National Board for Wildlife is redirected to Environmental policy of India. This redirection is not relevant. This board is a apex body in India for wildlife conservation.

I'd removed the redirect tag and added info about the board.

You erased all the content and restored the redirect. I think this is a mistake. You just destroyed an article.

I'm not able to restore that.

@Shivck13: Hi. Nothing is destroyed. I moved it to Draft:National Board for Wildlife with the edit summary "Draftify whilst it is worked on. Needs multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject." Your article had only 1 reference, and even that wasn't an inline reference. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is just collection of some basic facts like Purpose, Functions, Composition etc. I think that source was enough for it. I guess there is no proper govt website for this so I could cite that.

And I'm sorry I only know basic things about Wikipedia so I couldn't restore that and I thought it was destroyed. 15:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivck13 (talk • contribs)

@Shivck13: WP:ORG says an article on an organisation needs multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Advertising flag on DMTF page remains

Greetings Lopifalko,

I hate to bother a busy editor with this, but your edit of 2 May 2019 (diff, I hope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distributed_Management_Task_Force&diff=895167911&oldid=895167753)

seems intended to remove the advertising flag from the page, but it's still there. I'm paid to edit for that organization, so I'm wary of removing it myself, but I will if you want. Thanks for your earlier help with Redfish (specification). GGSloth (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of OpenEdge

Hi. OpenEdge is not my article. I mayde a redir to different topic. You should write to User:Congress1787 who seem to have actually wrote the article. If you still consider it necessary that is. Cheers, --Nux (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Question - Draft:Otis_Mensah

Hi Lopifalko.

Would you mind please taking a look again at Draft:Otis_Mensah ? I have added some more independent sources, but I'm not sure if they constitute 'sustained coverage'.

Many thanks!

Mikeysandford (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeysandford: Hi. I review many articles, which one is this please? -Lopifalko (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeysandford: Hi, sorry it has taken me so long to get around to looking again. I should have been saying "significant" coverage not "sustained" coverage. The bios you have added are written by the artist or their people, so are of no use in establishing notability. However The Star source is now working, so let's do this thing... -Lopifalko (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeysandford (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:37:56, 20 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Parent55

• Parent55 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Progressive Capitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I revised my submission to address the reviewer's comments. I resubmitted my submission "Progressive Capitalism" for another review two months ago. I understand there is a queue and that I need to be patient, and I am being patient. I would greatly appreciate some indication about where re-review of my last submission stands. I have people interested in what I am doing and I need to update the expectation of a two month review cycle that I previously set with them. This is my first new submission and I a afraid of doing something wrong. Please help me work better with the review team. Warm regards, parent55

Reply to Lopifalko: Great help with review and corrections. I looked at every change you made and see I still have much to learn. Thank you, warm regards, parnt55 Parent55 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Parent55 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Parent55: That's OK, don't worry about doing something wrong, it's fine to ask me to take a look. The review process is not formalised, in that it could be looked at at any time by a reviewer. I didn't have this article on my watch list and haven't been reviewing drafts for a while. I am happy to take a look, as long as I can get my head around the subject. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Gringo (rapper)

I ask for the reason why the article Gringo (rapper) is moved to Draft:Gringo (rapper) and what the problem is. English is not my mother language, so sorry if I did not understand something right. I have only revised an article which was redirected to the page List of number-one hits of 2018 (Germany). What can I do to revert back to the previously saved state? —Jnnc19 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jnnc19: The article doesn't have multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, which I suggest you find before moving to article space. However the article would appear to satisfy the following criteria from WP:MUSICBIO: "Criteria for musicians and ensembles ... Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. ... Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." -Lopifalko (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Photography Studies College

Hi Lopifalko, thank you for your helpful edits on Photography Studies College. I've restored some relevant info on founder Roger Hayne, but otherwise have left what you have done. Added some much earlier 'notable alumni' in the hope that the article can become more historically informative. Cheers, Jamesmcardle^(talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated -> new page for Michael Koelmel

Updated content and sources for new page submission for Michael Koelmel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michaela_K%C3%B6lmel

Hi - since your recommendations I have located sources and added more depth to the draft page in my sandbox. Would be grateful for your review. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by GipsyG (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Lopifalko,

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)

Your draft article, Draft:Full-frame mirrorless fixed-lens cameras

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Full-frame mirrorless fixed-lens cameras".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{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 (📧) 05:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Miss Bold and Beautiful Nigeria

