User talk:Onel5969: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:39, 22 November 2022

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

Please remove the redirect tag

Hello, you placed a redirect tag on Coming of Age Ceremony (Japan). This is a Wiki Education project, and students are learning how to write Wikipedia articles. You made this article inaccessible. We need to expand the article in class tomorrow. User talk:Penerrantry — Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Count

edit count

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

Simple guide to Wikipedia mark-up
- Advanced guide to Wiki mark-up

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links for new editors

If you're leaving a question regarding an article you're attempting to get onto Wikipedia, here are some links you might find helpful:

Expo 2024/Lodz redirect

I don't understand why the Expo 2024 page would redirect to the Polish city of Lodz. There is no such event as Expo 2024 anyway, but since I don't know how to delete that redirect page, I simply removed the redirect. If you know how to do it, could you delete the Expo 2024 page? Cheers Nyoome — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page triage

Hi Onel5959, I have seen that you can tag pages without marking the page as reviewed. If I tag a page for maintenance, the check of the NPP toolbar becomes green, and then I have to unreview the page again myself, if I am not so comfortable with approving the article. So my question is how do you do tag an article without marking it as reviewed? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that has changed now, so that when you tag an article, the "mark as reviewed" button no longer is auto checked. But if it is, simply click on it to uncheck it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful reply.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tanushree Chatterjee

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tanushree Chatterjee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanushree Chatterjee was in 2017 with the substantive deletion rationale neatly summarised as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to a second nomination. . Thank you. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... not quibbling with your decision, I routinely send these to G4 since I can't see the originally deleted article. But you state "the substantive deletion rationale neatly summarised as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to a second nomination." Are you saying that's why YOU are rejecting the G4? Or that that was the AfD rationale? If the former, cool, thank you, if the latter, where did I miss that? The way I read the AfD, the result was simply, "The result was delete." Again not quibbling, just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography tagging

Thank you for all the NPP work you're doing! As a small suggestion, I wanted to say to watch out when setting the "living" parameter on WikiProject Biography, as I've noticed a few you've done for living people where it's set to "living=no", e.g. Anjali Kusumbe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up... I never "set" the parameter to "no". When using the rating tool, you have to click on the box to mark it "living", but not clicking it shouldn't mark them as dead. The next time I use that tool, I'll double check after I make the edit, and see if it's an issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not ideal if it sets "no" by default. I assume the tool creator thought that was a better outcome than them being flagged up on Category:Biography articles without living parameter. Setting it to something appears to be mandatory. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I just checked, and if you do not check the box, it does default to dead. Thank you so much for spotting that, I'll make sure to always check the box for living in the future. The issue will be when I can't ascertain whether or not the individual is still alive. For instance, sometimes, the article will not have a date of death, and if they were born from 1920 on, there is the chance they are still alive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's up to our best judgement when using the tool in that case. Personally I'd be inclined to say for anyone after about 1920 assume they are alive unless it explicitly mentions they died (doesn't need a date). -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying the articles

What are you doing? I have put two sources from a highly credible football site. How can I put a source for the match schedule? What you do is not constructive. Sakiv (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a message on your talk page. The two sources you have put on both of those pages do not include the information in those tables. The tables you have inserted have a place to insert the report for each match. You have used it on other pages you have created (or someone else has). All info on WP must meet WP:VERIFY. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the matches in the first source of Mallorca and in the second source of Osnabrück. You are wasting our times for no reason. Tag the articles!--Sakiv (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC

I had a similar experience with respect to blanking content and redirecting page Rajyotsava Awards (2022). I have busy the last two weeks to add more references. A simple search would have let you see numerous news articles covering the topic. It is the second highest civilian award in state of Karnataka. And a list of awardees is clearly notable. I would have rather had you WP:RFD instead. Someone else would have rescued it or helped with adding more references. Perhaps you could have added a reference too than blank content and redirect. As a courtesy to a fellow editor who has been around, a note in my talk page would have be appreciated. Please restore content and I will quickly add multiple references to the page. Going forward please desist from blanking content unless the content is objectionable or factually incorrect. Thank you. Arunram (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Also the WP:GNG guidelines clearly specify in the case of WP:FAILN, the remedies were for you to 1) "Look for sources yourself" 2) Ask the article's creator 3) Involve WikiProject... If these fail the suitable remedy was WP:AFD. The reference provided is the article is from a credible source The Hindu per WP:RSP which lists it as WP:GREL and I quote it "There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record". I am sure you would concur as a senior editor. Blanking and redirecting was not the appropriate response before exhausting other suggested options. I have posted this here to seek consensus before I go ahead and add multiple references on a clearly notable article. Best regards Arunram (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Jersey

I've declined the revdel request on Beautiful Jersey as it looks to be out of copyright material. As far as I can tell Lennox died in 1906 so in any jurisdiction where copyright in pma+100 or less, it's out of copyright. For the US it was registered for copyright in 1944 but I can't find it in the renewals database anywhere so it looks to be PD in the US as well. Nthep (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where redirects should point.

You recently turned African Beauty (song) from an article to a redirect. You redirected to the artist, rather than the album. If you are going to be lazy when creating redirects then I shall be equally lazy in reverting you. Pls redirect to the album, where appropriate. Thanks. Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to be lazy and not understand that either target is acceptable (since it is mentioned on both), not much can be done for you. From NSONG: "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship Request

Hi @user:Onel5969, I trust you are doing well. In the past few years, I have made some meaningful edits, made mistakes and try to effect correction when my attention is drawn. However, I would like to step up volunteering activities on the collaborative project. Hence, my humble request for mentorship for NPR/NPP in helping reduce the burden on the existing reviewers/patrollers.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Best regards Fatimah (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

Talia Or, fascinated 3 October, article begun 4 October, waiting for a review until 5 October, hardly added: orphan tag. I like to first write something substantial and then link. For a person born here, studied there, it would really not be hard to place a link or two, instead of a tag. Just my view. I fixed it now, but imagine I had gone out for hours as planned ... -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, apologies for that, did not see that you had done the article (AWB) doesn't do that, and I missed it when I double-checked. I try not to template the regulars (and certainly not someone of your stature). FWIW, I actually tagged myself yesterday, see this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's funny, thank, makes me feel much better --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draftification of the page Barak Turkmens

Dear Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing this article. If possible, I would like to learn the specific reason behind why this article was moved to the draft space, because compared to most articles that were turned to drafts, this article had much more content and better-quality sources (the bulk of the sources coming from academic papers or books). Moreover, none of the sources have a conflict of interest. After the draftification, I tried to back up unsourced bits or remove them for the moment, but the change wasn't substantial, since most of the content was supported by the sources provided. I have the feeling that because I didn't use repeated references, it may have been misunderstood that some full paragraphs (in the History section) were not backed up with sources. Though, in those cases, the sources listed at the end of the section would be supporting them. This would be a mistake on my behalf, which I tried to address in my further edits. Still, I am confused on the exact reason and would be delighted if you were to clarify it and/or give some feedback on the current state of the page. I will have to contest this decision.

Thank you. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been off computer since you asked this question. I would have moved it back to mainspace, which you have already done. And Arthistorian1977 has already marked it reviewed. While not required, it's better to make sure that each assertion has a footnote, and the changes you've made are perfectly fine. Thank you for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save my article

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Toros Neza_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Club_Puebla_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Santos Laguna season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Santos Laguna_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Cruz Azul season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoAcosta9 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HugoAcosta9 to save the owner of this page from replying to your four requests, it is not up to them. It is up to you. Improve the articles with the references asked for, and ensure that each deletion discussion is made ware that you have done so.

Asking in four different sections shows lack of restraint. I have compressed these into one section. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you Mister Onel5969, I realized it was a misunderstanding, one of my subsections "Matches" was unsourced, now I include the link and reference. I thought The Banner was speaking about my whole article. I know Timtrent and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Satkhol

Hi Onel5969. Hope you are keeping well. Thanks for reviewing this article and giving your suggestions. However the subject of the article is a tourist place and being a small village it doesnt have much reliable sources. I observe many villages,towns,cities having main space articles though not having sufficient references. Kindly share your inputs. Gardenkur (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Long time no speak. Hope you are well also. To establish notability of a place you need to have in-depth coverage. Obviously, this does not have that. Where did you get the information in the Background section? Was that from some type of government census site? If so, if you include that source, it passes WP:GEOLAND. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Sorry saw your note late. Thanks for your suggestion. However I noticed villages and towns with no substantial coverage but exists as they are geographical identity. Sure will try to get references for content in background section. Gardenkur (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Can you review once as I have added references and let me know if its good to move to main space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! Have moved it back into mainspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Thanking you for helping me on this through your guidance. Would like to associate more with you in making Wikipedia a wonderful platform for informational puposes. Gardenkur (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ask for help, as I said, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Rolled Back

Hi user:Onel5969, I recently made changes to the Openserve page and I see that all the changes and reinstatement of the dedicated entry for Openserve was completely rolled back. I need to understand why, as the issues with Openserve having a dedicated page (it was a division of Telkom not a separate entity) has changed. Openserve should no longer be redirected to the Telkom page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasdebruyneFalcorp (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "seperate entity" is irrelevant. There was an AfD discussion which decided that Telkom should be redirected to the other page. Are you associated with the corporation in some way? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Podedworny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Millard

Could you review these 2 articles when you get a chance? Thank you, Joan Murray Joan arden murray (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had already reviewed the Millard article last month, and it looks good. I removed a peacock reference in the lead from the Podedworny article. If sources say she was a pioneer, then that should be in the body of the article, with a reference. If they do refer to her that way, then it's fine to put back in the lead. The lead should also be expanded. There is enough stuff in this article that a four-five sentence summary should suffice. Actually, same with the Millard article. Other than that, very nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. will do. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me please? By accident, correcting Carol Podedworny, I blanked the page. Could you put it back? I don't know what I did. The instructions to unblank it are gibberish to me.Joan arden murray (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody restored it. In the future, if that happens, simply go to the history of the page, and click "undo" on the edit which blanked the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed content which was attributed

You removed a ton of World Ringette Championships event pages which had information collected from the World Ringette Championships article (and was improved) but was removed from the WRC to reduce the size of the WRC article. Can you please explain how this is reasonable considering this content had been approved for years but had only been moved then tweaked? CheckersBoard (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was uncited. Please see WP policy, WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 World Ringette Championships - thanks!

