User talk:Ken Tony

Bhupinder Singh Mahal

On May 25th Nat declined to accept the article on grounds that the submission was not supported by reliable sources, and now you are echoing same objection on June 11th. To meet that deficiency I cited four academicians who attest to Mahal’s work as writer and public volunteer. One of Wikipedia notability requirement is that “This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews”. Reviews of Mahal’s published works are provided: two for each of the two books. These are people independent of the subject itself and /or of its author, publisher or agent. I will be grateful if you can specify/exemplify the exact nature of deficiency. S TallimS Tallim (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello S Tallim. The draft lacks sufficient secondary and reliable sources. Also the person hasn't got significant coverage to satisfy GNG. These are my reasons for rejecting your draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find mention in secondary source. He is mentioned in an article titled "Trauma and memory witjin the Sikh diaspora" by N G Barrier (https://doi.org/10.1080/17448720600779836) under note 14. He is also named in Sikh Diaspora by R. S. Chilana (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=42&q=bhupinder+singh+mahal&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5)

He fulfills Wikipedia's notability defined as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Mahal is recipient of prestigious Queen Elizbeth Diamond Jubilee award. He also received Council award by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario.

Do above meet the reliable source criteria?

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: Still the draft has a lot of primary sources. It requires additional secondary and tertiary sources. Also can you show me the sources saying that the given person has won all theses awards as you mentioned? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Photographic evidence of presentation of medals is with Permissions-Wikipedia Commons who will publish it once the article is approved. I can provide you with these photos if you wish.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: Uhm, so there is no written evidence on the awards? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey S Tallim Did you take that picture from Google? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The photo was taken by Mrs. Mahal. Here is written evidence.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim:If these images are from taken from Google without providing the credits, your Wikimedia Commons account will be warned. I want to see written evidence in internet as a form of feature. These images are not sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The presentation and documentation are not on the internet nor they need to be. I have filed a request for arbitration. {{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: Okay. You can act as necessary when the response on it has reach to you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I was informed that arbitration is not the route at this moment. Instead I should seek dispute resolution. But, lo and behold, I was able to find internet mention. Here’s the link -

https://www.gg.ca/en/honours/recipients filter_name=mahal&city_custom=dundas&f%5B0%5D=honour_type_id%3A%22125%22&f%5B1%5D=province%3A%22462%22&f%5B2%5D=field_of_contribution%3A%220%22 What next? S TallimS Tallim (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

When you click on the link you will have to make your selections, as follows: In windows on left provide your query: Under HONOUR select Queen Elizbeth ll Golden Jubilee Medal Under FIELD select [-] Other (69) Under PROVINCE select [-] Ontario (36) That will bring you to the page mentioning Bhupinder Singh Mahal S TallimS Tallim (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: Saw that. Saw his name. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that you have the requisite evidence. What next?

S Tallim70.51.134.58 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of presentation of award by College of Physiotherapists is with Permissions-Wikipedia Commons. FYI.

S Tallim70.51.134.58 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: You were not logged in. Your IP account is what I can see here. Share with me the link of Wikimedia Commons free image that you just said. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Permissions from Mrs. Mahal and Registrar of College of Physiotherapists were provided to Wikipedia Commons on April 19. Hereunder their e-mail response to me dated April 19 - Ticket #2021040510008374 -

Dear S Tallim,

When article it's approved, we can proceed. Please let us know then.

Yours sincerely,

Valeria Domínguez

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate. Images, if you got permission, its okay. But what about the chunk of primary sources in the draft? You still haven't added secondary sources to constitute with primary sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did provide four secondary sources, namely:

https://www.sikhchic.com/1984/punjab_a_cataclysmic_showdown_aftermath_and_challenges

Norman G Barrier, Professor emeritus Asia and Sikh Studies, University of Missouri

http://sikhinstitute.org/july_2009/10-reviewvirk1.html

Dr. Hardev Singh, Visiting Professor SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India.

http://giss.org/jsps_vol_23.html

Dr. Shinder Thandi (at page 201), Lecturer in Global Studies, UC Santa Barbara

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Race-Bhupinder-Singh-Mahal/dp/8121512913

Editorial review by Dr. Visho L. Sharma Professor emeritus Social Sciences at University of Western Michigan

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your guidance and your patience. I am new at this kind of project. I will be grateful for all the help I get. I am 88 and frail of health.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: I'm little concerned over the Amazon's citation (regarding reliability). Did you add these into the draft? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Amazon is reliable. No doubt in that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I did add the Amazon reference. It is in section "Academics" 5th para, reference #18.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: Yeah I saw that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. What next?