Hello Lopifaiko, I'd appreciate if you rather research on that topic and help edit the post other than tagging for speedy deletion. I have no affiliation with the event In no way and the write up was not for promotional use but rather informational. Thank you. Xtianolove (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xtianolove: I did research it. It made no credible claim of importance or significance and all bar one of the the references were not from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, so did not count to wards its notability. I searched for more sources found only more of the same non-reliable sources. As you know, only yesterday this article was deleted for the same reason by others. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so please how do I solve these problems of unreliable sources because they are valid but might not meet up to Wikipedia's conditions, so how do I fix this and re-publish? Pls assist if you can sir/ma.Xtianolove (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xtianolove: "Valid" does not have much meaning here. Wikipedia wants multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. If these do not exist then the subject is not yet notable enough for inclusion. The rules are strict for this kind of thing, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). -Lopifalko (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Kevin Kyburz

Hey, i saw you delete the Page Kevin Kyburz. Can you say me why? I was not the first editor of the Page, but now the Source has more credibility. Swisshashtag (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Swisshashtag: I cannot delete pages, but I do New Page Review and I see from my browser history that I had some involvement with that page, though I cannot remember what, probably just doing some cleaning up of the article. I can see that it was deleted because it had issues that were the same as the reason it had previously been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Kyburz. Presumably required multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

On new article of Shinya Kumazaki

I found another source regarding Shinya Kumazaki as follows:

• https://kotaku.com/approachable-yet-deep-the-designers-goal-for-new-kirby-1833970471/amp
• https://wikirby.com/wiki/Shinya_Kumazaki

Please assist on this part for the completion of this draft SBS9834C (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@SBS9834C: Sorry I do not have the time to help. Please see Wikipedia:Help desk/How to ask. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

About Kowsar Publishing

Dear Lopifalko, Could you please help me to publish my company page? I want to publish it in Wikipedia. And I dont know how can I do that?

Drmiri (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete page

Bikram malati show not delete sir is show edit by Biko company don't deleting this page please give me reason Bikash 18:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biko of manegar (talk • contribs)

@Biko of manegar: A wikipedia articles needs multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Your article has none. I searched the web and could not find any either. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't delete this article

Sir don't article Bikram malati show I'm giving information this show https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10196046/ Bikash 18:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biko of manegar (talk • contribs)

You made a lot of work for me

If you would have allowed me to improve the article and to add more references demonstrating the notability of Urth Caffe, then I would have done it and it would have been much easier for me then deleting it within a few hours. I was not provided adequate to respond. I am recreating the article for a very notable local cafe chain in California. Please do not frivolously delete articles of mine anymore. Thank you. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yallayallaletsgo: Articles require multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Yours did not have any. The rules are particularly strict where it comes to businesses (see WP:NCORP). Your article was just a short generic listing about a non-notable business, an advertisement. I did a quick web search and found no reliable sources. If it is notable then it needs sources to prove it. You created the article in article space. If you are creating it again then I suggest you do so as a draft where it can be nurtured until it is ready for article space. If you create it directly in article space then it needs to have sources straight away at the time it is published, otherwise new page reviewers will again flag it for removal. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know I have been creating articles on Wikipedia since I was 6 years old, I know how to do this. I just needed s little more time to add reliable sources which I have done. It is a notable business. I assume you are not from Southern California, but if you were, or have visited, then you would have known of Urth Caffe because it is actually pretty notable/popular here. I did not intend for it to be an advertisement, that was just the easiest reference for me to find. Thx. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Time zones and Dear Tommy

How an experienced editor like yourself doesn't know or seriously forgot what time zones are is a bit beyond me. If you had read any media relating to Closer to Grey, you would know some even said "the album wasn't even announced prior and we only know it exists because it's out in New Zealand". In future, please don't change or revert text relating to release dates again just because you live in a later time zone, as any editor can change text relating to a release date if an album is already out in part of the world. It was October 2 in Australia and New Zealand when I added that text to Dear Tommy. In fact, I had already even listened to the album by that time. Ss112 19:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Please, you're coming on overly strong over a simple misunderstanding about the release date of an album. Please assume good faith: unless I misunderstand, the statement I added at 19:46 BST on 1 October ("Closer to Grey, is scheduled to be released at 2 pm BST on October 2, 2019") was sourced to the NME which said "‘Closer To Grey’ will arrive on streaming platforms at 2 pm BST tomorrow (October 2)". So you see I did read "media relating to Closer to Grey", a reliable source which said it hadn't yet been released (and that "Fans were first made aware of the project through a listing on Apple Music"). -Lopifalko (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a listing on Apple Music that was enabled to listen to for users who lived in time zones where it was October 2. NME is based in England, that's why they were saying "yet to be released" there. A source (whether the one I used or not) said it was already out in New Zealand. Whether the source said it or not, it was out on October 2 and it was already October 2 in parts of the world. Ss112 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: The NME said it was out at a very specific absolute (not relative) time: 2 pm BST October 2, not just any old October 2nd but _my_ October 2nd. So you can see that this looks like a case of the otherwise reliable source getting this wrong, rather than me; and that I am working from one source where as you are working from another. Seems like a storm in a teacup to me. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, it does look like NME is wrong here, as the album was out to stream in Australia (where I live). Ss112 20:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by... -Lopifalko (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. 123.31.43.63 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't spark my interest. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding article at John Maguire (Irish Journalist)