Wow were you ever right! It looks like it had only one source! I had to figure out how to view the old page. I panicked thinking everything was gone but one source? o_O I can only say thank-you, that article was a yikes lol. Sorry for the trouble :) CheckersBoard (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mount Trumbull, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Trumbull, Arizona 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/Mount Trumbull, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bhawi

This is a village in Rajasthan. I think it is to be added to Wikipedia. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to add sources which show that it indeed exists, and is recognized by the government. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo Serrano contested deletion

Amparo Serrano This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because they copied the text that I wrote and I can prove it. It is obvious that I wrote it first because of the hyperlinks to "abortion debate" and "girl group" that are internal articles of Wikipedia, so they stole my original text. Mruanova (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, an admin who has more expertise than I do in these matters will take a closer look, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), they'll remove the tag. You've already voiced this on the talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bhawi

This page is a about a village and official government reference has been added. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo redirect: McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences

Dear User @Onel5969,

I request that you undo the auto redirect of the page entitled "McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences," of which I spent hours creating and editing, to the page "McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences." I created this page for the purpose of public knowledge and information. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences is an entirely separate organization to that of its parent institution. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences has enough significant history, activity, and information to deem a unique Wikipedia page necessary. Furthermore, I have added original sentences with proper citations, according to APA citation stylings. Therefore, your redirect is not valid and your reasoning is unfounded. Please follow up immediately. The information I put on the page was common knowledge and the factual information was cited correctly. There is no reason why the page is being redirected. Justinhandgregory (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant. What is relevant was the dearth of in-depth coverage of the entity from reliable independent sources, which is the WP policy which was cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. McGill University has many other schools and departments listed on Wikipedia that have not been redirected to their parent institutions, some even with more blatant copyright violations. Your reasoning is unfounded and is a misuse of your admin power. Additionally, had you let me work on the page a bit, plenty of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources would have been added. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify their above comment that you have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard, they opened at discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in which you are mentioned. The topic is Unfounded reasoning and misuse of power for redirection of a page. I only mention this because it doesn't appear that you were actually notified of this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the head's up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nick Wolny

Hello, I appreciate your review of my article however it has been moved to draft-space by another reviewer. I just wanted to let you know that I have submitted it to the article creation queue for assessments and removed your maintenance tags because the article is no longer in the main-space. Kspoty (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove Robert Campbell (artist)? Why?

Hi @Onel5969. Eight days ago, you reviewed a page I created, Robert Campbell (artist). Now it's gone. What happened? Can you please help me get it back? Pcaabplroa (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass notability criteria (WP:GNG). It was redirected to Brass Tacks Press. If you would like to work on it, I could move it into draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

orphan page

@Onel5969, page link has been created. so Mara Rudman is not an orphan page now.- AbuSayeed (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help move Nederlandse Stoomboot Maatschappij

Hi @Onel5969 as you noted on my talk page, please help move Nederlandse Stoomboot Maatschappij to Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij (with 'ch'). This move is blocked by Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij currently being a redirect page to Fijenoord.Grieg2 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nice job on the article, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action! I added a new infobox image to Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, which explains the relation to its shipyard Fijenoord.Grieg2 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six Super Universities

Hi colleague, the proposed page does have factual bases which have been included in the draft. See e.g. "World Reputation Rankings 2016 methodology". Times Higher Education (THE). 2016-05-04. Retrieved 2022-10-08. Btnls (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a real concept is fine. But not relevant to WP:GNG. You need several in-depth sources from independent, reliable references which talk about it, in order to show it's notable. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the page 'Su Shihao' redirected?

Hello fellow editor, the page 'Su Shihao' was created by me and focuses on a player for Qingdao Youth Island football club, I don't know why yesterday it was reviewed and redirected to the page of the football club by you. I hope this could be reverted.

Hi. Two things first. Whenever you leave a message for someone, please remember to sign it with four tildes (~~~~). Second, please leave a link to whatever it is you are talking about. Now about the player, as was said in the edit summary: not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McKendrick (DA RSW RGI)

Makes no sense in putting a CSD tag on a redirect - the CSD tag goes on the actual article, which when deleted means the redirect is no longer valid and can be deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was running copyvio while you were redirecting. When I added it, it was a page. Also, the source you reference in your CSD, doesn't really state its copyright procedure, the second source, which was the one I referenced, should probably be used. Most likely not a big deal. Thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem both the article and the redirect have been deleted now. Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't figure it would be... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi, today Draft:Habib_Alejalil rejected with the reason "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" but there is enough reliable sources to verify for example [1] [2] [3] can you please look into draft and tell me your opinion about it? ZEP55 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for reply. ZEP55 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my articles

Hello, I noticed you have been and still are deleting the content of my articles without at least moving them to draft or putting tags on them for me know whats wrong. Can I ask for you to move them to put them in draft or add tags without deleting please? Larasabri401 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to let me know which articles, and I'll be happy to move them to draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the Travelling Seagull, In the Harbour of Days, The Puppet (Novel), Two Rooms and a Hall Larasabri401 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first one is at Draft:The Tales of the Traveling Seagull 2, Draft:The Puppet (novel), Draft:In the Harbour of Days, and Draft:Two Rooms and a Hall. And they were never deleted, they were redirected to the author's article. And as was said in the edit summary, there are not enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

warina hussain

what is the issue with the biography of the actress Warina Hussain? have provided adequate references. And why is it being redirected to create ambiguity, either delete it or allow editors to expand it, why is it being redirected to one film only. Kindly participate in article talk page, notability changed overtime June to Oct 2022Fostera12 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the consensus of a very recent AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag my article for notability?

Why did you tag Gaotang Long for notability? There are two sources and a search of Google Books finds quite a few more. Mucube (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It only has two sources, one of which is unreliable. Another issue, although it does not go to notability, is that is has zero footnotes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't use footnotes because I didn't find the need for it. I use both of the sources throughout the entire page.

Second, what is the unreliable source you are mentioning? Mucube (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens when another editor adds something to the page? Anyway, chinaknowledge is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be adding footnotes. But why is Chinaknowledge unreliable? Mucube (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant House

Hi! I've seen that you moved the page Quadrant House to the draft space. Nonetheless, I believe the article should be moved back to the mainspace since it is about a national heritage listed building. As such, it is convention that the very same source from the national register are enough to demonstrate the article's notability. Moreover, in addition to that I have also included an additional source, thus more than satisfying the sources requirements. I'd be glad if you could revert the move. Thank you! Plumbago Capensis (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've moved it back, but right now it has zero independent reliable sources, which is why it was moved to draft to begin with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thank you for the intervention. Why do you say it has no independent sources? The article has a link with the proper SAHRA listing details, plus a reference to another catalog, independent from SAHRA (the 'Artefacts' reference). What I want to say is that in my opinion the article satisfies notability and the the independent reliable sources requirement, too.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lack of good sources for "Women's Indian Premier League"

Here are five sources that could be used for that article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-set-to-launch-five-team-womens-ipl-in-march-2023-1339813, https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/124105/bcci-considers-5-teams-2-venues-20-league-matches-for-inaugural-wipl, https://theprint.in/sport/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-with-5-teams-max-5-overseas-players-in-xi/1166291/, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/top-stories/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-2023-with-5-teams/articleshow/94835731.cms, https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/five-teams-in-womens-ipl-with-22-matches-to-be-played-bcci-8207222/. With these sources, would you be willing to reinstate the article? GreekApple123 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Look Sorry.....

I'm just fustrated that you Turned my Oggy Next Gen page into a redirect. I don't know how to do the opposite of "not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, nor VERIFY". PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PickleAndPeanutFan: You'd have to find in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources that show it's notable. If secondary reliable sources don't exist then the article shouldn't be here because it's not able to be verified as notable, even if you watched a lot of it. The reasons provided in the edit summary for redirecting (WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY) are very basic/core tenets of policy/guidelines so I'd advise brushing up on those to be sure you have some basic Wikipedia competence under your belt with which to edit. (Also, I'd recommend reading WP:CIVIL (also a basic/core tenet, though in the user behavior sphere rather than the content one) since I happened to be glancing at your contribs and saw your original reverted edit to this page which was very uncivil.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewowies what are the examples of in-depth coverages PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewowies what are the examples of in-depth coverages PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't draft legitimate stubs

The ofgem reference is perfectly sufficient. Leave it in main space. I notice you disruptively draft a disproportionate amount of articles. Please consider becoming an inclusionist and expand articles instead of letting them languish in draft space where they will be deleted after six months. DonkeyW (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider becoming a competent contributor. I have no idea what you are talking about, since you did not leave a link. And uncivil comments are not really the way to approach someone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock; blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Lechang

I made some updates and added some book/journal articles as references as you suggest. Could you please review the updated draft ? Thank you. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inuyasha2021 I'll take a look in 24 hours or so (ping me if I forget), came across this page through random AFC, ref 5 seems promising but there is likely no significant coverage on the character herself but more on the general story. (although zh wiki redirects zh:破镜重圆 to zh:乐昌公主). Will leave a note on your talk page after review. Justi yaya 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kondaveeti Venkatakavi

I noticed you removed Kondaveeti Venkatakavi page. He is well known poet and has books and movies to his credit. You can verify from other Telugu language wikipedians. He has even an article in telugu wikipedia. I put more information on talk page of article. I reverted changes. Please let me know if you disagree and what else I can do to improve your confidence.

mlpkr (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

I may have accidentally unreviewed a page that you reviewed. Lily Goh Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. No worries. Thanks for your efforts at NPP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question on your review of the article on heterostrain

Hi,

Thanks for checking my article on heterostrain. You flagged it with the "needs more citations for verification" which I don't understand. Could you be more precise on what part needs verification? The citations in the article are all from main Physics journals and most of them have been cite several times, up to more than a hundred times for some of them according to google scholar. It seems to me that this satisfies the wikipedia verifiability page. Thanks for your help. Note that I've added a talk page on the article. Maybe a batter place to discuss this?Spaguettovince (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every assertion needs a reference. So for example, the Etymology section has no reference. And when I reviewed it, the section following that was woefully undersourced. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for sharing the good practice. I've added sources to the Etymology section. I think it is now in order. Do you think I can remove the flag?Spaguettovince (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!!!Spaguettovince (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CEDAW Alliance Germany

Hi Onel5969! Do you think CEDAW Alliance Germany is notable? I was on the fence about it during an NPP review and posted a message at the talk page hoping the page creator might have seen more sources. I found a few not cited in the article, but nothing with significant coverage. I came back to it today thinking to maybe take it to AfD. Would appreciate your thoughts! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in-depth either. AfD is one route. You could draftify, the creator ignored your note on the talk page, so it might prompt them to put some more work into it. I thought about redirecting it to CEDAW, but the German branch isn't mentioned there. Personally, I'd draftify, but as I said, AfD is also an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both are great alternatives to AfD. I'm going to go ahead and draftify. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New page query