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr. S Tallim. I made a visit to all the citations in draft. I found out that out of all 33 citations, only 15 sources mention about him. Rest of the sources doesn't have any connection with the draft. And out of this 15 selected sources, 7 sources are primary sources, and rest of the sources are perfect. WP:GNG clearly says that an article/draft requires more secondary and reliable sources that has no original research on it to establish notability of the topic. This person may meet notabilility criteria, but the draft currently needs to fulfill all of the GNG. You may also read WP:PSTS. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the declining of Draft Draft:Vidhya Vinod

Hi, Ken Can you please specify why you declined the submission??? The article have cites specifically explaining about Dr. Vidhya, Have you been gone through all the references i gave on that draft, it have around 14 references and all are clearly focused on Dr. Vidhya.

Just check these references [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Please do go through all the references correctly and explain me which things are lacking in these articles. Thanks.

Ajna Hamza (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Ajna

Hai Ajna Hamza I didn't reject the draft citing the reason that it lacks sources. In fact I rejected it under the reason that the person hasn't got sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Two of the sources that you mentioned here are most likely not reliable. One looks like a blog, and the other is a photo. I can't read Tamil. There is a sourcing in Tamil, but I'm okay with that. Also when you just search with the name of the person in any of the search engine, there is no feature mentioning about her at first place. At first instance, it only shows her profiles in various websites. Previous reviewers also rejected the draft saying that it fails WP:GNG. So after taking all these into account, I rejected the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Question for Draft:Jean-Marie Haessle

Hello, Thank you for your taking the time to review the draft. I have some questions on how I can cite some references which I believe is the main problem with this draft. How can you cite art catalogs cause, unlike books that have an ISBN, these do not. Also, how would you cite old newspaper articles which don't exist on the internet but there is physical proof of it? Perhaps there is a tool online where you can reliably upload for wikipedia to use? And finally do let me know what else I can do to work towards getting the draft published! Cheers.

OneEyedWolf (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai OneEyedWolf I rejected the draft under the ground that the person is not notable, i.e. the person fails WP:GNG. The sources that you've cited are also not fully reliable. I don't know how we add physical proofs as source in Wikipedia that doesn't exist in the internet. I would recommend you to ask about this in the Teahouse. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Costa Nhamoinesu

Hi. I see you already deleted our conversation but I'll reply still. :-) Thanks for the explanation. A reference from primary source, i.e. an announcement from the player's club, is better than no reference at all. You can in fact cite tweets as well: see Template:Cite tweet. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Robby.is.on. I wanted it to provide more reliability. That's why I hesitated to add the club source. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

AFC note

When you decline someone's AFC submission, please make sure that you leave the "sorry" message on the talk page of the person whose draft it was, rather than the person who showed them how to fix the errors in their use of {{submit}}.

Also, never tell someone that the topic of their draft isn't notable. Tell them that they haven't shown notability. DS (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes DS. I just got the reviewership on 30th last month. It's by beginning in the AfC. This would be so helpful. Thank you for that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Ravic Article Submission - Copyright Violation?

Hi Ken Tony, I just writing in regards to my submission for the Steve Ravic article. There is a copyright violation but I'm not sure what exactly is in violation, if there is, it's been a while since I wrote this one up. Could you please assist in pointing out the offending material, then I will attempt to rectify this. MetaldarrenMetalDarren (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MetalDarren. Whenever you leave a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign the end of it. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. It would be helpful for us in many ways. Coming back to the topic. Buddy this is not your fault. A website named Everybody Wiki has copied your draft and added it to their mainspace. So when I searched with the name of the person, that site popped up and the writings about the person were the exact same as what you wrote. (Here is the site) That's what prompted me to do so. This is not your fault. I would now recommend you to change the style and usage of some words to avoid copyright conflict between your draft and that site's content. If you felt down by rejection, I'm very sorry for that. Thank you for reaching out to me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm supposed to reply to this another way, I'm still fairly new so not sure how I do a follow up to a response, also sorry for the signing issue as well.