Thanks for your input. I have added more references - as far as I can tell these are all independent. As regards a definitive article on he subject I cannot see one - but surely the references validate the subjects position? If someone is behind the scenes at a media organisation (And France Media Monde is quite a large Media organisation) they can be significant contributors to the world's media/news without celebrity status or being in front of the news. I think this subject's contribution is there to see from the references without one definitive article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLIND (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lopifalko - do you not agree? Need you have celebrity status? I am not affliated with the subject (Maguire). If I publish this page will you once again more to draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLIND (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@COLIND: Hi, I will look at this soon. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@COLIND: If the sources aren't there then there's no justification for an article about a subject that reads like a resume, merely listing the subject's employment record without any claim of significance that tallies with the exceptions described in WP:BIO. Wikipedia's notability policy is clear on this and it does not tally with the metric you have come up with yourself above. WP:GNG is very clear on this: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."; as is WP:ANYBIO, which in this person's case would require any one of: a) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"; b) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; or c) "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." For b), note "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer." As I hope you can see, it is all about the independent significant coverage, not passing mentions or routine business announcements, not even interviews with the subject, and not one of your current sources is anything but these I'm afraid. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok Lopifalko - I accept that. Thank you for your time. COLIND — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLIND (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Therapeutic Photography

Hello Lopifalko! If you look at the talk page for the user that created the above, you'll see they are new and might need some help. They started out with some COI on another page, but quickly admitted. The TP article is coatrack material removed from that article. Also your perspective on the photo side is valued here. It seems like a notable topic but the structure and content needs something. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, I'll check all this out. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! There might be some crossover with something called phototheraphy. I found this Routledge book with TP as part of the title. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: The Routledge book is enough to get this reviewed. The Amazon description for Judy Weiser's Phototherapy Techniques: Exploring the Secrets of Personal Snapshots and Family Albums (1999) makes that topic sound distinct from Therapeutic photography: "PhotoTherapy techniques use ordinary personal snapshots and family photos (and the feelings, memories, thoughts and information these evoke) as catalysts for therapeutic communication and personal healing, reaching areas inside a person that words alone cannot access." -Lopifalko (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I had head of TP before, but did not know it was now a "thing". Thanks for your kind assistance!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: I hadn't heard of it. Sorry I missed the massive copyvio, I forgot to check on that. I'm not yet sure how to proceed with this article, it's tempting to move it to draft whilst we consider, but perhaps it has too much reliable sourcing for that, though possibly not enough to prove it's a credible thing yet. Though I did find "Jo Spence's camera therapy: personal therapeutic photography as a response to adversity". -Lopifalko (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Lopifalko: FYI, on Pinehouse, I deleted numerous good refs as they were used to source exact copy-paste copyvio. I am pretty sure 90% of the article is copyvio. If you are up to rewriting, the sources are in the history. the creator is blocked for sockpuppeting, sadly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Merely stating that a person has won/earned a specific award is not "puffery." Calling that person "award-winning" without referencing the specific award is puffery. Perhaps it is a fine line, but there is a definite difference. Besides, winning awards is one thing that makes a notable person notable and worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. This is why I reverted your edit on Zach Brock. GWFrog (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@GWFrog: Hi. OK I see that I'm taking it too far in applying WP:PUFFERY's "award-winning" to "Grammy Award winning". My personal preference is to never put "Grammy Award winning" before a person's name, it feels like a marketing strategy devised by The Recording Academy to promote their award. Certainly in the first sentence I prefer a more direct description of what a person does. My take from MOS:FIRST is that "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." and "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." -Lopifalko (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Pablo Miller for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pablo Miller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hefna380

Kindly indicate the article which you think is a secondary source. Kelvinsage1 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kelvinsage1: cutxsewnmagazine is the only 1 of its 5 sources that isn't an interview. reble.co, Respect, therapfest and elevatormag are all interviews. Interviews are primary sources. I'm not even sure if any of these sources apart from Respect are even independent reliable sources, they may or may not be. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Lopifalko,

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 816 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)

How to remove "Check date values in: |access-date="??