Hi, I see you reviewed Stuart Sorbie but I am struggling to see see how this article meets our notability guidelines in its current state. Can you let me know which refs you think assert this sufficiently? This is especially an issue as the article creator has recently created many articles which have dubious or no notability. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a misclick on my part. I remember looking at it either yesterday or this morning, and I looked through the 10 sources, none of which go in-depth about the person (although there is one decent article which is about them). I thought I had tagged it for notability, but with the new curate tool defaulting to "not reviewed", not sure how that happened. Yes, this editor is creating numerous articles which last year would easily have passed AfD, but with the recent changes, no longer do. Very nice catch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The source you suggest may be "decent" is possibly the one with almost entirely interview quotation. I saw this article flag up in new pages list and was somewhat bemused it had been reviewed without highlighting the referencing issue (this editor seems to be making many similar type articles recently). As you say, not long ago it may have been received more kindly when WP:NFOOTY was a thing, but not now. If it's a mistake then no worries! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already went back and prodded it. Fram is having quite an issue with this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mikulka

In the case of Jan Mikulka, your suspicion of a conflict of interest is absolute nonsense and an affront to my professional honour. I founded the Art Library project in the Czech Wikipedia, where there are almost 1200 entries and I select artists only with regard to their importance. One of the entries is the Studio of Classical Painting Techniques of Prof. Zdeněk Beran and I am gradually adding entries of his students who have made a mark abroad with their work. I have no family ties with the artist, I do not own any of his works and I have only communicated with him in the process of arranging the copyrights needed to publish the paintings. The article is, in my opinion, adequately referenced to sources.--NoJin (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit you have a relationship with them. Please follow WP:COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a relationship"? I have only relationship with Czech art in general as author of the Art Library project, but none of listed in WP:COI.--NoJin (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been in communication with them. That's COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that I have no family, client, financial, employer or other ties to the artists for whom I have written Wikipedia articles. I am originally a molecular biologist and write articles in my spare time. I have never written anything for hire and I am very scrupulous about protecting my right to choose my own topics. Of course, I had to get their permission to publish the work, but I often take the photographs myself so that I don't have to ask the author or photographer. Jan Mikulka is one of dozens of Czech artists whose articles I have contributed. The fact that I provide illustrations of artists' work makes my project special and has been recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation with an article on its blog.--NoJin (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires

Hi! I saw you've redirected the page Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires to the main article on the university on grounds of lacking general notability and lack of reliable sources. I'm a little confused on this, seeing as the article contained detailed references coming from notable publications such as independent newspapers (La Nación and Página 12) as well as a book on the faculty's history. If the issue is the lack of sources, I would be happy to add more to the article. To discard it entirely (especially given the fact an article on the faculty already exists at Spanish Wikipedia), does come across as extreme. dainshku • talk page 22:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The La Nación article is about the school, and only includes a brief paragraph. The Página 12 is an interview, which is a primary source, and therefore doesn't go to notability. The book about the faculty's history is a primary source, having been published by the university. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okezue Bell

And finally... I give you the AfD. Got any silver bullets and garlic? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My removed pages

I can understand why you’ve removed my pages about the Dutch footballers and the st Vincent and the grenadines goalkeeper, but what independent sources am I supposed to find about fourth tier Dutch footballers and a 20-year-old goalkeeper from a small Caribbean archipelago? Sorry if this come across as sarcastic but I’m just looking for advice on sources Jackoooo45 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for reaching out. That's kind of the point about GNG. Just because they played football, doesn't necessarily make them notable. The guidelines have changed in the past year. There used to be an SNG (Specific Notability Guideline) for footballers, but so many stub articles were being created about players where there wasn't a lot of coverage, that the SNG was deprecated, so now WP:GNG is what is needed. I don't do a lot of research on European and Caribbean subjects, so I don't know where to point you regarding sourcing. You might ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or on the project pages for those subjects... in this case I would guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands. Hope that helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Whitlock Cienega, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whitlock Cienega, Arizona 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/Whitlock Cienega, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub status in Plasmodiophore

Hello, could I ask you to please reassess the quality status of Plasmodiophore? I think it no longer is a stub. Snoteleks (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not! Have changed the status (but you can do that yourself, you know). Thanks for pointing it out! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't want to do it myself since I don't really know how to assess the quality of articles, it would've been my first time and I'd rather let an experienced user do it. Snoteleks (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yampai, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yampai, Arizona 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/Yampai, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wood Springs, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wood Springs, Arizona 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/Wood Springs, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona 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/Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona 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/Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Let us break Bread together on our Knees

Is still in my draftspace, Draft:Let Us Break Bread Together. To find good sources is not easy, as most are relgious sources, which I view of questionable veracity. Wisdom?

dino (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the editor's resources, and then the links for news and books, I think you can find enough references. This is a well known hymn (I happen to know all the lyrics myself). There's this, this, and this, and that was just on the first page of the search of news. This was on Books. So the sources are out there. Give it a whack and ping me and I'll have another look. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Willow Spring, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow Spring, Arizona 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/Willow Spring, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Willow, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow, Arizona 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/Willow, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wickchoupai, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wickchoupai, Arizona 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/Wickchoupai, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tonto Estate, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tonto Estate, Arizona 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/Tonto Estate, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona 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/Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aztec Lodge, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aztec Lodge, Arizona 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/Aztec Lodge, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dehorn, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dehorn, Arizona 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/Dehorn, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in appreciation

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For the reviewer whose name I am always grateful to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ichabod Chauncey

What convinced you to add the "notability" tag to this article? I think the sources in the article (and other references in the ODNB entry, here) indicate references in secondary sources going back 300 years. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And first of all, thank you for your contributions to the project. I've reviewed quite a few articles you've created, and have always enjoyed them. Second, in response to your question, mostly since there are only two refs used in the article, and one of them is primary. I'm pretty sure they are notable, it's just right now, the footnotes are a tad thin. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've added this source (p. 67) to the "Further reading" section. Combined with this source (p. 178) and the ODNB entry, do you think that is enough to remove the tag? I realise the inline citations are slight, but they are reliable. And notability is established by the "Further reading", in my view. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Nice job. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of La Cienega, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article La Cienega, Arizona 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/La Cienega, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Noah, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noah, Arizona 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/Noah, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Bobak

When you get a chance, could you please change this artist's name to Molly Lamb Bobak. She was a friend of mine and always preferred this form of her name. I have tried several times to change it but couldn't. Thanks, as always, Joan arden murray (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but you should not edit the article, as you have a WP:COI issue. In the future, please request changes to be made to any artist you have a connection with. Or ping me and I'll take a look. Wouldn't want to see a valuable contributor like you get in trouble. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to wait a bit, clearly, as per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be Molly Lamb Bobak, but there is a redirect which is blocking the move. Normally I could do a three-way move, however, back in 2012, the info from Molly Lamb Bobak was cut and paste to the new article, Molly Bobak, and a history merge needs to be completed first. If you could keep your eye on the article, after the histmerge is completed, I'll be happy to move it for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! and for the good advice too!Joan arden murray (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And done! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad about that, puts icing on the cake! Thanks, Joan.Joan arden murray (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of Aurora (singer)

Hi Onel5969. I was going to split Aurora (singer) and I saw that in the past you objected to that split. Would you still object, or do you agree it is time to do it with the article now over 140k? --Muhandes (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out... no, it looks long enough to qualify... go right ahead. Just remember to leave the correct attribution in your edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kool Corner, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kool Corner, Arizona 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/Kool Corner, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftication of Qdot and its recreation

I created the article Qdot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qdot) with references in line with Wikipedia guidelines but maybe it wasn't enough because the article was drafted but the article was recreated with only blog References (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qdot) and it is still on the Wikipedia space. I am confused. Can you help me to check the two pls?

Nomination of Engesser Junction, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Engesser Junction, Arizona 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/Engesser Junction, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hi, letting you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. R. Kesavan given you previously PRODed the article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-load bearing wall" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Non-load bearing wall and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Non-load bearing wall until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.244.114 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Achi, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Achi, Arizona 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/Achi, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Angell, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angell, Arizona 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/Angell, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peters Corner, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peters Corner, Arizona 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/Peters Corner, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oit Ihuk, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oit Ihuk, Arizona 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/Oit Ihuk, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Vlădoiu

You moved to draft but it has been returned to main without much improvement. In view of COI or UPE issues may be AfD 'ready'! Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maniklal Sinha Wikipedia new page

Sir I tried to resolve few issues and revised the article Maniklal Sinha. Kindly see once. Srikrishna1960 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blaisdell, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blaisdell, Arizona 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/Blaisdell, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Growler, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Growler, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growler, Arizona (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting of Regional College of Pharmacy to RUHS Site

Have been working on Educational Universities and Colleges in India. Kindly Understand Regional college of Pharmacy is affiliated college of Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. It cannot be redirected to parent University.

I was Expecting others to add up in the page. For the same have i have recovered it back for further additions. Ansh.cardiff (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. It does not meet standards for WP:GNG. You need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have Put Citations from

1) Pharmacy Council of India which is the Government Approved Pharmacy Council that provides approval to pharmacy Colleges // Most Reliable Pharmacy Body in India

2) Rajasthan University of Health Sciences which is the Government University which Affiliates the Colleges // Most Reliable Pharmacy Body in Rajasthan

3) AICTE which is the Government Body which checks the regularity of Education in India.

4) Rajasthan Pharmacy Council - A Council which approves the Certificates of Students after passing.

Kindly Guide further Ansh.cardiff (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added Few Journal Citation and other references also - Can You please guide Ansh.cardiff (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz

Hello Onel5969. I have declined the speedy deletion of Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because the recreated article is not substantially identical to the originally article deleted at AfD, and thus is not eligible for deletion under the G4 criteria. The originally deleted article consisted of only a sinle line of text, 1 infobox, 2 refs and 1 external link. This does not precluede a re-nominaton for deletion via AfD. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Zimin Foundation

Hello. Why do you find this article is an advertisement? - because of too long description of projects? I doubted about that but thought it was important information gathered together, although of course some links for specific projects are not independent. But there are other independent links to AI. If such a long list of projects looks too advertising - ok, I can shorten it, leaving only the most important projects of the foundation. The foundation is one of the most important organization supporting science, at least in Western Europe, so just deleting the article does not seem a good solution. Mlarisa (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is simply a promotional brochure. It needs a complete re-write as is. And yes, I would drastically shorten the projects listings. Anything which is sourced by a primary source I would get rid of. Also, keep the article about the foundation, not about Zimin himself (e.g. the Carnegie Award was to him, not the foundation). If you would like I could move it into draft so that you can work on it if you would like.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Araby, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Araby, Arizona 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/Araby, Arizona (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Life with Luca for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life with Luca, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life with Luca until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Los Burros, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Los Burros, Arizona 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/Los Burros, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Natches, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natches, Arizona 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/Natches, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nariska, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nariska, Arizona 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/Nariska, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio confusion?