As for the case of EverybodyWiki, it seems they've completely copied my article here. In fact at the bottom of the page underneath the references section it states, I quote:

"This article "Steve Ravic" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Steve Ravic. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one."

In fact if you check the edit history link, it's literally the same edits I've made to the article prior that can be seen on Wikipedia. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Edithistory:Steve_Ravic

I want to make it clear I'm not having a go at you, it could be how the rules are, but is it really fair for me to have to change the draft I've written out myself and had submitted for review a third time on 19 April 2021, then have it sniped by potentially a bot or some person to put on a completely different wiki that looks to act like some sort of back up with its last edit being made at, I quote "This page was last edited on 28 May 2021, at 16:19" , whilst this one was being reviewed.

I'm not too sure what EverybodyWiki is but it may just be a a site that copies over drafts that are unpublished from Wikipedia, as searching for say, Tom Cruise doesn't bring up a copy of a Tom Cruise article for example.

Lastly looking on their frontpage they have a bot that seems to be cleaning up duplicates the site has with Wikipedia https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki_bios_and_free_wiki_for_everybody

Again, just thinking that if the article was going to be published on Wikipedia (not saying it should, that's ultimately up to you guys), it may be that the duplicate gets deleted off of EverybodyWiki.

At least, I would put that forward to the mods here for discussion as it can be quite the punch to the gut to start creating articles then to have this happen, but even more so to have this happen and then have Wikipedia the one to fold in the situation when it's clear that they're (EverybodyWiki) the ones in violation of any copyright in the worst case, and in the best case just a site that seems to be acting as a repository of drafts and rejected articles from Wikipedia.

If you could reconsider the case if this is the only reason this would be holding up the publication of the article it would be much appreciated.

Also thanks for the responses, I know this is an odd case but there's a first time for everything MetalDarren (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@MetalDarren: You can continue the conversation in this section itself. There is no problem in that. I also saw that they've created the article after giving credits to you and your draft. You may do one thing. As I said before, change the structure/usage of words to make it different from the revision that is present in that site. That would be helpful and then re-submit it again. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Ok I will do so next when I can. However there's the worry they may just copy the changes over whilst this new iteration of the article is being reviewed. As an alternative, if I could contact someone from the site there and have them pull the article, would that be fine?" MetalDarren (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You can do it whenever you want. Also if you have any means of contacting with personalities on that site, you may do anything as you wish. There will be full support from me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:20:50, 13 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DaffodilOcean

• DaffodilOcean (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paula Bontempi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I fully recognize that I am new to Wikipedia, however, I think Bontempi should be considered under the guidelines for academics. She is an oceanographer, and has been named a Fellow of The Oceanography Society. This is described and documented on the page I wrote. When I read the guidelines for Notability (academics), this falls under criteria #3 : "...or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". Being named a fellow at The Oceanography Society is a selective honor, to quote their website ("... recognize TOS members who have made outstanding and sustained contributions to the field of oceanography through scientific excellence, extraordinary service and leadership, and/or strategic development of the field.") My understanding was that academics are only required to meet one of the 8 possible criteria. Have I mis-understood the criteria here?--DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello DaffodilOcean. I think you've misunderstood my rejection reason. The given person hasn't got significant coverage. Read WP:GNG once again. You can find about it more in there. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello - Let me see if I can put this in the right terms. I don't think WP:GNG is the guideline to use in evaluating Bontempi's page. I think it should be WP:PROF. On WP:PROF the guidelines for academics do not include the requirement for significant coverage (as described in WP:GNG).