Hi Lopifalko I saw you did some helpful edits on the article I was working on of Senam Okudzeto. There are these red marks in the references for apparently wrong format of the acess date. I have not been able to remove this - do you know how to? Thanks! Artsy_cdh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsy cdh (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Artsy cdh: Hi, like this: access-date=3 November 2019. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

please give time to improve don't just delete it The Independent Pharmacy please

Hello @User:Lopifalko please give me a chance to edit the article of The Independent Pharmacy I will remove the CSD G11 content you can help me instead tagging me quickly for speedy deletion this is unfair. why other article does not get deleted with many violations and just tagging for ads template and but tag also to improve it. Marknamz8931 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Babies' Babies

Hi why did you move the Babies' Babies article back to draftspace? It's just a stub, but it meets notibility since they're on Allmusic, Brooklyn Vegan, and they have a feature on The Deli Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenVolvox (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenVolvox: Hi. I did so because I didn't consider any of the sources to be WP:SIGCOV. As for the reliability of the sources, AllMusic is only "an online music database"; and BrooklynVegan is a blog. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenVolvox: Your Brooklyn Vegan source goes into no more detail about them other than to say the name "Babies' Babies" in a listing for a gig, for which they are the support band. This in no way whatsoever contributes to their notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Harith al-Sudani

Hello Lopifalko, thanks for the few clean ups on this article. It cheered me up into making it that long. I don't know the process to suggest new article to the "Did you know" homepage section. Any idea ? Could it be submitted ? I still may improve a bit this article. Yug (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC) (for today I need to go to sleep)

Also, I'am not a native English speaker. If you have energy to copyedit the article it would help. Yug (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Samma Group

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Samma Group. I do not think that Samma Group fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because "It has also been involved in developing a $400m pipeline in Melbourne" is a claim of significance. I request that you consider not re-tagging Samma Group for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yeah I saw. Before putting it up for CSD I re-read WP:SIGNIFICANCE's "Identifying a credible claim of significance", and concluded that it didn't sound notable as there was none of the "first" and "won" described there; and because there was no article on the Camberwell Junction tower that would help indicate that this project was notable; and though Samma Group has "been involved in developing a $400m pipeline", the sources in the article and in the Web search I did for Samma Group didn't satisfy WP:ORGCRIT — I know CSD's "indication of importance" "is a lower standard than notability". Anyway you live and learn, I'm constantly honing my understanding of how to apply the various CSD criteria. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Admins differ a bit on exactly how to apply A7. My view is that any statement, sourced or not, plausible enough not to be rejected out of hand, which would if reliably sourced, significantly contribute to a finding of notability, or which would suggest that sources showing notability might well exist. I don't look at cited sources at all. But an A7 declien does not at all mean that the article would pass AfD as it stands. What edits might be made during an AfD no one ever knows. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Article on Jose Mejia Vides

I am an art history professor and teach a class on Latin American artists. For one assignment, students create a new Wikipedia article on an artist or art movement that has been overlooked. I assist them by creating a stub that they then complete. This afternoon I have a student who will be working on the article on Jose Mejia Vides, so I started the stub this morning. You may have been speedy in your review of the new article, but if you had waited even another hour, the article would have been longer with proper citations. By moving it to drafts so quickly, you have made it significantly more difficult for this student to make a contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbaron10 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up. I see now how the student can find the draft I started and work on it himself. I still wish you had given me some time.Redbaron10 —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Redbaron10: Hi. I'm sorry you had that experience. I am thoroughly admiring of the fact you are introducing Wikipedia to your students. However articles come up in the New Page Patrol queue for review and there is no requirement on reviewers to wait, unless the article is nearly blank. I saw an article in article space that lacked the requirements that it should have to exist in article space. There are 6,000 articles in that queue that we are reviewing. I admit I could have been more charitable and tagged it as having no sources, being as it is not a biography of a living person. My working assumption is that articles should be developed in draftspace, but I understand that once ready there is a lengthy queue to having them reviewed and potentially accepted into article space.

I feel you could have communicated all of the above on the talk page of the article for new page patrol reviewers like me to see. Usually one sees a formal notice that an article is part of a course, but I understand the formal process around setting up your course in such a way may not have been appropriate for your situation. I also feel you could have waited until you had the requisite sources before publishing it in article space, so as to circumvent it getting potentially deleted via CSD or sent to draft. If you disagreed so strongly with what I did then you could have recreated another copy in article space. I don't think it demonstrates good practice to your students to be creating articles in articles space without the requisite sources.