I published a working draft of a biology list yesterday, List of Odonata species of Senegal. Thanks for taking interest in the article and improving it. I'm a little confused on some of the material that was removed because of apparent copyvio, though. The linked website (https://pixels.com/featured/california-dragonfly-mariola-bitner.html) contains none of the text from this article. Most of the text portions of this article are in fact copied or adapted from another wikipedia list, List of Odonata species of Sri Lanka. I intended to note this somewhere when completing the rest of the references as I polish up the list. I suppose I should have added an 'Under Construction' template to the top of the page. How should I proceed? -NoahElhardt (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, when copying like that is unattributed, it is usually assumed to be a copyvio. But with what you say above, that is most likely a mirror, feel free to remove the revdel template, and rev my deletion of the material. But please provide the appropriate attribution when you do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for picking up some AfC reviews! S0091 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... now that NPP is under control, will do some work over there... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dar Al Sharq Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dar Al Sharq Group, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dar Al Sharq Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and promotion tags on Andre Soares (Brazilian-American writer, actor)

Good morning One! Hope you're doing well.

I just received a notification a tag was placed on a draft I just moved to the article space. This draft was reviewed by many contributors (for weeks) who brought forth great feedback. I applied all of it, ranging from citations to legal details removal and the use of last names in BLPs.

Every information in this article is backed by independent press coverage from international (Le Parisien, France, Shepherd.com), nationwide (Yahoo!) and local sources (municipalities in GA, Shoutout Atlanta and Voyage Atlanta, which I just came across and was just published 10/27/2022).

Reviews and critical reception on publications have been added word for word and can be verified through retailers' sources (which I did not include to avoid promotion and advertisement per BLPs guidelines).

The subject has a Google knowledge panel, which is an index of notability and visibility that can only be attained to Google's discretion.

External links and overall template are modeled over this one.

I see many articles in the disambiguation page for Andre Soares (similar names) with less coverage, less sources and less indexes of notability.

What would you like for me to correct on this page?

--

Thank you again and I hope you have a great weekend. A1ProtocolX (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I'd love for it not to read like a promotional brochure for the individual. Second, I'd like for it to have more in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. Please remember that interviews do not count towards notability. And third, every assertion in the article needs to referenced from a reliable source. This style of editing makes me think you might have some personal connection with the subject. If so, WP:COI or WP:UPE might apply. Do you have such a connection? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response! I have no connection to the subject nor am I compensated for this. I came across his works during book club sessions (in college) and discussions. I was asked that and clarified it a few weeks ago while performing my first edits. What would you suggest to reach a more neutral tone? My intent was never to promote, which is why I kept the critical reception section as minimal as possible and removed the influences section I added a few weeks ago to avoid notability-by-inheritance.

I'll be happy to remove any information that seems like paid, contracted work or promotion. A1ProtocolX (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mumurva, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mumurva, Arizona 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/Mumurva, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new film article Poovan (film)

Hi,

I am Ameer, I have created the articlePoovan (film) recently and during the editing another editor interrupted and added some tags early before I complete the article. due to the edit conflict, lost some more data which I had been working on. Now I've completed and could you please check.? Ameer al safar (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry I couldn't get to this yesterday. Another editor has already marked it reviewed, so all's good. In the future, if you are working on developing an article, you might consider working on it in draftspace, first, that way, no one will interrupt your development. Even if an article is only a few minutes old, reviewers don't know whether you are done or not. I know that can be frustrating, so consider the draftspace option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the Way Tour

Good evening! I noticed that you reverted my revision to the By the Way Tour article. Should I make my revision more complete? Chris25689 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Take a look at WP:NTOUR, you need in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to show that it's notable. Interviews are primary, so don't count. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely helpful! Thanks!

Chris25689 (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I have two questions about secondary sources:

1. Could the secondary sources just be about individual concerts of the tour, or they have to be about the whole tour.

2. I reference that used in my revision was from the Red Hot Chili Peppers Live Archive, which is used as a reference in articles of other RHCP tours, such as the Stadium Arcadium World Tour, The Getaway World Tour, and 2022 Global Stadium Tour. The footnote states that it "is an unofficial website and is in no way affiliated with Red Hot Chili Peppers, their management and/or record label. The contents on this website are exclusively for informational purposes." Therefore, should it be considered as a secondary source?

Thank you!

Chris25689 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore my New Idea page

Please refer to the title. But in addition, just make it a draft again instead of deleting my work. ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M [[User:ChiserYT|ChiserYT]] ([[User talk:ChiserYT|talk]]) (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errors fixed

Hi Onel, I’ve effected all changes you suggested to article Becoming Abi. Kindly check it out.

Thank you B.Korlah (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matt White (paraclimber)

Hi Onel, a couple of days ago you declined my submission due to a suspected conflict of interest. I just messaged the Articles help team for next steps and they said to just explain my relationship (or lack of) to Matt White.

A friend of my climbs and competes at the national competitions in the UK. I first saw Matt White in the 2021 Nationals. Then again later this year in a few events including some of the Nationals. Whilst I’ve seen him climb (and heard lots of people talk about him and his story) I’ve never actually met him and he doesn’t know who I am (I promise I’m not stalking him).

Do you need anything else from me to help resolve this?

Thanks. Trevor Stocall (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the COI, yes, your above explanation is good enough. However, while the climber is accomplished, none of the sourcing is in-depth about him. Currently he does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First hurdle over lol.

Now for the ‘notability’… This is my first article and I would have thought that each of the results pages meets the criteria for verifiable sources. I was unable to find lots of articles about Matt White, but the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) pages came up (with a secondary set of info about the result). Would that be sufficient?

Sorry to be a pain and thanks in advance Trevorstocall (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd have to take a look. What you want is at least three independent sources which go in-depth about the climber. If the BMC is independent, and reliable, than that would work for one of them. I did a brief WP:BEFORE, and I can't come up with any in-depth coverage, but there might be local sources I don't have access to. I'm more than willing to take a look at the article as you work on it and offer suggestions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I’ll keep working on it and get back to you in a couple of weeks. Thanks for your help Trevorstocall (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Lal Puri

Thank you very much for noticing the copyvios in the AfC contribution I recently accepted. I was obviously focused too much on notability, so I didn't run a copyvio check against the given sources. Good catch! Felix QW (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's why we have safety nets. In reviewing, I usually do the copyvio ck first, since if that's positive, everything else is irrelevant. Thanks for your contributions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree with your notability assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

I edited the Gonzalo Lira page at the same moment as it was draftified. I've deleted my edit but I presume something needs to be done to the page now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's being taken care of. Feel free to work on the existing draft, Draft:Gonzalo Lira Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternion Eagle

Not enough references? There were at least 8 references, while you redirected the page to a section with even less references, that is zero. That's the text I started with, and I was manually adding the references; I added three books just seconds before you reverted, and I was going to add others. Well, I am going to. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Est. 2021. I think we overlapped when I restored the redirect - when I checked, which was about five minutes before that, it hadn't been worked on in over an hour. You can always put an inuse tag on it. My only issue is the WP:VERIFY one.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abou your takedown on the article

What do you mean by that, other pages I saw are also like that. Maybe you could take them down. Why you are just noticing this specific page is the same could be said for other similar pages? Omega2330 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Haviland, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haviland, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haviland, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stockton, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stockton, Arizona 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/Stockton, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mela Loot Liya for deletion

Hello, hope you are fine

Please take a look on this page Mela Loot Liya as itself described Unofficial song of PSL. Here you can see the official PSL songs. I think there should be no place for this page on Wikipedia as its not notable song more than sung by Ali Zafar.

Please comment and take action (Deletion or Redirect to PSL) if you see any problem. Thanks M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the song, you can nominate it for deletion yourself. See how to at WP:AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-load bearing wall

Please don't draftify a page when there is already consensus that any deletion should be through AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the entire article was uncited, and as per WP:VERIFY, uncited material may be removed at any time. And as per WP:BURDEN, no one should re-add uncited material without providing references once it has been removed. Does VERIFY not count? Please let me know if that's the case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a content question. It's a process question. Don't draftify pages when editors have already said that their removal from mainspace should be dependent on an AfD. That said, this is a rather petty invocation of VERIFY. It's not exactly a contentious claim that a non-load bearing wall is a wall that doesn't bear load, and it's not exactly hard to verify. Did you sincerely believe that that was not a verifiable claim? Either way, I've done that work for you now.

This is really disappointing conduct to see from a new page patroller. You BLAR'd an article to an unsuitable target. You draftified it after that had been overturned and a PROD had been contested. And you've removed trivially-sourceable content rather than sourcing it yourself or {{cn}}ing it. If you're so determined to get rid of this mundane set index article, why not do what everyone else does and take it to AfD, rather than trying to twist processes? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that WP at least tries to be an encyclopedia, rather than a compendium of unverified information that anyone just slaps on a page. And I didn't BLAR, I restored a redirect. I did not choose the target, it had already been created by another editor. Where does stuff on WP become trivial enough not to need to pass WP:VERIFY? Is there a some chart which shows what should or should not be verifiable. I have no idea whether or not that information was verifiable, since it was unsourced. It could be true, it even might be true. But I don't know, and without a source, I could not easily check.

