User talk:Journohelper

This is Journohelper's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome

Hello, Journohelper, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Redwan Ahmed (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Redwan Ahmed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KylieTastic, many thanks for taking the time to review the submission. I understand it didn't pass your review standards, I was just wondering, sources like The Guardian, one of the oldest news agency AFP, United Nation's website and Al Jazeera aren't being considered as a reliable sources nowadays? Again, many thanks for taking the time to review it. Hope with your input I will become a better editor to help my fellow journalist friends getting the due recognition to protect them. Journohelper (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Journohelper, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). So yes The Guardian is a good source, but neither link is about the subject but by the subject. Being written about by a reliable source is notable, working for a reliable source is not. muckrack is a profile written by the subject not about the subject. humanrightspressawards says that he was one of 4 people winning some award together but it not really clear what (https://humanrightspressawards.org/1974.html made it clearer "Winner of the 22nd Human Rights Press Awards 'Text & Print – Spot News (English)' award") but although awards are helpful we still have no significant coverage. The afp.com link is for the same award but looks like some coverage, but as it is by the AFP about AFP journalists it's not independent. Al Jazeera is deemed a reliable source (see WP:RSPSOURCES for the main list of sources that people try to use and which the community has deemed good, dubious, bad, etc.) and at first again it looks like we have a good source but most about them is direct quotes so not independent, however I would still count that as adding some weight to notability. The un.org link is just a profile which we don't count helping notability as are rarely independent and always positive. Finally the last source is not about them. So unfortunately although they appear to be a good person doing good work you currently do not have the sources to meet Wikipedia notability. Usually we are look for 3+ sources that are independent and reliable with significant coverage. Hope that helps explain thing, Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

understood. many thanks for taking the time for the extensive explanation. Maybe with my experience of working with a canadian-british news agency and leading fact checker, I might not agree with your "definition" of refuting some sources as "independent," but I totally understand what you mean and that's well agreed. However, I might still argue about how notability of a journalist should be measured, given the Freedom of the press in Bangladesh in Bangladesh, but I guess this is not the right place to do that argument. Huge thanks for the explanation. It'll help me to prepare the next batch of my intended articles. Cheers mate! Journohelper (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Journohelper! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Redwan Ahmed has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Redwan Ahmed. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Redwan Ahmed (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vinegarymass911 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Redwan Ahmed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Redwan Ahmed

Hello, Journohelper. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Redwan Ahmed, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Redwan Ahmed

Hello, Journohelper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Redwan Ahmed".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]