The only claim of tangible significance made for the subject was that they had won the El Salvador National Cultural Award. Before sending it to draft I first checked to see if we had an article on the National Cultural Award and we did not. I also checked the Spanish Wikipedia article and it had no sources. The first page of Web search results didn;t show up any independent reliable sources for the subject. Thus a quick search like this didn't make me feel that notability was certain. I could have put the Spanish Wikipedia article through a translator, but did not.

I now notice that your whole article is in fact a WP:COPYVIO of http://www.josemejiavides.com/about/. If this were noticed at the time then the correct thing would have been to delete it straight away, rather than send it to draft — please read WP:COPYVIO. Again I do no think you are setting a good example to your students. I hope this is helpful information as I applaud what you are looking to achieve. I would be happy to help in this and any other ways in future, please just ask on my talk page here. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Swedish Kitchen Orchestra

Hello Lopifalko. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Swedish Kitchen Orchestra, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having a notable member indicates significance, consider merging/redirecting to his article instead per WP:ATD. Thank you. SoWhy 10:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Re editing Yannis Kontos

Hello Lopifalko,

Few days ago I made some changes to my CV & Life and Work at "Yannis Kontos" page. Since it hasn't been updated for many years, I would like to revert it to my edited version as it is more close to reality. Please advice. Kind Regards, YK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenitsa71 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, talk page stalker here. No. Consider for example:

As a Commercial Photographer, he has over 15 years of Professional Experience in Advertising and Corporate Photography providing Premium Quality services to Yachting, Real Estate, Tourism, Portraiture, Architecture, Creative, and Industrial markets alike in Europe and Middle East.

This is blatantly promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it does not say who provides (or would like to sell) "premium quality services" to whom. (And neither does it use Trump-tweet-style capitalization.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of the page I created Roberto

Hello, I would like to contest the speedy deletion of the page mentioned because the information written has sources and it does not violate copyright and it's promotional as stated. Kindly read the sources I have added, you will agree with me. ThanksKing Onyx (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@King Onyx: The article was written like an advert to such an extreme extent that it would have had to be entirely rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policy. Consider for example where the subject did something with the wife of another musician, the article first described the other musician in terms of the awards they had won before even mentioning it was the wife of this person that the article's subject had worked with. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Terry O'Neill (photographer)

On 19 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Terry O'Neill (photographer), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nan Goldin

No appetite for an edit war here, but just because something receives news coverage doesn't make it notable. Goldin has participated in 10 plus other similar protest-type events that are not on the page. Shall I add them? Or will you? I will be keeping an eye on all your edits now. 165.225.38.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the notability of an event reported on in the broadsheet media is debatable; I believe it lends considerable weight to notability, but needs to be judged on a case by case basis. I take your point if this is one of 10 other such events she has been part of. I think I might be interested in listing them all, if independent reliable sources exist for each. However I would want to read reports on them first so as to get a wider feeling for this campaign, of which I know too little. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about speedy deletion of page

Hi Lopifalko I'd like to kindly request a reason for the speedy deletion of the new EliteSingles page (and ideally a copy of the content!)

I've been reading the possible reasons for speedy deletion, and I truly do not believe the page in in violation of any of the terms.

Notable content - It's my belief that this page is worth having alongside the pages devoted to other dating sites such as eHarmony, Match, OKCupid and more. With pages for sites like Crazy Blind Date given space, I cannot see a reason why EliteSingles is an exception

Advertising - While the article does describe a company, everything in the article is sourced, and a clear effort has been made to create a neutral article in line with the pages mentioned above (eg to cite sources in the same manner, and to state the facts about the company rather than the company line). I am happy to change these sources if need be.

Previous deletion - there was a three-year waiting period between publishing attempts to create time to build up clear sources. The article was also fully rewritten and streamlined to only include the main facts.