But one last thing, I didn't see that it had been restored through RfD, and that is my bad. I simply thought it was restored by the ip without sourcing once again. My apologies for that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Verde Park notability

Hello! Thanks for reviewing the page I made Plaza Verde Park. Can you share what the page needs to make it notable? I'm not sure how that works with places. Thank you! JaneClawsten (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What you need is in-depth coverage from independent sources to show notability. The sources you used are fine in terms of WP:VERIFY, but you need the in-depth sourcing to show it meets notability. Local papers are okay, but if there is coverage from outside the area, that's better, as simply local sources might not hold up in a deletion discussion. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Darby notability

Hi, would you mind sharing what about the page lacks notability? I've included various sources such as The Washington Post, Miss America Foundation, Eater, etc. I've also double/tripled cited some points. Medievalonion (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She has no notability outside the reality show. All the info about her is pr. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Technology Center

You were apparently the reviewer on the page Autry Technology Center, but I'm not sure what you reviewed. The page that currently appears is just a redirect to "List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma". This is not the page I wrote; I can repost if you need it. If there's a problem with the page I wrote, please let me know what it is. Thanks. TulGuy (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reviewed your page, which had zero notability, and redirected it to the list article, which is what I said in the edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't get your concept of "zero notability". This is a technical college with almost 22,000 yearly students, sponsored by the State of Oklahoma. Are you saying technical colleges are not worthy of note, or anything in the State of Oklahoma is not worthy of note? The article itself goes into the History, Programs, Other campuses, Enrollment and Accreditation of the institution, and I really don't think there's anything wrong with it. So if you're not going to change your mind, what's the appeal process here?

Nomination of Riordan, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Riordan, Arizona 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/Riordan, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clints Well, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clints Well, Arizona 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/Clints Well, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an article

I don't understand why you tagged the article even though there are three sources and an external link. Sakiv (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem to not understand WP:VERIFY. There is information in that article which is unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself, three sources for an article that is a compilation of the results of a team in a season that does not need dozens of sources to prove it, it seems that I came to the wrong place for discussion. Sakiv (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you simply don't understand. I don't care if there are 30 references in an article. If after looking at those references, there is still information in the article that is unsourced, then it needs more sources. It's not that difficult a concept to get. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jahborne

Hi Onel. I hope You are well. You noted that the article did not resolve the conflict of interest. I noted on my page that I was asked by its original author to correct and edit the article from a neutral point of view. Please look again. Thank you.StupidPingvin (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reviewed it prior to you adding that. I'll let another reviewer take a look, for in my opinion there are still POV issues, and unclear notability. You need several in-depth sources from reliable sources to show they meet notability. And remember that interviews do not count towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kojo Metz

Starting a Talk page on the guy but in the meantime I've taken down your notability note. Could you outline why you think he's not notable? It's essentially an adapted translation of the German article and he's also listed here as being of high interest. thanks! NerdyThursdays (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See article's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Korra Obidi

Hello. You say the page has been deleted before. Point me to the older version that was deleted. I need to see the content of the former page. Amaekuma (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm waiting on your feedback. Amaekuma (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will take a look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag on Julian Opuni

Hello Onel5969, I will like to first thank you for following my edits. I believe this is not the first time you have reviewed a page I created. However, I disagree with placing a notability tag on 'Julian Opuni'. This is because

1. Some Wikipedia articles on persons pass the notability mark because of the organisation the person heads. This has been true for politicians and public officeholders such as judges even in the absence of good reference sources. Fidelity Bank is a major banking organisation. Fidelity Bank is NOT A SUBSIDIARY of any global bank but a bank on its own footing. There may be another bank called Fidelity elsewhere in the world but this is not related to the bank Julian Opuni heads. In my part of the world, most banking CEOs are non-notable in Wikipedia standards because they head subsidiaries of larger global banks no matter the bank's balance sheets. Fidelity Bank is an exception. It was started as a finance institution by Ghanaian entrepreneurs before gaining bank status.

2. There is a bit of secondary coverage that comes with Julian Opuni. An example of secondary coverage provided as a source is the Guardian article about Julian Opuni.

3. The subject matter is news worthy. Julian Opuni from this article is shown to attract news coverage by what he says per his position constantly with time. I have shown this by telling Julian Opuni's story chronologically with time.

Please revisit this tag. I was hoping you would allow for the talkpage to be created first before tagging the page. Thanks in advance. Any suggestions to avoid future tagging of the page is welcome Ataavi (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2022

Hi Ataavi. Your first assumption is partially incorrect. You're conflating politicians with businessmen. When talking about politicians, there is an SNG, WP:NPOL, which holds sway. Outside of politicians, notability is not inherited, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes, the Guardian is a good source. You need at least two more like that in order to pass GNG. Your third point is irrelevant to notability. Articles get tagged in order to spur improvement. If they do not get improved, they might get deleted. This person may be notable, but with the current sourcing it does not show it. Thanks for reaching out, and thanks for your contributions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eller (sculpture)

I have added additional citations to the article Eller (sculpture) which you were interested in as you requested. Gazozlu (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Tha Streets III

You recently turned Feed tha Streets III from an article to a redirect. You redirected to the discography, can you explain why you did this? you didn't give me reason.User:3peatlol$ (talk) 6:20PM Novemeber, 4 (EST)

Because it doesn't have enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:NALBUM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tayseer al-Jabari

I want to ask why did you mark the article Tayseer al-Jabari as possibly non-notable? The article cites a number of secondary sources which speak about details in the subject's life other than his death. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because other than his death, there is no in-depth coverage of him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Darya Dugina, where most sources about here life were basically "who was darya dugina, the woman who was just assassinated?" For that article, there was consensus that it is notable. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're incorrect, there was not consensus that she was notable. There was consensus that her assassination was notable. There was dispute as to whether the article should simply be kept about her as a biography, or about the assassination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Rivalry

Hello, I have added some context and relevant citations to Florida–Miami baseball rivalry that should help introduce why the rivalry is notable for both programs. Just letting you know so there can be a second opinion with respect to this. Ben^hen₁₉₉₇ 00:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does GNG mean?

You revereted my edit on jane street for a GNG test or something. What does this mean? Humulator (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read WP:GNG, it's one of the core guidelines on WP, so you should probably become familiar with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict regarding Kazuto Kawabe is not CORRECT!

Dear Onel5969! Replying to your message, I would like to ask You how and on what basis did you assume that a conflict of interest exists between Mr Kawabe and myself. Before our meeting, I never met, never contacted him, I did not know him. After reading an article about his role in James Bond movie, I wanted to meet him and ask some question regarding the shooting of James Bond movie. I did not publish any article about the conversation with Mr Kawabe and I did not get paid for any not-sport-related article in the last 10 years! I plan to make some other interview with other James Bond movie staff members too, but no one got and get me paid for these in the past and in the future as well! If I manage to accomplish many interviews as I plan, maybe I will compile a book in some years. But this is just a long-term goal, nothing sure. The point is the conflict of interest does not exist! I hope it would be sufficient information for You! Thank You Mrandrew16 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting to a conflict of interest. What you just described is textbook COI. Now follow the instructions at WP:COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU, and the birthday committee!Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone

Hello. I came on Wikipedia to bring my own side of the world to the fore. To write about a part of the world that you will never understand, care for or even write on.

You keep meddling things you know nothing about nor care for. Let me be.

You even went as far as trying to get a perfectly good page I created to be deleted (Thank goodness for the intervention of an admin).

FOCUS ON THE THINGS YOU CARE ABOUT ENOUGH THAT YOU'D WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THEM. STOP USING UP AND COMING WIKIPEDIANS TO EARN CHEAP POINTS. Amaekuma (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. If you do so again, it could get you blocked from editing. Focus on Wikipedia policies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? You tried to get good articles I created deleted twice, but thanks to the intervention of an admin. How does it get more personal than that? Focus on things you know. You don't know Nigeria or Nigerians. Stop using upcoming wikipedians to earn cheap points. Amaekuma (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have it your way. You could have asked for help, or how you could improve the article. Instead, you continue your personal attacks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Onel5969. Thank you for your work on Pol Calvo. User:Robert McClenon, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Contains promotional language.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Robert McClenon}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Behavior of Templates

I don't understand either. You had marked an article as reviewed, and I thought it contained promotional content, and reverted your marking of it was reviewed. The message that was put on your talk page then, as you said, blow up your talk page. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a broken tag a little farther up the talk page that was causing the problems. </nowiki< Should be all fixed now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Tag added to Mark Keil (professor)

Hello, I have created a draft page on professor Mark Keil (professor), a prominent researcher in my domain of study and submitted it for review. I see that you have added a tag "Undisclosed Paid" to this page. Writing this to request you to let me know what led you to think that and how may remove that tag. Because I know I haven't been paid to do this work, but I wanted to check with you first as to know what led you to think that. Also, a few other editors removed my news article citations which work as secondary sources to the content since that was written in the LEAD section. I am planning work on that again and add few other references to make the article strong and remove the other tags as well.

Can you please help out on this? How can I remove those tags? User_talk:Vamsy_Alapati 12:59, 7 November 2022 (EST)

Hi. There are obvious signs that you have some connection with the article's subject. It might not be paid editing, but there appears to be some connection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am studying in the field of Information Systems and I have attended a few guest lectures of professor Mark Keil and was inspired from him. When I was trying to look him, I found that there is no wiki page for him while many other researchers in this field already have one. That made me think let's do an article on him. So, it is out of admiration for him and his work that I started writing the article. I'm not sure if that is called a connection/relationship according to Wikipedia, because no one would so much time and effort on writing about someone if that person hasn't influenced them in their life somehow. I am very much influenced by Anime and the series that I am not planning to make my future edits and writing articles on them. Will that also be considered that I have a connection with Anime and my edits will be considered invalid? No offence, but this is what is going on my mind, when I have spent so much time and effort into my article and it gets tagged like this. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but let's discuss and hope that you can help me remove that tag on my page. Vamsy Alapati (talk) 12:46, 8 November, 2022 (EST) Vamsy Alapati (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, even though I have been inspired by his work, I have written the article in a Neutral point of View and tried my best to provide references to all that is written in the article to reach High Verifiability. Although now, the secondary sources which were in the draft are removed now, so I need to write in a proper way to improve the verifiability of the article content. Can you suggest what else that I need to do. Vamsy Alapati (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe above is a clear indication of COI. Please read WP:COI, and follow the instructions there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you suggest I do. I still don't completely completely agree that is a COI. But, what is considered by the other editors should be respected. What do you suggest I do now? Would disclosing the COI on my user page be sufficient? Can the tag be removed after that? What if I would like to make an edit? I should request an edit but who will look at that edit and respond back to me? Please answer me. Vamsy Alapati (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, follow the instructions on WP:COI, and you should never remove a COI tag that you have a COI with. If another editor comes along and feels it can be removed it will. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Moqui, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moqui, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moqui, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G12 on Melin-y-Wig declined

I've declined the G12 on Melin-y-Wig. It might be a copyvio. It might not be. So that makes it fails the unambiguous part of G12. See Talk:Melin-y-Wig for more details. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure myself, but thought it was a good thing to have someone else take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I found a copy of the original Welsh Government scheduled monument report. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That's why even though I CSD'd it, I also marked it as "reviewed", since if it wasn't a copyvio, it was okay. And again, thanks for all the effort you put in. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

autodelete of iMore page

You rolled back a revision I made to the iMore page, which is current a stub here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_community#iMore