Mate, don't forget to sign at the end. Yes, WP:NPROF does mentions about coverage as a part of reaching notability criteria. Are you sure that you've read WP:NACADEMIC properly? It mentions about 'impact' inside and outside the topic. Also keep in mind that every draft or an article requires significant coverage to go to the mainspace. WP:NPROF is an extended branch of WP:N, where in its main page, it cites about WP:GNG and the requirements which I've said you that the draft lacks comes under GNG. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ack, sorry about not signing that message. I have read WP:NACADEMIC and it states "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." (I added the emphasis about independent). It then goes on to say that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions..." and Bontempi meets criteria #3.DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey DaffodilOcean, I would like to know what makes the person pass the criteria no. 3. Will you tell me with a source to prove that? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Criteria #3 is "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Bontempi was named a Fellow of The Oceanography Society in 2019. On her page, I provided two citations for that honor:. According to the guidelines at WP:PROF, "publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source" so the citation I included from the The Oceanography Society website should suffice, though I added the Eureka Alert as well since it includes additional information about Bontempi.DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Okay DaffodilOcean. I'm convinced with your proof. The draft can be transferred to the mainspace. But before re-submitting the draft, there are many things that is to be done. Will you perform according to my instructions? Or should I do it myself? Anything as you wish. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. I would feel better if you moved it because I have never moved something out of AfC. Thanks for your consideration of this article.DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Yes mate. The only thing that's left in the draft is to do some modifications. It's not compulsory to do it, but I want every draft to be in a good condition whenever they go the mainspace. I'm more inclined to this because I myself is on a mission of improving a certain genre of articles. So, are you ready for that? Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am ready. Go for it. Thanks again.DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Perfect. First, remove all the links to non-existing articles, and then add a short description tag, dmy date tag and and English usage tag for the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what this means: 'dmy date tag', nor do I know what 'English usage tag' means. I added a short description and removed the two non-existent links.DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries @DaffodilOcean:. I'll do it. For that I wanna know one thing. Which variety of English was used by you to write the draft? Is it British or American? If I could know that, it would be really helpful. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

American EnglishDaffodilOcean (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DaffodilOcean. Rest I'll do. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

DaffodilOcean, I added those tags. Now there is only one thing left to be done. There is a need of info box in the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added the infobox scientist with the information that I can find. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Great. Then you may resubmit the draft. I'll approve it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for your help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes DaffodilOcean. Good work. Keep it up. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

About revised version of Draft Ling Shao

Dear Ken, After you rejected my first submission on the grounds of "Only one or two citation mentions about his name. Easily fails WP:GNG", I re-edited all references to make sure they come from reliable sources and clearly mention the author. Could you please review again to ensure that the revised version meets the requirements of being posted? Best wishes. Future of AI (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello mate. I would definitely make a visit. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell Smith

Ken, thank you for reviewing this article. My view is that there are sufficient references demonstrating significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These sources include government press releases, publications by reputable organizations independent of the subject (including the World Health Organization and Public Health Agency of Canada), and media, all of which are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Several of the media articles referenced provide significant, rather than passing, coverage of the subject (e.g., ). Is it a matter of simply including more of these? I felt that this would simply be over-referencing - the references included are clearly significant coverage and meet all of the other criteria, and so it is not clear how this fails to "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

References

Hello Asphodel76. Whenever you add a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign at the end of the it. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Signing is very important as it is helpful for us in many ways. Coming back to the topic. For your concern, one citation you gave in above is not accessible for me as I'm not a subscriber. The problems which I found in some, if not all of the sources you cited above are as follows:-

• Firstly, as I said before, I cannot access one sources due to not buying their subscription.
• Secondly, one or two sources you cited above doesn't even mention his name.
• Thirdly, only two or barely three sources have given a lengthy feature about him.
• Fourthly, there is a French source among the group, which I cannot read. I know it is possible to translate the page and read them, but that translating would be rough, and it won't be conveying everything that is present in the original revision. (NOTE:- There is no problem in citing another language citation in English Wikipedia.)
• Finally, a weak and unpopular reason. When you search with the name of the person in any search engine, there would be nothing, other than some profiles in various websites.