Above all, I think that this case applies: the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. CurlyKiwi (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)CurlyKiwi

@CurlyKiwi: Hi. The article lacked independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. The sources were either not independent reliable sources (being dating-related web sites) or they were routine business announcements (see WP:CORPDEPTH). It also didn't make a credible claim of importance or significance for the subject. The fact that other articles exist is not a valid reason to keep this one. I'm not an administrator so cannot see deleted aricles, please see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for how to accomplish this yourself. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Page moves

When you move a page, please could you consider using the "what links here tool" in the side menu to see what pages link to the change. It would be helpful if you edited those pages to update the link to the page you moved. Toddy1 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hi. I'm only renaming brand new articles, so was assuming nothing linked to them, but now that you point this out I realise I shouldn't make that assumption at all, so thanks for letting me know. I was often choosing not to leave a redirect because the names were not ones we would expect to have redirects for. I will in future leave redirects if anything is linked to the old name, or amend the upstream article. (I made a particular mess of page moves today on British media, racism and Islamophobia.) Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion per A3

I deleted Sommer Motor Car Company per your tag, but you tagged the article in less than a minute after creation. For both A3 and A1, you should wait at least 10 minutes before tagging. Please don't misuse the tags again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK thanks, I just forgot the rule. I'll be more vigilant in future. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Sonia Handelman Meyer

Lopifalko, please feel free to take a shot at improving the above article that I cobbled together from some decent sources. I'm good at finding them bit not as goo as you are on putting a fine point on the writing. I keep seeing articles on the New York Photo League, do you think their members merit a category?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on the above article. I found another one, in case you are interested! Vivian Cherry.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you. And thank you for catching Meyer, a worthy subject for an article. I'm not particularly familiar with the New York Photo League but yes it probably is worthy of a category. I will indeed have a look at Vivian Cherry. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Leica Q2.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Changed to redirect. Article was great. Recreate in draft.

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

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

scope_creep^Talk 21:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

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.

16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: That's kind of you to say so, thank you. Happy holiday season. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Sweet Brown Snail by Jason Rhoades and Paul McCarthy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP (talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

@ThatMontrealIP: That's kind of you, thank you. And the same to you, it's a pleasure to work with you. Happy holiday. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing page issues

Can you please remove page issues or request clean up for page Tariq Barwani edited by you? Majid.futaim (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Also guide what it takes to update the page as it is currently in locked mode. Thanks for your support Majid.futaim (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Revised biography of "Davide Scaramuzza": citations have been added

Dear Lopifalko

Thanks for your valuable comments. I have added all the references for all the claims in the biography of "Davide Scaramuzza", including awards, startups, and media coverage. Can you please review and notify me? I have also seen that, after you created the entry "Draft: Davide Scaramuzza" other users have started editing the main entry "Davide Scaramuzza"; therefore, I have also made the same edits in the main entry. Can you please check? Btw, I did not duplicate the citations for the awards in the biography because these are already given in summary table.

Best regards

Dmeier1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeier1981 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmeier1981: Hi. Thanks for sourcing it. There are a lot of refs there for me to go through (too many in the case of IEEE Spectrum). Can you help me out by pointing out which sources are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject please? It needs some of these in order to demonstrate notability. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, although they are all independent. Please check reference [12] (New York Times), [16] (IEEE Spectrum), [28] (TechCrunch), [29] (The Verge). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeier1981 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmeier1981: Glancing at just The New York Times source so far, it appears to only say "said Davide Scaramuzza, professor of robotics and perception at the University of Zurich and the creator of the autonomous drone that won the competition in Madrid last year." This is merely a passing mention, certainly not the significant coverage of Scaramuzza that is required to demonstrate notability. I haven't looked at any of your others sources, are any of them better than this? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the talk page of the article, this subject very likely meets WP:NPROF #5 (and probably #7 and #8), which is notability. Once the old Mainspace article is G6'ed, I propose moving the draft back to Mainspace. You can still take to AfD if you do not consider it notable, but I don't think it needs to wait in AfC. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please Dont delete page

Pls help contest so the page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyemowei_Odior_Lily will not be deleted from wkipedia as the person in question is a well known blogger and celebrity in my Country AfrowriterX (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for your help in proper referencing structure to the article which I had just created. I was wondering how come structure came automatically! Then I looked at the history and found you. Thanks a lot. :) -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: Thanks, you're welcome. Refill and Refill NG are very efficient to use. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow. I was not aware of it. I used to use visual editing and then hovering mouse over the references and clicking it to fill it. Thanks a lot. I am amazed at the speed with which you started editing the article after it got crated! :) -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: I've not used that method, I'll give it a look, thanks. I saw your article straight away as I was patrolling the New pages feed, looking for articles that need attention. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a medical doctor having very high interest in research, science, technology and analytics. Though I do not understand much of technology, I like to learn it a lot and Wikipedia is a great platform for that. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Forensic Oceanography

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{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! Lapablo (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Tracey Shors.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is an interesting read, thanks. Because the subject is holds a "distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education" they are automatically considered notable. However the article could still use multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, if you can find them.