Let's discuss this rollback, please. The basic facts about the iMore site are quite outdated: iMore is not a Canadian website, nor is it edited by Joseph Keller. And important facts aren't included here, beyond who the current editor in chief is: The site is owned by Future, among the world's largest media companies, and iMore runs a fairly successful podcast that isn't mentioned here at all. Wikipedia itself links back to the iMore site often, from pages on the iPad, iOS, MacOs, Apple Inc, and others, and Techmeme links to it extensively, suggesting relevance and notability. 63.125.140.62 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where I've ever edited that page you link to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations

If I'm not well versed then I wouldn't be creating such articles to begin with. You are not adding any improvements by just tagging the article. Just like your nomination for deletion over Ricky Meinhold last year. Which I'm sure you never read through any of the sources cited. And you're tagging the article based on your opinion. Tag it for a real reason. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleanerMan, I share Onel's concerns about several of those articles. While articles about bilateral relations with the longer-lived German states are likely notable, there is no general rule that all bilateral relation combinations are notable, and some of the shorter-lived ones like German Empire–United States relations seem particularly unlikely to be independently notable. Meanwhile, generally speaking across the set of drafts, the citations to the US government pages are not sufficient in themselves to establish notability, although the sources are likely to be useful alongside additional secondary coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cucamonga Junction, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cucamonga Junction, Arizona 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/Cucamonga Junction, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Studen

Hi! What's up with that 'Notability' tag on Andrej Studen? I've completed my work there and wil not continue any further. If you believe the article does not meet the notability criteria, please nominate it for deletion. Or remove the tag. Thank you. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of 2022 California Proposition 29

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from 2022 California Proposition 29, which you proposed for deletion. I stated my reasoning at Talk:2022 California Proposition 29.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Micler (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, Onel5969. Did you find more sources showing that Woh Mera Dil Tha, which you marked as reviewed, passes WP:GNG? I've previously AfDed a couple of similar articles, from what I see most of the current refs aren't reliable, e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hip in Pakistan though I might be missing some references. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genius

	Genius Award
	I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia Vaishnodevimandir (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bouchet

Hello Onel, Draft:Adrian Bouchet: I've removed questionable lines and added receipts for rolls of film. I completely deleted the part with the theater play. I hope the article is ok now. DinoKenner (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Without going into notability, the big issue for me is the COI issue. If the actor asked you to translate the article from German to English, then you obviously have some type of relationship with them. As per WP:COI, you need to disclose that. As to notability, he probably meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your response. What is the easiest way for me to disclose this? The actor wrote me an e-mail at the time, because I wrote the German article independently of it in 2020. Best regards. DinoKenner (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you explained that on your user page or top of your usertalk page, that would probably suffice, along with the COI template. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I think I complied with your request. Can you move the article again? Best regards. --DinoKenner (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer ratio arm bridge

If you look at the sources I cited in this article, you will find that everything in the article can be traced back to them or to other Wikipedia articles. The exception is the statement that Standard Telephones and Cables did not manufacture test equipment, which is the sort of statement that you would not expect to find anywhere. It is based on personal knowledge: I used to work for STC. I was going to delete the refimprove template, but perhaps there is some other issue that I have missed. EEye (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire section still unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? I can't see it. EEye (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notability, primary sources

Hi,

Please review the notability and primary sources tags on the page for The Connecticut State Medical Society. There are no primary sources references, and the notability is not in question.

Thanks!

Chris Cczollo (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. 4 of the 5 are primary. And the 5th doesn't have enough information in the reference to pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don't do any unusual edits especially on my created pages

hi. according to Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL and Current guideline, article Aria Barzegar is notable. no new wp:CON are decided. please Do not make unusual edits. you done this before and that was wrong because of future events. we have article 2034 FIFA World Cup that will held in 11 years later then you redirected article that will held in this month? if i see this actions again i will ask admins to check your edits. be aware of wp:3RR in above article too. Miha2020 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miha2020, the actual current guideline is at WP:NFOOTY. The page you've linked to appears to be an outdated draft from when the discussion was going on. You can see the discussion in its entirety at WP:NSPORTS2022 (Proposal #3 is the most relevant part), and a lot of the discussion around it by looking at any post on the talk page for WP:NSPORTS since March of this year when the discussion was closed. Please refrain from asserting without evidence that another editors' edits are "arbitrary" or "abnormal", as this can be taken as a personal attack. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill He is online every day and can answer himself. that link you pointed show nothing special (proposal 3) and no wp:CON at all. Aria Barzegar played in 2 professional leagues: Belarusian Premier League and Persian Gulf Pro League many times. he played for senior national team (Iran national football team) too. the article is existed in russian wikipedia and persian wikipedia. it has many refs too. I mean tasteful editing not about himself. thanks. Miha2020 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore the very clear formal consensus which is the actual text of WP:NSPORTS at your own peril. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if I was on, I would have answered, although probably not as eloquently as Rosguill. You quote a policy which you yourself are in violation of, since CON was that NFOOTY, which was the policy you originally quoted in your incorrect edit summary, has been deprecated. I suggest you desist from your disruptive editing. The fact that articles exist in other wikis is irrelevant. NFOOTY now redirects to WP:SPORTBASIC, which the person does not meet with the current sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Rosguill... they are continuing their personal attacks at the AfD I felt forced to begin due to their insistence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent PA is mild enough that I think the inevitable drubbing at AfD from other editors will be lesson enough. And if they still don't drop the stick, ANI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what's occurring. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the discussion to close. If contrapolicy arguments aren't discarded by the closer, then I think it's probably time for addressing this at ANI. Frankly, personally I don't really care what our NFOOTY standard is, but a situation where this many editors are flagrantly ignoring consensus is untenable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since at least one of them is a NPPer (albeit low-volume). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can understand editors that have only ever contributed to writing articles and were not aware of the SNG discussion being angry and confused, and am willing to give a fair amount of leeway there. The same cannot be said of people who participated in the discussion and simply disagree with the outcome. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to get further explanation on the notability concern of China Folk House Retreat

Hi, Onel5969, I noticed that you tagged the article China Folk House Retreat as lacking notability. However, I have provided some reliable sources such as the Washington Post and China Daily. And obviously they are independent of this organization. Can you consider reviewing it? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 06:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the article and NPB rosters and Developmental player system (NPB).

Hi, thank you for your review.

If you look at the sources I cited in this article you will see if they can be verified. Nikkan Sports and Sports Hochi are some of the leading newspapers in Japan, and full-count.jp is a popular baseball site. In addition, the cited PDF files of agreements and regulations, such as the NPB Agreement prepared by the NPB Organization, are published as official documents by the JPBPA, the players' association of which active players are members, and can be verified as reliable published primary source that can be cited under the guidelines of primary source. Quotations from these articles are used to describe the regulations and rules in a nutshell. And see the Teams index on the official Teams index - NPB.jp site cited in the External links.

Thanks.

ELBOW01 (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The sources you've added to the first article are fine. The second article still has several assertions in it which are unsourced. Not enough to be a worry, but still enough that it should get looked at. I've marked both reviewed, and removed the tag from the first article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt attention.

ELBOW01 (talk)　19:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hidden Springs Mission, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hidden Springs Mission, Arizona 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/Hidden Springs Mission, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to Wayne Randazzo

Hi – you reverted my article on Wayne Randazzo as UPE/COI. This is incorrect. I've never been paid by Wayne Randazzo — or anyone else — to edit Wikipedia/any Wikimedia project. I have no personal tie to Wayne Randazzo; he's not a friend of mine, and in fact I've never met him personally or communicated with him personally about Wikipedia or anything else. My information is sourced entirely from the articles cited in my WP article (though I began with the Wikidata item/Wikimedia Commons category as I was tagging my photos and had taken a photo of him at a Met game). I have been adding information and photos on New York Mets-related subjects since ~2015 (and I edit under my real name) and I've never engaged in paid editing. I'm just a fan of the New York Mets and a radio listener. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not connected to the Mets — I am not and have never been an employee or otherwise a stakeholder in the team or any affiliated organization. I have taken many photos at Met games, but all of these photos were taken from the stands (as a paying fan) on a purely amateur basis and with no connection to the team (and in line with their limitations on non-credentialed photography). This includes my photos during postgame broadcasts (taken from the Citi Field pavilion as the postseason pre- and post-game shows are recorded outside before a live audience). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. And since my daughter's middle name is Shea... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:58:09, 13 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gabriel.A.Wainer

Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Gabriel Wainer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I completed the addition of many more references; I'm pinging you as you requested (I hope this is the right way to do it). Thanks!

Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However, as this appears to be an autobiography, please take a look at WP:COI, and follow the instructions there. If not, there is a chance it gets sent back to draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion: Mayday Health

Hi there. I missed the window to contest the speedy deletion nomination, but would you be able to help me bring this page back as a draft? I'd like to make some improvements. Thank you for your help. HPLeu (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You'll need to contact the admin who deleted the page, Jimfbleak. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Hello @Onel5969! Hope you're doing well.

Lately, I've been trying to form a solid idea on which details merit a mention in an article, and which ones are best omitted. I was sifting through some recently created pages and happened upon Fry Pioneer Cemetery. The question I have pertains to this sentence:

"It has sparse vegetation and is surrounded by a chain-link fence."

In this case, would these two details be regarded as trivial, or is there some encyclopedic value? "It has sparse vegetation" in particular, considering that the state of the vegetation may not remain the same?

Thank you for your time and your hard work! Mooonswimmer 22:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with physical features, such as NHRP, a physical description is usually apt. The fact that it is a chain-link fence, rather than a brick wall, or no fence at all is an important. The sparse vegetation is mentioned, since the flora is gone to in more detail slightly later. It is usually best to take cues from the sources used. In this case, there is one major source, but in other cases there might be several sources. If all the sources give weight to something, it is likely not trivial. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. Mooonswimmer 12:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Spring, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Spring, Arizona 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/Little Spring, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Long Valley, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Long Valley, Arizona 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/Long Valley, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need suggestion

Hello @Onel5969! Hope you are doing well.

This article was declined previously. I have edited to add more content and appropriate sources. It would be very helpful if you could take look at it and suggest how I can improve it.

