User talk:Onel5969/sandbox8/Archive 1

Archive 1

AFC

Hey Onel. What are your thoughts on me applying for AFC so I can get some practice in? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Wouldn't hurt, and they certainly could use the help, they have a larger backlog than we do. I used to do quite a bit of work there, and it definitely helps an editor understand the notability, copyright and verifiability policies. All of which you definitely have a good grasp of. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question on sources

Related to my first AFC review. [1][2] Are these sources independent enough to pass GNG? You could argue they are based mostly or fully on an interview, so I find them to be borderline. And they also appear to be the only two reliable sources with SIGCOV, so these are make or break. Thanks my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, hmmm. You are correct in your SIGCOV analysis. And the first ref is definitely an interview. The second, source however, could be argued to be at least half-way not an interview. If you had 3 or 4 of the second type, it would probably pass. This is the major difference between NPP and AfC. In AfC, no WP:BEFORE comes into play, you simply guide the editor in what they should do. Personally, I wouldn't accept it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, thanks for the feedback. 1) The two sources look the same to my untrained eye. They are both mixes of quotes and prose. I guess the second source has slightly less quotes and that's why it's a better source? 2) Do you typically require 2 GNG passing sources to pass an AFC, or 3? Thanks for putting up with my detailed questions, just trying to calibrate :-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I found these two as well. [3][4] Also SIGCOV in RS, imo. Although one could argue that 1st one in this post is not independent enough, since it says "LaMarche said" a lot. All 4 of these together might be enough to pass it though. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have the time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the two additional sources, neither really helps for notability purposes in my mind. Regarding your earlier question of 2 GNG passing sources... depends on the sources. If there is in-depth coverage in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, yes. If they are from the North Jersey Shore Herald and the Allegheny County Reporter, than no. (those last two are fictional, but representative of the type of weak sourcing you'll find). And in NPP (and in AfC) you'll get fans who will argue that those types of weak sources will equate to the WSJ and NYT. And if it goes to AfD, you might get overturned because a lot of fans will show up to !vote. This particularly happens in several areas: fictional characters, albums/songs, and video games. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I did some more AFC reviews. For borderline ones, I've been doing detailed source assessments on their draft talk pages. [5][6] If you have the time, maybe you could spot check a couple of the yellow check marked ones and make sure I'm evaluating those correctly. Thanks my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. You reminded me of why I don't do AfC that much anymore. I commented on the first by rejecting it, and left my reasoning on that draft. On the second one, be careful of quantifying, "3" references. Sometimes it's only 2 (like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, other times it can be more, if they are fringe/niche sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, thanks for that. Yeah, I thought AFC would be easier because of a couple reasons, including that the writer has to provide the sources for you instead of doing WP:BEFORE, there's no AFD drama, and the flowchart is simpler. But turns out in some ways it is harder, because all the easy drafts get handled in the first 24 hours by people working the front of the queue, and the remaining 4000 drafts are difficult cases, often draftified and passed off by new page reviewers, with borderline notability or dozens of sources to evaluate. Haha, joke's on me :-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ury diagram

Here's a tricky one. Sources 1 and 5 don't pass GNG, 2 passes. My questions are:

• #4 is a book review (but not a review article) in a scholarly journal. I think. Does this count toward GNG?
• #3 I am unable to verify, as I cannot download the book, and it is in French. Does unverifiability impact AFC decisions, or should I AGF?
• The images look like they are screenshots from a textbook, but are licensed as CC4. Do AFC reviewers care about image copyrights? Should I AGF again? Also, the images are simple enough that screenshotting them might not qualify for copyright, but I am not sure.
• Is the threshold here 2 sources or 3 to pass GNG? Probably 2 since academic sources are tip top, right?

Thanks my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, oh my gosh. Choose a different one . What a mess of an article. I need to go over this when I'm fresh in the morning. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, am awake enough to tackle this. I'll follow your above bullet points.