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

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

Lopifalko (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to Zoom H6 Handy Recorder

Just wanted to say thanks for helping out on my first article, it's really motivating to see it becoming better already! --Aluxosm (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: Great. And thank you. It needs some independent sources otherwise someone could put it up for CSD at any time. I had a quick look but found none. I don't expect it to be easy to find independent reliable sources with significant coverage of such devices, so perhaps one article on all of their type from Zoom would be more appropriate. However I'll have a think about this Sound On Sound source and consider whether it has enough to warrant removal of the PROD yet or not. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would avail yourself of WP:NPRODUCT and then consider whether the best place for such subject matter would be the Zoom Corporation article, where only the GFX-8 product is described, and everything else merely listed in a long and boring list, occasionally with wikilinks to separate articles; or an article on Zoom digital recorders if they're notable enough. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers for the link to WP:NPRODUCT, after looking at that and trying to find more to put in the article... I think you may be right to be honest, but I'm not sold just yet.

It's true that most of the articles about ZOOM products are largely just listing what's on the product page, and I agree that they should have all been started in the Zoom Corporation article, and at this point still be there. But I also think there is enough information on many of them which will lead to a a tipping point "When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, that added to the amount of work that has already gone into the other articles... It seems like a bit of a waste to try and merge them all back in, only for them to likely be split off again in the future.

In adding data to Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088) I've found loads of references to awards it and other Zoom products have received, and even a few scholarly articles, not about it, but stating that they have used it for their work. You're right as well that there isn't much actual news about them but overall, I still think these articles have more to offer so I'm not giving up on them just yet, but I'm also not too far from having my mind changed. --Aluxosm (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: I think there needs to be quite a lot said in order to cause it to need to spill over into another article. I don't see how there could ever be that quantity for a product like this, such things are more likely for example for a novel or a film. I disagree that "the amount of work that has already gone into the other articles... It seems like a bit of a waste to try and merge them all back in" — the idea with Wikipedia is to work toward perfection, and if that requires merging or removing others' work then we should be bold. When you say "only for them to likely be split off again in the future", it sounds as though you imagine there to be more people working in this space than there are, which I don't imagine is very many. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, although I've found one thing that has kept me on the fence:

* Sum of the page views for the individual product articles - 147,384

* Page views for the Zoom Corporation article - 91,838

Which if I'm not mistaken, means that at least 55,546 of the page views went straight to the product pages without going through the main article first. Not sure what it means, but I think it may point to there being some interest from the readers point of view in individual articles. Whether or not that is actually makes it the 'right' thing, I'm not sure. My current thinking is that it still doesn't really justify them, but it is interesting.

Say they were to be set up as redirects instead of being deleted; Would the history would be saved without having to go through the whole WP:REFUND thing? It would make my potential plan a lot easier and safer:

I think going forward, I'm going to copy as much of the data out from the articles as possible and add it to their respective Wikidata items, then using Template:Wikidata_list (just to help generate an initial table) start a draft article using where I'll try and compile everything into something that could be merged with the main article if needed. Doing the whole thing little-by-little, hopefully before someone goes in and deletes them all! --Aluxosm (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: If you convert an article to a redirect then its history is retained. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear, thanks! --Aluxosm (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The BrandLaureate Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The BrandLaureate Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The BrandLaureate Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Larry Epstein has been accepted

Larry Epstein, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lopifalko (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Larry G. Epstein

Hi Lopifalko. I understand that you're willing to help improve Wikipedia's quality but your reaction on my newly created article on Larry G. Epstein was a way overkill. I've created around 6,000 existing Wikipedia articles so far and has never seen someone react in a such haste to question someone's notability. The article would have definitely not been my choice had he not been notable enough. With regards to your other concerns, there are now additional references from other sources, his RSC fellowship appears to have been terminated in 1999 but it's unclear to me why his name was removed from the directory, and the practice of listing selected publications is common for articles on economists and allows one to use the open access template. You're also encouraged to visit the to-do list of economists that was compiled a year ago to direct the members of WikiProject Economics towards writing new articles on notable living economists as part of the global initiative for reducing content gaps on scientific topics. Best regards. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: I will reply when I can make some time to. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: Hi. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply, and I'm sorry you felt my actions were overkill. I was doing new page review and your article appeared at the head of the feed I was scanning, hence why I reacted in "such haste". I picked it because I am interested in articles on academics and feel I have a grasp of WP:ACADEMIC. As you know, I moved it to draft space at 10:03 based on WP:ACADEMIC, saying: "I think notability rests on him being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada yet this is unsourced and the socienty's search tool for fellows at https://rsc-src.ca/en/fellows cannot find him. Contact me if you manage to source this with a reliable source and I will return to help." I did this because to my reading there was nothing else in the article that supported notability; and working at this place in an article's life, within these parameters, and with these tools, is what I understand to be the remit of a new page reviewer. Unfortunately though, I missed the last line of the article's prose that mentioned the notable and sourced Frisch Medal. I apologise for this mistake. I did continue to work on the article in draft and within 9 minutes discovered that award, which I raised in prominence by adding to the lead and another source for it. Within another 3 minutes I moved it back to article space. I hope that I at least improved the article in the process, followed through with the actions I had taken in moving it to draft, and in a timely manner.