Karmaker (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Asif Saleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Karmaker (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it in the queue for someone else to review. Right now I would decline. You need several in-depth articles about him to show he is notable, and they need to be from reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lower Tillman, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lower Tillman, Arizona 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/Lower Tillman, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara Divison

Hi i want to tell you that Hazara Divison is not a duplicate article of Hazara Pakistan. "Hazara Pakistan" article is about historical region in Pakistan, and Hazara Division is about administrative sub-division of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Hazara Division was merged into Hazara, Pakistan region article for not having enough content. 202.69.12.17 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And since it was merged, there is no reason to split. I suggest you discuss it on the article's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion conducted for merger, it was unilaterally merger for not having enough content, now i added the content and their is no reason left for merger.

If in future any user has any valid reason for merger then they can start the proper discussion for it.202.69.12.17 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this[4], Because of merger other editors are removing historical content and converting historical article, like other administrative sub-divisions article.

Also see this[5], there is a history of these type of content removal and converting historical article into administrative subdivision article. Splitting article is the only way to and this confusion/Dispute. 202.69.12.17 (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for V-Mart Retail

Hello, Onel5969. For V-Mart Retail, which you marked as reviewed, did you find more reviews passing WP:NCORP? Most references are routine acquisitions, retail prices, or other announcements. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find much that passes WP:SIGCOV and I don't think it passes notability but I'm hesitant in AfDing this. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've marked it as unreviewed for now but feel free to mark it as reviewed again if you reply. Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always feel free to undo a review of mine if you feel strongly about it. I won't take offense. Two editors can look at the same sourcing and one can see it has not passing GNG, and the other can see it as barely passing. When I did a quick WP:BEFORE, I found this, this, this, and this; and to a lesser extent, this. And that was just on the first two pages in my Google News search. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. This seems to be IMO routine revenue info, whereas this is a routine revenue and retail plan. While this is also about retail and seems to be not satisfying CORPDEPTH, is the site a WP:RS in your opinion? Somehow I couldn't open the about us, maybe just an issues with my browser... Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had questions about the RS of that source, and had similar issues opening the "about us" page. However, from their home page, they are an industry source, and their articles have bylines. In several of the articles, they've separated reporting from stuff from the company by adding comments like, "from the company's press release". And their articles are full of analysis. This is the issue with articles on corporations, you have to delineate from the routine announcements from detailed analysis. These sources are national in scope, so I feel CORPDEPTH is met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed reply. Feel free to mark it as reviewed again, and if another reviewer do so I will have no objections. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details, advert tag

Hello again @Onel5969. I'd like to hear your perspective regarding a few phrases in this article (all in the "Facilities" section).

"The mattresses are from Sealy Corporation." My gut instinct was to remove this. Especially considering the source is a Telegraph Travel article, which also includes a link for readers to book at the hotel. The language tends to be a bit 'promotional' in such articles. Or is there no harm in mentioning it?

"The hotel has a signature scent designed by perfumer Olivia Giacobetti which is reflected in the bath products." An interesting tidbit, but is it necessary? Not too sure about this one.

" The hotel also includes ... a 2,500-square-meter spa with three hammams; 10 wellness rooms, a hairdressing salon, manicure and pedicure cabins, an indoor heated pool, a jacuzzi, and a health club in a glass cube equipped with Life Fitness machines." Would it be better to just leave it at "The hotel also includes a 2,500-square-meter spa"?

What do you think of the rest of the "Facilities" section in general and do you think the {advert} tag can be justifiably removed from the article?

Mooonswimmer 20:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you have three items above. Item #1 -- go with your gut. Superfluous bit of fluff. In addition, it's not in the source, so it's an uncited bit of fluff. 2, since the perfume designer is notable, there is no harm in leaving it, although it's not mentioned in the Daily Telegraph article. The Lifestyle magazine piece is a press release disguised as a magazine article, so I would delete the perfume thing as well. Finally, yes, I would make that change. I would leave in the bit about the restaurants, get rid of the orange trees, etc. and the wine cellar. I would cut it down to two lines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! One last thing. See this article. It covers the expulsion of Jews from Yemen in the late 17th century. The article contains 8 images, 7 of which I believe are not directly pertinent to the subject matter. They are simply 20th century images of various Yemenite Jews, no relation to the Exile. Would I be justified in removing all of them, except the one of the The Tihama Coastal Plain? Mooonswimmer 01:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's a good question. I do not really delve into the appropriateness of images in particular articles. I don't know much about that subject, but as per WP:BOLD, if you can cite a policy/guideline, you could remove them. Alternatively, you could open a discussion on the article's talk page about it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Clovermoss

Hi, it's been awhile. I just wanted to say that I do keep the NPP school on my mind and I'm sorry it's taking me forever. Anyways, I did have a question that's kind of related? So I noticed that Weight phobia redirects to Anorexia nervosa. I had to switch to desktop view to actually see the redirect page as it is (I won't have access to my computer for a bit) and I noticed that it's an R from merge. That complicates what my original train of thought was... that the redirect is kind of vague and might be better targeted elsewhere. Is that even possible with redirects related to merges or are they always just left alone? I noticed the disclaimer about not being deleted for page history reasons. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can change the target, the key is to preserve the history. However, in this case, this wasn't truly a merge to that target, it was actually merged to Obesophobia, see this edit. Obesophobia, meanwhile had originally been a redirect to Anorexia nervosa, then a bunch of stuff was added to, including the merged material from Weight phobia, between April 2012 and May 2015, at which point, someone unilaterally restored the redirect to Anorexia nervosa. A bot then came along and fixed the double redirect on Weight phobia to go straight to Anorexia nervosa. So if you felt there was a better target, have at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rare Metals, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rare Metals, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Metals, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to old redirection on update page?

Hi Onel5969. I see you redirecting to an old project for this page Im working on? Im currently in progress updating all the cites to film awards and coverage. What am I missing that you keep rolling back on? On COI, Im helping fix the earlier bad redirect. Regarding notability, she is an award-winning filmmaker, with a new film at big festival in process. I can point to many other filmmakers with less notability with pages. Pls advise? LRB2022 (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your username suggests that you have a COI with the article's subject, who by the way, does not currently meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wahweap, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wahweap, Arizona 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/Wahweap, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need Suggestion for Article Change

Hi Onel5969

I just received a notice that the EaseUS Todo Backup article I submitted was marked for deletion.

This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising.

I have reviewed the content of the two help pages you provided, and in response to the suspicion that the page is advertising, please allow me to explain the following.

1. Google search results show 1.8 million matches for "EaseUS Todo Backup," In the process of finding reliable citation sources, I found that it has been vetted by PC World, The Guardian, etc.

2. The only thing I think looks suspiciously like advertising in the article is that different versions of the product were mentioned.

3. The WikiProject Software project mentions that Wikipedia created the project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of software articles, which was also actually my original purpose for writing this article.

While I agree that the page may not be neutral enough, I think it should be marked as unbalanced, not deletion.

I want to make another change to the content, but I'm still not sure exactly what caused the deletion. So I would appreciate it if you could take the time to tell me exactly why. Thanks! Carlytuan (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for reaching out. New editors sometimes create articles which are too promotional, thinking that is the way to show that the subject is notable. My suggestion is to ask the admin who deleted the article, Jimfbleak, to restore it to draftspace, where you can work on and submit it through the AfC process. It's a long process, but some very good editors will help you develop it, if you ask them to. The # of google hits is entirely irrelevant. It's the depth and nature of sourcing which matters. There has to be in-depth coverage of the subject in independent, reliable, secondary sources. But notability was not why your article was deleted. It was deleted for promotional reasons. I don't have access to the deleted article, but that usually means the article read like a promotional brochure. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Malo95. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2022 World and European Wheelchair Handball Championship without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Simbu Lions and Simbu Warriors redirected to another page for failing WPGNG for 'not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass'

Hi thanks for your work

As the title says your redirected the two pages above. However both have sources from the only two current newspapers in the country! Not sure where else one could get more sources.

Presumably i could work on the article to make it longer. But if i continue to find refs in those two papers will you continue to make it fail WPGNG?

Thanks again. Eleutherius (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i wonder if you could show me how to 'move them to draftspace' I see you suggest that in other places. Id be happy to work away on them a while and resubmit them again. Or maybe you have a better suggestion? Eleutherius (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer both questions here. The second one first is simple, you can only do that if you have the page mover right. Which I see that you do not. I'll be happy to move them for you, if you would like, just let me know. Regarding your first question, a source has to be reliable, which both of those papers appear to be. But the issue is depth of coverage. You should have at least three in-depth articles about the teams. This would not include routine sports coverage. For example, on the Warriors page, both of those articles are just barely in-depth enough to qualify, but they are both about the same event, so you would need at least two more to pass WP:GNG. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That's great help

Do please move them to draft space and i will work away as you suggest

Thanks Eleutherius (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muevete en Bici

I noticed that you put Muevete en Bici in draftspace. I futz around with the bicycle infrastructure and sustainability articles on here and I’d like to help improve it. The Mexico City version of Ciclovia is notable and I will build that out if I can. What else does it need? Any comments on what specifically needs to be improved? jengod (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are two issues. First, you'll need in-depth coverage about the program from independent, secondary, reliable sources. At least 3, and right now there do not appear to be any. Two of the articles do not even mention the program, while a third gives it a brief mention. The fourth is a primary source. The second issue is one of WP:VERIFY, everything needs to be sourced to show that what is said in the article is true. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On it! TY for replying. jengod (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you want me to take a look at it when you're done, just hit me back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Arms Park - a decision

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. SethWhales^talk 16:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi! I noticed that you're the one checking the page I made Sela Guia often. I just want to tell you that I made a draft out of that article, and I'm wondering if you could review that too? It's Draft:Sela Guia, thank you. Master jk (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it later today. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas (cosmetics)

Dear Onel5969, We would like to replace the outdated and in many ways incorrect English Wikipedia page of Douglas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_(cosmetics)) with the new and current English page. We have recently tried to redirect users from the old page directly to the new and constantly updated page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfümerie_Douglas) and to delete the old one. You undid this process yesterday. Could you briefly explain why? The page does not provide any added value for Wikipedia users because the information is very outdated. In addition, we are convinced that there are now too many different pages related to Douglas and that this leads to confusion. PR Douglas (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Science, Charles University

