User:Username6892/AfC

The reviews on this page will be done similar to my GA subpages, though I doubt they will be as long

Colour key:

Submissions which I got right
Submissions which I got a reason for decline correct, but there were other(s) which I didn't consider
Submissions which I got wrong
Special cases
Submissions which haven't been reviewed, were speedily deleted after my nomination, or was declined for a different reason than what I put.

September 2020

6-12 Sep

(Later declined due to notability issues and being unsupported by RS) Draft:Matt Aufderhorst: Decline - Most sources listed are not independent (Half are author listings from the magazines he got his essays published in) and those that aren't don't provide significant coverage.
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Betty Adamou: Decline - Notability issues not addressed since previous decline.
(Later declined, the reviewer proposed a merge) Draft:Women in Film and Television - Toronto: Decline - Notability issues not addressed since previous decline
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Rajesh Bhatia (Politician): Decline - Out of the 5 sources provided, 2 of them appear to be quoting his opinion on behalf of another group and the others don't have significant coverage. There is also a YouTube video from a local news agency, though it is not in English (so I can't say much about it) and it's mostly an interview with the subject. He also does not meet WP:NPOL.
(Later declined for being unsupported by RS) Draft:We Are Stronger Charity: Decline - No independent sources provided and it reads like an advertisement. It may possibly be a G11 candidate.
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Turry Flucker: Decline - Notability issues not addressed
(Speedily deleted) Draft:Islam Fouad: Likely passes criterion 2 of WP:NFOOTY, but created by a sock of a previously blocked user (G5).
(Declined due to a copyright violation (They did notice my slight prose change)) Draft:K Madhava Sarma: Unsure, depends on whether source 2 is independent and/or if the paywalled/offline sources constitute significant coverage - Copyvio issues are resolved and I believe it meets the minimum requirements for inline citations. Sources 1, 3-8, 11-14, 19, 21, 24-25 are not independent. Source 2 appears to be independent. Source 9-10, 20, 22, 27-29 do not have significant coverage. Source 26 appears to have significant coverage and be independent. Sources 15 and 16 are offline and sources 18, 23 are paywalled so I'm not sure what they constitute. I don't believe the subject passes criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO.
(Later declined for NPOV issues, reviewer commented about promotional prose/WP:PUFFERY) Draft:David Jarrett Collins: Decline - Reads like an advertisement
(Later declined due to NPOV and notability issues) Draft:Ashwani Kumar (poet): Decline - Continues to have substantial content that reads like an advertisement. As for the sources, 1 does not appear to have significant coverage, 6 doesn't either (It's about his organization, see WP:NOTINHERITED), 2-5, 7-10 are not independent. Notability is not shown by the sources found in this draft.
(Accepted on 9/19) Draft:LUNG Theatre: Decline - Draft reads like an advertisement. I decided against reviewing sources for notability because there are 19 sources, each of which are for about one sentence and I feel WP:THREE may very well apply here.
(Later declined due to lack of notability (WP:NCORP)) Draft:Webull: Accept (assess as stub-class) - Sources 2, 5, and 6 appear to demonstrate significant coverage and I am unsure about source 1. The draft is not about a living person, nor is it an advertisement or CV.
(Oldest unreviewed submission here) Draft:Development Bank of Austria (OeEB): Decline - Verifiability problems within much of the "Instruments" section. There are also multiple substantial sections that read as advertisements. At least 5 of the 6 (Not 7, one is duplicated) sources are not independent, so the sources provided don't show notability either.
(Later declined due to lack of notability. Sources were later added and the draft was accepted on 9/17.) Draft:Embassy of Afghanistan, Canberra: Decline - No proof of notability. Out of the 2 sources, 1 is from the embassy itself. The other one doesn't mention the embassy at all. I would, however, suggest creating an article on Afghanistan-Australia relations if significant coverage can be found.
(Later declined for reading as advert. No comment on notability) Draft:Beumer Group: Decline - Continues to read like an advertisement. As for notability, it appears to pass WP:NCORP. 1 and 3 appear to be independent, secondary, reliable, and with significant coverage. 2 and 4 are not independent.
(Later declined for reading like an advert/notability issues) Draft:Malabar Cancer Centre: Decline - Reads like an advertisement. There is also a lack of proof of notability. The first of 2 sources is not independent and the other appears to be routine coverage as decribed by WP:ORGCRIT (Though I am less sure about that).