By taking all these into account, I rejected your draft. I know this can be a bit absurd point of view, but you can defend your draft against my reasonings by speaking your part. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken - really appreciate the response. Thank you. And I apologize for not signing off - will ensure to do so from now on. I will address each of the concerns you've raised in turn:

• Firstly, as I said before, I cannot access one sources due to not buying their subscription. - I have now swapped this reference (#20) out for another suitable reference that should be accessible.
• Secondly, one or two sources you cited above doesn't even mention his name. - I've just checked, and every reference mentions the subject's name, although two of them did indeed require a further click - apologies for that. I've modified references 9 and 12 so that it is more apparent and directly links to the page with the subject's name.
• Thirdly, only two or barely three sources have given a lengthy feature about him. - Most references in the article are provided to confirm details (e.g., education, current position, etc.), and so would not need full coverage on the subject. However, the parts of the article that are substantive, e.g., that discuss the subject's research focus, have multiple references devoted entirely to the subject. It seems that the number of references I've provided is the norm and stops short of over-referencing. With that being said, I've added an additional three references that provide significant coverage of the subject, which now hopefully meets this criterion.
• Fourthly, there is a French source among the group, which I cannot read. I know it is possible to translate the page and read them, but that translating would be rough, and it won't be conveying everything that is present in the original revision. (NOTE:- There is no problem in citing another language citation in English Wikipedia.) - I appreciate that you cannot read this. But, the subject is a Canadian bioethicist, and consequently, there will be media on the subject in both of the country's official languages: English and French. The French article is another example of significant coverage of the subject. Hopefully the addition of the three new references will offset the fact that this reference with significant coverage of the subject is in French.
• Finally, a weak and unpopular reason. When you search with the name of the person in any search engine, there would be nothing, other than some profiles in various websites. - Hopefully this can be overlooked given all of the other ways I've addressed your concerns above, for at least the reason that search engine searches are tailored for the searcher's specific geo-location. At any rate, the name of the subject is not uncommon, and so you might try "Maxwell J Smith" to retrieve more results for the subject.

Thanks for allowing me to defend my draft against your reasonings. Happy to revise further.

Asphodel76 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Asphodel76 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see that you've cited more sources to the draft. I'm impressed with your claims. Yeah, it maybe true that our difference in the geographical locations might've influenced the way our search engine works. Anyway there are many things that is to be done in draft. I'll tell you everything gradually. Happy to assist you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Henk Jan de Jonge

Dear Mr. Tony, Thank you for your comments on the draft article on "Henk Jan de Jonge," Professor em. of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at Leiden University, the Netherlands. In your review you mentioned the following about the references in the draft: "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." I have been looking at the references once again, and they seem to me to give exactly the coverage you ask for, some of them coming from independent sources, such as official, biographical registers of Leiden professors, others from leading, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals and other publications. All these references are verifiable. Could you please tell me what kind of changes you are thinking of in order for me to make the draft acceptable? I would be very grateful to you for your help. Thank you in anticipation. Hjdejonge (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate. I'm the second reviewer of the draft. Before me, some other reviewer reviewed and declined your draft citing the same reason. For your attention, unlike the previous reviewer, I didn't mentioned that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. In fact this time, I rejected it with reason that the person hasn't got significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The citations maybe reliable but we should check whether the draft constitutes with the guidelines implemented by Wikipedia. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about AFC reviewing

Hi, I'm concerned about some of your recent AFC declines. See Draft:Dragutin Prica, Fryderyk Buchholtz, Draft:Lucio Luiz, Draft:Jahantighi, Draft:Miroslav Milisavljević (last one had multiple reasons but one of them was translation related). Translations of other Wikipedia articles are perfectly acceptable, and that is not a reason to decline them at AFC. Unedited machine translations are not acceptable, but you seem to be declining all translations, even if performed by a seemingly competent human. Unless the translation is obviously faulty or is a copy of a Google Translate translation, there is no need to decline it on this basis. Also, to the extent a translation lacks attribution, you can simply add this attribution via a null edit and adding the template {{Translated}} to the talk page. This is better than simply declining the article (on one, you called it a copyvio and advised the author to rewrite it -- which is completely unnecessarily in light of the option to simply attribute the work to the other wiki). Do you understand these issues, and can you correct these errors? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello buddy. Thank you for giving this piece of information. Will do as it in the future. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, great, thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome mate. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 07:29:55, 17 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Blastitbiggswhereareyou