• Does not appear to be in-depth enough to go to notability.
• This is two different issues. First, sources do not have to be available online, so yes, AGF. However, I would not count this towards notability either. It looks to be more about a different subject, which mentions the diagram.
• If you are very concerned about copyright, you could flag them on Commons (where they are posted). I rarely come upon this, and occasionally I'll flag them. But I don't spend too much time on it. There are folks who spend most of their time on Commons who take care of it. There are admins who are very experienced in CR issues, among them Diannaa, Cwmhiraeth, and Justlettersandnumbers. You could post a query on any of their talk pages.
• Depends on the sourcing. I almost always use 3, unless they are incredibly reliable and well-known.

On the whole, my issue with the article, is the overall dearth of sourcing throughout the piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Film director Jack Spring

Morning Onel. Hope you're having a great week. Quick question. Article name is Jack Spring (film director). [7][8] Another AFC reviewer assessed these as passing. I'm getting that press release/too many quotes vibe from them though. What do you think? Asking for calibration purposes, I already rejected the draft due to other problems. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, the deadline piece is trash, simply a press release re-packaged as a news article. You see this a lot (especially on Indian film and Indian film bios). The Grimsby piece is too much of an interview to go to GNG with too much emphasis. In other words, if you had 6-8 of the Grimsby pieces, that would probably meet GNG. But I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Also be aware this was AfD'd a couple of years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Spring (Film Director). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Udaipur Municipal Corporation

Hey, quick question about Udaipur Municipal Corporation. Apparently Indians used the term "municipal corporation" to mean something similar to "city council". What direction would you go with this one? A7? Prod? Notable? I assume a city council needs GNG and wouldn't qualify under GEOLAND. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to self: similar articles located at Jodhpur Nagar Nigam, Category:Municipal corporations in Rajasthan –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, these are those types of articles where if were following the "letter of the law", they'd be deleted. But when you look at AfD results, the city council/(or foreign equivalent) of a large city is always deemed notable. The grey area is when is the city large enough - 500k population, almost certainly, 100k population, probably; 50k population, probably not. So somewhere between 50-100k is the grey area. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Jessica Brown

I'm getting a COI vibe from this one. Would this be a good one to draftify? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, there are a few things which point to COI, and even potential UPE, editing. Although they are so blatant, UPE's are usually more subtle. First, the edit summary on the initial creation. Second, the use of so many primary sources. Third, all the redlinks. This last one particularly would point to COI rather than UPE, because UPE's don't include many, if any redlinks.

I would move it to draft, and tailor the note to the editor explaining that it appears they might have a COI issue, and point them to WP:COI on how to address the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Caswell Creek

A 3 mile long creek. Are this creek and other similar creeks (Bijoux Creek, Atunatche Creek) good candidates to redirect to the 60 mile long Misinchinka River? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, this is one where different editors are going to have very different opinions. It all depends on your interpretation of WP:5P1. As a gazetteer, I'm of the opinion that it should stay as a stub. However, I wouldn't revert someone who redirected to the river, as long as the creek is mentioned in the river article. Also, imho, I don't think either is incorrect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Hill (pharmacologist)

Thoughts on this academic's notability? I can't find him in Google Scholar. But there's a link to ResearchGate where it says he has 324 publications and 9,800 citations. About 20-30% listed have a preprint tag, the rest say article. Although being ResearchGate, I'm not sure how their system works. Are these all self published? Hmm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, wow. I have no idea. Let me ask another editor who has much more expertise than I in scholar bios. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's the response I got, which makes a lot of sense: "ResearchGate hosts preprints. By themselves, they count as self-published sources from the point of view of reliability. But as you say many of them are preprints of things published elsewhere, for instance in journals. I don't know much about how believable their citation numbers might be. Also I'm more interested in peak citations per paper than in total citations. I think he may have some triple-digit publications in Google Scholar but it's really hard to tease out, and this is a high-citation field so that may not be enough. In this case I'd like to see a little more than bare citation counts before we declare him notable." If I came across this article and it was not previously tagged, I would tag it for notability/academic concerns, and leave it unreviewed. If I came across it and it had been tagged for several weeks for notability, and there wasn't any effort to fix the notability issue, I'd probably prod it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Villages