13-19 Sep

(Later declined due to NPOV issues, reviewer noted WP:PUFFERY, later accepted on 10/2 after changes, deleted at AfD) Draft:Duy Long Nguyen: Decline - Verifiability issues and NPOV problems. The "youngest black belt in South Vietnam" needs verification, as it is a bold claim made about a living person. Much of the "Early life" section seems like a puff piece containing WP:SYNTH ("hard labour prison camp", "to gain his freedom"). Much of the rest of the article also seems like a puff piece. As for notability, the first source seems to satisfy the notability criteria required in WP:BASIC, and I am not sure whether the third was independent or not (2 is a passing mention).
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Jon Sievert: Decline - Notability issues have not been addressed since the last decline.
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Theodor Rogalski: Decline - Notability issues have not been addressed since the last decline.
(Later declined due to NPOV issues. No comment on notability) Draft:Joe Sullivan (computer security): Decline - Since the last decline, I don't believe the user has brought it to the encyclopedic standard that the previous reviewer would expect. Not many changes to the prose were made. As for notability, it is highly likely. Source 1 appears to be an independent RS which provides significant secondary coverage of the subject, but the significance isn't clear-cut and I wouldn't consider it significant by much. Same with 15 and 18, though 15's assessment is only with content before the subscription button cuts it off. 33 definitely provides significant coverage. I am unsure about 17 and 32. 2, 10, 18, 20, 24-27, 29-31 don't, the articles focus more on Uber or Facebook. 35 also doesn't provide significant coverage No comment on 28 or 36, as they are subscription-only or offline. 3 is not independent. 4 is a story about an alumnus, so I don't think it's independent. 5 is also unlinkely to be independent. 13-15 are not independent. 6-8, 11-12, 21-23, 34 are primary sources. If you are an AfC reviewer reading this and would like to review this draft, I suggest you assess the notability shown in the sources or comment on my assessment of it.
(Accepted on 10/3) Draft:Thomas Gabriel (country singer): Decline - Inadequate verification. I am not sure about notability, but sources 1, 2, and 8 appear to be self-published, and 4 is from a Forbes contributor. Other sources listed are also unreliable. I would ask the submitter to cite the article's claims with better sources before submitting. Other sources: 3 doesn't mention the subject. I am unsure about the independence or reliability of source 5. 6 and 10 are not independent. 7 appears to count toward GNG. 9 is a tabloid (unsure about its reliability, though I'm doubting it). I personally believe "legendary" should be removed (It's a peacock term sourced to 1 tabloid), though I don't believe it would cause the article to be declined if it would be accepted otherwise.
(Later declined due to notability issues, reviewer mentioned tone issues) Draft:Udayakaleswara swamy temple: Decline - At least 5/6 sources don't count toward GNG. Sources 1-2 are self-published, 3 doesn't mention the temple. 4 is a map (no value toward GNG). Source 5 is a list with no significant coverage of any of its entries. It likely also has NPOV/WEASEL problems Even people from many places like chennai,vijayawada and Hyderabad will visit the temple during Shivaratri. Many people believe that visiting sri ganga parvathi sametha udayakaleswaraswamy temple will provide them a healthy and wealthy life and unsourced claims: destroyed by muslim invaders.

20-30 Sep

(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:2020 Vodafone Ghana Music Awards: Decline - Both sources provided have literally the same opening text and appear to have the same list order. Both were likely the same writing by the same person. Due to this, I don't believe that those 2 sources can prove that it meets GNG. Note: Earwig's copyvio detector says there are sites with a 90% chance of being copied. This appears to just be because the list of winners is ordered similarly to the table. If you feel this is a violation, please check the article's sources and clear the content.
(Later declined for being unsupported by RS, notability problems mentioned.) Draft:Public health medicine specialist: Decline - Only one source is used, which is not independent of the National Specialist Registry, is used in the article.
(Later declined due to notability and NPOV issues) Draft:3-Way Handicap / European Handicap: Decline - Reads as an advertisement. As well, both sources used are from websites that are platforms to betting. I think those count as primary sources as guides to bettors from the betting sites. Note: If accepted, this should be renamed to Handicap betting and significantly rewritten.
(Declined due to notability issues and reading like an advert) Draft:10to8: Decline - Reads as an advertisement and no proof of notability is given. The only source providing significant coverage (that is independent) is Business Weekly.
(Delined on 10/2 due to the reasons outlined here. Accepted by another reviewer with little change on 10/3) Draft:Kathryn A. Morrison: Decline - The "Awards and Recognitions" section is disporportionately long and is not written from a neutral point of view (When not listing awards, it quotes positive critical reception) and the "recieved many awards" is WP:PUFFERY. As for notability, the sources are unlikely to prove notability (It would require 4 to factor in to GNG and either the rest of 6 to cover Morrison in more detail or my judgement of 7 to be wrong). Sources 1-3, 5 are not independent and/or are primary sources. I can't comment on 4 due to it being paywalled. For 8 and what I could see of 6, it appears to not be about Morrison and more about her book. I don't believe source 7 discusses Morrison in enough detail either, but I'm less certain about it than I am with 6 or 8.
(Later declined due to notability issues) Draft:Samsung Galaxy S21: Decline - The article contains no references and is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON.

October 2020

(Declined due to reasons outlined here) Draft:Philippe Fabry: Decline - Promotional POV (Sounds a lot like a narrative story). Appears to be notable (Sources 1, 9, 35).
(Declined due to notability issues) Draft:Andrea Vásquez Jiménez: Decline, possibly reject - I searched for sources on the article subject and did not find any proof of notability. As an unelected candidate, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL and only 1 source has significant coverage, causing it to fail WP:GNG.
(Declined due to notability issues) Draft:1-173 Infantry Regiment: (Likely) Decline - Out of the 2 sources provided, one is (likely) a routine announcement from the Louisiana National Guard. The other explicity states on its terms that We DO NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE CONTENT OR DATA FOUND ON THIS SITE AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS. I found another source with a similar story, but one source is not enough for notability.
(Declined due to a copyvio and speedily deleted) Draft:Abdulmanap Nurmagomedov: Decline - CV (See [1]). As for notability, only 1 RS is cited, with another source containing a COI, and the other (where the CV came from) likely being unreliable based on its description of itself.
Draft:Galymzhan Olzhaevich Pirmatov: Decline - Sources do not prove the subject's notability. Sources 1, 3–5 do not mention the subject, source 2 is too short for there to be significant coverage.
Draft:Brother Gabe's House: Decline - Submission already exists at Blended 328.