• Blastitbiggswhereareyou (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:X (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - I'm confused, I was told on Dec 01 when the submission was first declined that I needed to show proof that the film was reviewed beyond passing mention and via secondary sources - which the Ain't It Cool News, Total Film, and San Francisco Bay Times reviews provide. The rest of the material is from online Press Releases I found on media new sites. If I were to source the film on streaming platforms, i.e. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc. would that count as a reliable source being under the Vendor and e-commerce sources?

I know for a fact this film exists (having seen it myself), was distributed by a major distributor (Cinedigm) and it was reviewed in at least 3 notable sources (including SF Bay Times, a print paper); if there is a real way I can edit this page that I am doing incorrectly my apologies, please let me know how to edit it correctly.

Thank you for your help.

Blastitbiggswhereareyou (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Blastitbiggswhereareyou. The reason why I rejected your draft this time was because it had a YouTube video as a source in it. YouTube videos are generally not reliable. Considering this only I rejected the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, this isn't a valid reason to reject a draft. Even if one source supplied is unreliable, that doesn't mean an entire draft has to be rejected. I express no opinion about the draft overall, but it does not rise and fall on the inclusion of one YouTube source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Thank you for the information. I'm new to this. I'm still studying. Thank you once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about AfC new comment notification, its missing comment, and my deleted sandbox page.

The Issue Inside This Collapse Box Has Been Solved Deleteopedia (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, I got a notification the you left a comment regarding my AfC, but I couldn't find the comment. I was excited because I haven't gotten any feedback yet and honestly you might be the only person that has even seen it besides me. HaHa! I'd be grateful for any recommendations you can give me, because (if you can't tell from my username) I'm scared it is going to get deleted, so I want it to be as good as possible. HERE ARE THE FACTS I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT IT: I got an alert from you that took me to the bottom of my talk page User talk:Deleteopedia There was an AfC new comment box that linked to my PRE-DRAFT sandbox page User:Deleteopedia/SandboxHoneycutt I couldn't see a comment there and my PRE-DRAFTsandbox page had been deleted (I have since recreated it) My deleted PRE-DRAFT sandbox page had a red box saying you had moved it {somewhere? I'm not 100% sure where}. I ?think? it said you moved it to my DRAFT page? Draft:James Honeycutt (Distinguished Professor of Communication) OK, I figured it out. Instead of the DRAFT page I already created (link above), you made a new one Draft:James M. Honeycutt Wow that was confusing as hell! I finally found "view log" on the pages history for the page you moved/deleted From there I could see that where you moved it was q new page I didn't know about. LOL, glad that's over hehe Deleteopedia (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC) OH!I SEE HOW THIS HAPPENED... Ken Tony left the AfC notification Eagleash moved the page Those two independent actions interacted in a weird way. That's all it was. Problem solved! Deleteopedia (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate, oh that's so confusing. Ha. I left a comment on your submission saying 'Additional sources would be helpful'. Eagleash moved the page with a valid reason. So you can work from there from now, instead of doing it in the sandbox. Simple! 06:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Ken Tony and thanks! I finally found the comment.^{Shall we discuss?} <--- Love that!

I have a couple of other questions as well.

1) Are you guys doing an AfC review or just helping out? If you are does that comment mean I failed it?

2) Can you or possibly Eagleash explain why my sandbox had to get deleted, Isn't a sandbox mine to do with as I please? Also, ::why did it have to be moved/renamed. Couldn't we just used the Draft I already had?