Onel5969. Thanks for your answers above. I thought of another question. Are villages considered notable? I run across this a lot. Example: Pitinga. I think WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognized places are notable, and populated places without legal recognition need GNG. Do districts, villages, etc. that don't have their own municipal government qualify under GEOLAND? Where's the dividing line? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, this is really a three part question. First, villages, since they are typically legally recognized places, ARE notable. Second, places called villages may or may not be. In the example you give, there is nothing to show that this is a legally recognized place. I had a similar one this morning, which I turned back into a redirect. Usually, we would want to see something from the government like a census reference, etc. In the US, GNIS will suffice (but is not always accurate - but I always AGF in those instances). Third, regarding places which don't have their own government, yes, they qualify, if they are legally recognized. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Divya S. Iyer

Morning Onel5969. I hope your day is off to a good start. Quick question. Do you think these two Indian newspaper articles are GNG quality for an article about Draft:Divya S. Iyer, the wife? [9][10] This third source looks solid, so if the other two pass, I will pass the draft. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, actually, I don't think any of them go to notability. In the first two, I think that's a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, if it had been just her, I doubt the article is written. The third doesn't go in-depth enough about her. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:First Roman Catholic Church of Lansing

Hey Onel. I hope you're having a great day. What do you think of Draft:First Roman Catholic Church of Lansing? When you see an article or draft like this, do you check all 29 sources and evaluate for GNG, or can we just make a judgment call and pass it? This one has some primary going on, and also some duplicate article issues, but I am inclined to pass it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, okay, the first thing I do is check for copyvio. Then I would look at several of the secondary sources. It's clearly notable, since it is on the NHRP. So notability isn't a concern. However, what is a concern is WP:VERIFY. I'd leave a comment for the creator letting them know it's notable, but asking them to provide more information in the citations, pointing to WP:CIT on what info needs to be included. And no, I don't check all the sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Morning Onel5969. Quick follow up question. Is being on U.S. National Register of Historic Places an auto pass, and GNG can be skipped? Also, please see the tricky question below about Indian high schools when you get a chance. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yes, NRHP is an auto pass. Just like Listed buildings in the UK, at least for categories I and II*. Category II (without the asterisk), are generally kept as well, but not automatically. Also UNESCO World Heritage Sites are also auto accepted. This falls under the first bullet in WP:NBUILD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Indian high schools

Also, somewhat related... I AFD'd an Indian high school (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution) and it closed as delete. The article had like 12 primary sources, couldn't pass GNG. I put the guy's other high school articles he created on my watchlist, and so far all of them are getting marked as reviewed. Example: Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya. Similar question to the above, I guess. Is it OK to just eyeball an article's sources and make a judgment call about GNG, or should we strictly check Google every time? I've also had an admin de-prod a high school I tagged... makes me wonder if nominating high schools for deletion is controversial. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, this is a tricky one. And one that shows you how long I've been doing this. When I first started, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES stated that ALL secondary schools were automatically notable. This was born out of the regional bias which is inherent in WP, and disgruntlement from editors in Asia and Africa, where high schools are not covered as well in news sources. Back then, you would routinely see the rationale, "pass WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", in AfD discussions about secondary schools. I can remember a few where they weren't even true secondary schools, but were schools which went up to the 9th or 10th grade, and because they included some level of secondary education, they were given auto acceptance.

But the answer is no, it's not okay to eyeball sources and make a judgement call about GNG. Although every review is a judgement call. Even if an article has refs from the NYT, WSJ, Time, Washington Times, you still need to check those sources, to see if they are in-depth. Many times, they might not even mention the subject of the article. This is a good catch by you, and shows that whatever moron marked the articles reviewed was clearly wrong (and yes, that moron was me). I just AfD'd the one you mentioned above, and will go back and mark the rest unreviewed. My only defense is that I was most likely thinking about the old WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 3