I'm sorry for contravening "the practice of listing selected publications is common for articles on economists and allows one to use the open access template". My understanding of journal articles comes from elsewhere where I have learned that only books, not journal articles, should be listed. I haven't found documented policy for this. I stand corrected if this differs where it comes to economists, and perhaps other areas; I shall try to find documented policy on it. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

UK Electronic Travel Authorisation

This is link to my page, which I have submitted for publishing.

Link: Draft Electronic Travel Authorisation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UK_Electronic_Travel_Authorisation ChefBear01 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I need the draft part removed and my page to be published & made public. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: I think it is too soon, but it does have 2 potentially independent reliable sources* with significant coverage of the subject, so I will transfer it to article space. However it will need reviewing and reviewers may decide it is too early for such an article.

* Computer Weekly is; personneltoday.com may be, as it appears to have various staff. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

ChefBear01 Regardless if is transferred back to draft space I will continue to find more citations and expand more to the page.

Thank you again for publishing and editing the page it has helped a lot to structure and grow the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

High Focus Records

Hi,

Could you please give me some advice as to what Draft:High Focus Records needs to be returned to the main space? I think it is evidently notable enough of a topic, and I've now put a primary source for the roster and added another for one of the artists as well.

Thanks! The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 11:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Flying Spaghetti Monster: Hi and thanks for asking. I'm happy to help. It needs multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Primary sources don't get us anywhere. thelineofbestfit source you've just added is considered a primary source, as it is an interview; and its "Now on his third LP released via UK hip hop behemoth High Focus" is not significant coverage, it is a passing mention where what we need is an article that is about the label itself. If it is "evidently" notable then that evidence needs to be demonstrated, in the way of sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Great - thanks for the advice, I've added a few more non trivial sources, like a whole podcast discussing the label.

As for general notability it seems to fit most of the guidelines to me. They've released an album that reached the top 40 UK chart, and EPs by a Brit award winning global number 1 selling pop star, then that qualifies it as notable no?

As per WP:Band they have had an album in the UK top 40, they are 'one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)' as can be certified by how many of their artists have their own pages.

Then there's also: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show', which Verb T and Pitch 92 of the label did for a Sky One show - just added, as the show creator also featured them on his popular podcast, with two references.

I can keep going through the criteria on that page - but I think it fits a fair few of them.

As for the roster source, as per WP:USESPS - 'not all self published sources are invalid.' That rule goes on to state that self published sources are allowed if it is 'the website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees.' Where else am I supposed to find a list of all the roster members of a (relatively) small record label?

This now has 11 sources, from the Guardian and multiple online sources and the official UK chart. I understand only one is about the label itself, but collectively the artists have done enough to be considered notable together.

Let me know if it needs anything else, as I firmly believe this label is worthy of a Wiki page.

Thanks!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 12:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Flying Spaghetti Monster: You're judging this by the wrong yardstick, it is not WP:BAND that a record label is judged by (which says "This page provides a guideline for editors in applying the concept of notability to topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs."), it is my understanding that it is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:GNG that should guide you. You say "collectively the artists have done enough to be considered notable together", but notability is not inherited, the label doesn't receive notability for the success of its artists, as far as I know. Note that podcasts in general tend not to be good sources. Where you say "Where else am I supposed to find a list of all the roster members of a (relatively) small record label?" and "I understand only one [source] is about the label itself", I think you sound as though you answer the question about its notability for yourself there. As a comparison, consider for example my article on PC Music—lots of articles in independent reliable sources, such as broadsheet newspapers, specifically on the label, not scraping the barrel trying to squeeze notability out of its associations. Perhaps you can use Google Books' magazine article search feature to find sources from print magazines? -Lopifalko (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick look for sources and came up with a load of passing mentions at Vice (a good source) but which don't amount to much, however this RedBull focus on the label seems good. The only other source with significant coverage, that isn't an interview, is possibly your A Nation of Billions source, but I'm not sure on its reliability or not. Let's see if it flies though. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Why Foundation has been accepted

The Why Foundation, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lopifalko (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)