Dear editor, I have noticed that you have deleted the content from the article ‘Faculty of Science, Charles University. I would like to ask you how many sources you would expect. The sources – Živa and Vesmír – are sources described by GNG (Živa is published by the CAS, Vesmír is quite well established and has been published since 1871, nowadays published by a private company). I would also mention the governmental act. With many thanks Martin Tauchman (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support it to be restored but you need to add more sources in English, especially from media, consider English-language Czech media 193.6.218.97 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the depth of sourcing. Virtually your entire article was sourced with primary sources, and the ones that weren't were not in-depth enough to qualify for notability. And it doesn't matter if they are in any language other than English, that's not a requirement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but articles ‘Dějiny Přírodovědecké fakulty Univerzity Karlovy’ and ‘Přírodní vědy v českých zemích a 90 let Přírodovědecké fakulty Univerzity Karlovy v Praze’ are in-depth secondary sources of the history. According to the article Secondary source. Let me cite the article: ‘Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar.’ And those are later interpretetaion since they deal with the history of the 19th and 20th centuries. Martin Tauchman (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Lanzinger

I'm unsure as to what content you believe was copywritten in the Franz Lanzinger article, which if you had read my last edit would've found that many of the references I used are from Wikipedia pages already. (Gubble, crystal castle, Actual Entertainment.) I'm unsure how anything I linked to isn't within fair use as their already being used actively on the site or publicly accessible information explicitly on Wikipedia. Even if it was, deleting the entire article seems like overkill as I don't even know what the issue was so I now need to restart from scratch. KunoDemetries (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda Mountain Tea

Hello @Onel5969], I appreciate you opting to move the Rwanda Mountain Tea article to a draft that others would have just deleted without consideration. Since I saw this article I have been working to improve it as I am just passionate about African topics. I uncovered the contribution of Rwanda in the tea industry and with multiple awards won but yet no proper coverage on Wikipedia. I took this on and did hours of research to arrive at its current state. I'd like it to move it to the article space but wanted to draw your attention before I did so. Thanks @Flixtey Flixtey (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nice job, moved it back to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence in doing this work! @Flixtey Flixtey (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Nouakchott tramway

The two sources I've quoted are Sky News Arabia and AlAkhbar.info, one of the largest news agencies of the country. Wouldn't that kind of sources for an public transit project for a million-inhabitants city be enough? Thanks :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need at least 3 in-depth sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for the review page ThomasBrown (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joke political candidates/disruptive editing

Hey,

I now feel like more of these joke political candidates are going to appear more and more with Gen Z-dominated social media, who are the ones who know how to use Wikipedia nowadays too. Perhaps I'll advise to semi-protect all election articles from now on to protect articles from these self-proclaimed candidates by Gen Z? Thanks! Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which political candidates you are speaking about. But folks are always going to try to get the guy/gal they support onto WP, no matter how feeble a candidate they may be. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karen Fralich Jump to navigationJump to search

Under Category:Canadian sculptors is this category which should be removed. The artist has a page and this must have been made by mistake but I'm afraid to touch. Could you do it please, big brother? Thanks, Joan arden murray (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was confused between commmons and en:wiki. Ive started to fix, feel free to finish. My error. Victuallers (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Joan arden murray (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Seoul ePrix

If it weren't for @Hansen Sebastian:, the five sources I added wouldn't have been deleted. The race is obviously notable, as Motorsport.com, one of the biggest (multilingual!) motorsports-based sites wrote about it too. Ricciardo Best (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is obviously notable, then add the sources. It would also help if you would learn how to add sources, and how to structure articles, and what are valid sources, and what notability is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTSEVENT states that "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league" will pass said guideline. The race was the final race of the season, and it also determined the champion.

Okay, so what? NSPORTSEVENT does not trump GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not need to pass both GNG and the specific notability guideline of their subject. --Ricciardo Best (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do. SNG's do not override GNG. Sorry, don't know where you came up with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricciardo Best: Please see Talk:2022_Seoul_ePrix#Notability. I'd also like to note that WP:NSPORTS explicitly states in the first line that "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline" (emphasis removed; link added). Anarchyte (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts Category:Associates of the Royal Canadian Academy Category:Ernest Thompson Seton

The category:Members of the RCA, an editor has created 2 sub categories which need to be removed. Members means both "full" and associates. Also I looked up Ernest Thompson Seton and he was an Associate. Could you take a look at this when you get a chance? Thanks, Joan arden murray (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Look Up!" to Draft

Here is why the article should not have been moved to Draft.

The term "Look Up!", has been used in different calendar years by established journalists, in established publications. These established journalist are, Sharon Mizota, Chadd Scott, and Brett Bralley. The following publications are the publications that used the term "Look Up" in the description of Artists' Billboards, Forbes, Los Angeles Times, and the Newsroom for San Jose State University.

One of the contributing sources in support of this article "Look Up!" is Sharon Mizota. Mizota is a recipient of an Andy Warhol Foundation Arts Writers Grant, and an art critic whose writing appears regularly in the Los Angeles Times. In 2008, the title of a Los Angeles Times article she authored on Artists' Billboards was entitled "Look, up in the sky! It’s women’s art."

Another one of the contributing sources in support of this article "Look Up!" is Chadd Scott. Scott covers art and travel for Forbes.com in addition to owning and operating seegreatart.art. In 2020, Scott's opening to his Forbes article on Artists' Billboards went, "Look up. You may see work by your favorite artist."

The third contributing source in support of this article "Look Up!" is Brett Bralley. Bralley is an editorial, marketing, and UX writer and editor specializing in science, technology, and innovation. Her work has appeared in higher education outlets, such as Washington Square (San José State University), UAB Magazine (The University of Alabama at Birmingham), Celebrate (Hoffman Media), Coastal Living (Meredith Corporation), Lookout Alabama, The Anniston Star, and more. In 2021, Bralley's opening to her San Jose State University's Newsroom article on Artists' Billboards went, "There’s a new art exhibit opening this week in San Jose — but you won’t find it in a gallery. Instead, look up."

If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, as the case here, across multiple calendar years, this improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia.

The subject matter of these Artists' Billboards that have been described as Look Up! are based on the use of billboards for addressing social issues. The term Artists' Billboards is based on an academic paper by Colombian artist Patricia Correa published in Theory Now. Theory Now is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal of contemporary critical thought.

Every reference in this "Look Up!" article is supported by reliable sources who speak to an art exhibition on a billboard as being related to a social justice issue.

Three references, two of which occurred in the same calendar year used the term/phrase Look Up! for mass public dissemination. In 2015, The Billboard Creative was the curator of an event featuring 14 artists from seven countries. In utilizing the services of PR Newswire, published the following press release, "Look Up! Billboard Creative Art Show Open on the Streets of L.A. Through May 15."

In 2021, Silicon Valley Fine Art and Real Estate Broker Anna D. Smith curated two billboard events. In utilizing the services of Eventbrite, an online event management and ticketing website for mass dissemination, published the following titles to these events, "Silicon Valley's Newest 'Look Up!' Exhibition Tickets, Oct 18 - Nov 17, 24-hours, and "Anna D. Smith's 'Look Up! 2' Hope & Beauty Art Exhibition Tickets, Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 1:00 AM."

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Across decades, in different calendar years, Artists' Billboard curators and journalists have used the term or phrase "Look Up!" to describe an art exhibition involving Billboards. I sincerely hope you will restore the article back to Wikipedia.

Selena Ebony (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to mainspace. And nominated for deletion. I had hoped you would work on the article in draft to improve it, but alas, you did not. There is not a single in-depth source in the article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Boardwalk Station redirect

I was wondering why you redirected The Boardwalk station to GRT. This makes no sense as the station page is now gone CanadianBrick1 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Edward Eaton Mason" to draft

I am happy to work in draft status. I understand much that is irrelevant to presenting Mason's achievements needs to be cut. I have added statements to the my user page and the draft talk page to address UPE and COI issues. Do I need to do more? I did not click "Submit your draft for review" but there has been a lot of revisions made. I will continue seek your and other's help. ParaDocs (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,495: / Line 1,495: @@
 I was wondering why you redirected [[The Boardwalk station]] to GRT. This makes no sense as the station page is now gone [[User:CanadianBrick1|CanadianBrick1]] ([[User talk:CanadianBrick1|talk]]) 04:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
+== "Edward Eaton Mason" to draft ==
+I am happy to work in draft status.  I understand much that is irrelevant to presenting Mason's achievements needs to be cut.  I have added statements to the my user page and the draft talk page to address UPE and COI issues. Do I need to do more?  I did not click "Submit your draft for review" but there has been a lot of revisions made. I will continue seek your and other's help. [[User:DavidTanCreti|ParaDocs]] ([[User talk:DavidTanCreti|talk]]) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:39, 22 November 2022

Please remove the redirect tag

Edit Count

Wiki mark-up link

Other useful links

Links for new editors

Expo 2024/Lodz redirect

Page triage

Speedy deletion declined: Tanushree Chatterjee

WikiProject Biography tagging

Emptying the articles

Beautiful Jersey

Where redirects should point.

Mentorship Request

Orphan

The draftification of the page Barak Turkmens

Save my article

Draft:Satkhol

Changes Rolled Back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Podedworny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Millard

You have removed content which was attributed

2019 World Ringette Championships - thanks!

Nomination of Mount Trumbull, Arizona for deletion

Draft:Bhawi

Amparo Serrano contested deletion

Draft:Bhawi

Undo redirect: McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences

Draft:Nick Wolny

Did you remove Robert Campbell (artist)? Why?

orphan page

Help move Nederlandse Stoomboot Maatschappij

Six Super Universities

Why was the page 'Su Shihao' redirected?

Tom McKendrick (DA RSW RGI)

Review

Regarding my articles

warina hussain

Why did you tag my article for notability?

Quadrant House

Regarding lack of good sources for "Women's Indian Premier League"

Okay Look Sorry.....

Please don't draft legitimate stubs

Princess Lechang

Kondaveeti Venkatakavi

Accident

Question on your review of the article on heterostrain

CEDAW Alliance Germany

New page query

Jan Mikulka

RE: Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires

Okezue Bell

My removed pages

Nomination of Whitlock Cienega, Arizona for deletion

Stub status in Plasmodiophore

Nomination of Yampai, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Wood Springs, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona for deletion

Note on Let us break Bread together on our Knees

Nomination of Willow Spring, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Willow, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Wickchoupai, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Tonto Estate, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Aztec Lodge, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Dehorn, Arizona for deletion

in appreciation

Ichabod Chauncey

Nomination of La Cienega, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Noah, Arizona for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Bobak

Splitting of Aurora (singer)

Nomination of Kool Corner, Arizona for deletion

Draftication of Qdot and its recreation

Nomination of Engesser Junction, Arizona for deletion

AFD

"Non-load bearing wall" listed at Redirects for discussion

Nomination of Achi, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Angell, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Peters Corner, Arizona for deletion