3) On the "Additional sources would be helpful", what do you want the sources to help with? Can you give me some guidance on what you think is missing because it feels extremely well sourced to me. I dove pretty deep. I've got something like 5 Discipline specific Academic Encyclopedia, 7 Graduate and undergraduate textbooks, some book chapters, and more peer-reviewed journal articles than I cared to count. I also have different types of sources for the early life section, his profile on amazon, linked in, and his CV. I'm afraid its not going to get much better than that. He wasn't a famous child actor or anything that would make journalist write about him, just a regular high school/college kid back then. Can you let me know specifically what seems missing? Thanks so much Deleteopedia (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Deleteopedia: Glad that you like my sign. Mate, we're reviewers at (Articles for creation), who can move drafts to mainspace/namespace, if the draft fulfills WP:GNG criteria and several other selected criteria. I only left a comment on the draft for you to see and work on it. It doesn't mean your draft has failed. You could say so if someone rejected or declined your draft upon submission. Your sandbox was deleted because, when the submission was moved to draft space, it served as duplicate. So that may be the reason that the user deleted your sandbox. I think there is WP:CSD criterion for that. You can recreate the sandbox, even if it's deleted after redirection. And the last thing. I was thinking that the table in draft, if more sourced, would be great. I didn't said it's mandatory. That's why I just left a comment instead of declining or rejecting the draft. In overall, I like the structure of the draft. You did a great job. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kind words. I've worked my ass off on it for over 6 months. I'm pretty excited to get it out of draft space, so please let me know if I can do anything that would help expedite that. Is there anything that comes with completing the Afc review, like does your page get the AfC stamp of approval or something like that?

I had a HUGE milestone just yesterday. I finally got the copyright for his picture straightened out with OTRS. I kid you not, that was the hardest part of the whole thing. OTRS man... what can you even say... shit-show. I emailed Honeycutt and asked him to give the license in February. He did it immediately, same day, but OTRS waits till mid-June finally approve it. OTRS basically trolled the Honeycutts (yep, they got his wife into it). The Honeycutts must be the most chill people in the world, because I was getting stressed just watching OTRS give them the run around for 5 months. Anyway, the war is over! I got the ticket number on the talk page, and Boom, no more copyright headaches! Deleteopedia (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah mate, OTRS is a big deal. So what did they asked you to do? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Deleteopedia: FWIW the sandbox was not actually deleted per se; but the draft was moved without leaving a redirect. This is a useful 'right' in my view, as an AfC reviewer, as what often happens (otherwise) is that the sandbox 'owner' will start a new item by over-writing the redirect and whoever created the redirect gets the blame / credit / messages. Eagleash (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Draft Sunkara Pavani

Respected Reviewing Member, I think the subject of the article has sufficient notability. For your kind notice the subject is the elected mayor of a big Municipal Corporation and she is a well known woman leader of that party for which I think she may deserve a page like other mayors who have their article on wikipedia. Please kindly look on the matter again. KnightD2H (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello KnightD2H. In current status of the draft, it fails WP:POLITICIAN. You may read it. That person might be notable (I don't know. You said so), but there are no sufficient content or sources to prove that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir she was reported by several media outlets when she was elected as mayor and Sir mayor is not an ordinary post. In WP: Politician there is reference to person holding important offices. As you can check even Deputy Mayor of Birhanmumbai Municipal Corporation Suhas Wadkar has a page although he is not that great leader and sir I think a lady mayor deserve a place as it will help many women to find about her and can mentor them. That's my view on it Sir. Thanks..! KnightD2H (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Not that great leader" - I meant that Suhas Wadkar has similar reference like Sunkara Pavani and if a male deputy Mayor can have a page why a woman mayor of similar notability can't have an article. KnightD2H (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@KnightD2H: See, I'm not against female nor have a mindset that women can't have an article in the mainspace. And the person you mentioned here has an article because it satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He has got significant coverage. In the current status of your draft, it is not understandable what the person has got to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Read Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians and say what you think. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir I have added more references please check..! Thanks KnightD2H (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes KnightD2H. I saw that bare citations and converted them. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sir..I think this references are enough to prove notability of the subject.Actually I forgot to add those references earlier. KnightD2H (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, adding citations doesn't establish notability or reach it. I asked you to read Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians. Did you read that? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to Arsha Aghdasi’s draft

Hello; Firstly, I want to thank you for re-reviewing my draft and mentioning the problem. Secondly, Do you mind to help me with finding reliable resources? with many thanks in advance. Atena ak2 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)