Novem Linguae - Don't worry, this isn't a race. Take your time, and when you've finished Part 2, I'll add the next part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, hello my friend. We are 76 days in and I am eager to finish. Not sure if you know this, but this NPP school is a little longer than other NPP schools. For example, this 5 day NPP school, or this 7 day NPP school. But anyway, not trying to create drama, I will follow your lead and tough it out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, believe me, no one (except perhaps Rosguill and John B123) want you out there reviewing more than I do. My goal is to get 10-20 good reviewers doing daily patrol so I can reduce down to 20-30 reviews a day, in order to get back to what I'd like my primary focus to be, article creation. I appreciate your patience. I apologize if you feel you've picked the wrong person to go through NPP School with, but I feel that the full treatment is what is needed to produce competent NPP reviewers. Others may have a different opinion. So far, your results during the process are quite impressive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, hello my friend. I apologize if you feel you've picked the wrong person to go through NPP School with. I definitely wouldn't say that. You're a great teacher full of great wiki-wisdom, and I don't regret my NPP experience. I just want to gently plant a seed that sometime in the future, maybe NPP teachers should have a discussion about standardizing the duration of NPP school. Mainly for fairness reasons. But anyway, enough of me rocking the boat. I should get back to finishing my NPP school. I apologize if my feedback was too blunt, and I look forward to finishing strong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, no worries. Been a rough couple of days, getting taken senselessly to ANI twice. Probably made me a bit thin skinned. But I'm proud of the work you're doing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Forches estate

Hey Onel5969. Hope your day is going well. Forches estate is an interesting one to me. It doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND, but enough sources may exist to pass GNG. I evaluate this source as for sure passing, and this source as maybe passing. What do you think of that second source? I'm also digging around ProQuest for a third source, although I haven't found a smoking gun yet. Somebody else prodded it, and if the sourcing is good enough, I may remove the prod. Seems to me that something with 2 GNG passing sources should be draftified instead of deleted, or perhaps even kept in mainspace. Thoughts? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, this is one of those sticky wickets. Housing developments will rarely pass AfD without really significant in-depth coverage, which expands beyond local sources. Theoretically, you're correct, but in practice non-officially recognized places. I know this from personal experience. I've written dozens of articles about developments which are actually listed as populated places at GNIS, but if they don't get more than local coverage, they've been deleted. The first source I would agree is definitely in-depth enough. The second I find a bit shaky, If there were 3 of the first caliber, I'd give it a shot to pass AfD. But if there were 3 of the caliber of the second, I'm sure it would get shot down. I hope that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Cats, stubs and Projects

A word on this aspect of NPP. While the flow chart says to add categories, it does give the option to simply tag it as uncategorized. Personally I don't spend a lot of time on cats, if uncategorized I add the uncategorized template, I also remove/fix redcats. But that's about it. There are so many categories, it's difficult to know most of them. Projects, I take a bit more time with. But as long as I get the most prevalent or the two most prevalent I'm okay with that. Stubs are another issue with there being so many different stub categories, it's difficult to know them all. But with the Twinkle stub sort tool, it has become much easier. Occasionally, there are stubs I come across that I can't figure out an appropriate category, so I'll simply tag it with a stub tag.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pro tips. I usually pick a comparison article for WikiProjects and for categories, and then roughly copy what the comparison article has. Stubs are a bit easier, and since you can only pick two, I feel like just typing stuff into StubSorter and getting suggestions works well for stubs. Also, I prefer StubSorter to StubSearch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

GNG and SNG essays I wrote

Hey Onel5969. I hope you're having a great day. I created two essays on notability. Nuances of GNG, Nuances of SNG. They're far enough along now that I'm comfortable running them by you. They're basically my notes from NPP school, this talk page, and calibrating I've done at AFD. Feel free to take a look. No response needed if you don't want, they're long. But sharing in case you find them interesting. The GNG one in particular I could see possibly becoming a "practical guide" for AFC and NPP reviewers. There's just so many "unwritten rules" when it comes to notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I'll look at them over the weekend. Hope all is well with you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Novem Linguae, here are my thoughts, for what they are worth. On the GNG essay:

1. - on the how many sources, I would change the simple answer to "there isn't any"
2. - the third bullet point in "Uniqueness" is not totally correct. If there are 3 stories about a subject all in the same paper, and they are all about the same issues about the subject, then yes. However, If there are 3 articles in say the Washington Times or the LA Times about the same person/group/company, and they span months or even years between, then those count as 3.
3. - on the first bullet point on miscellaneous, you'll get varying answers on that. And personally, if it's a youtube video, I never count those. For anything, notability or verifiability.
4. - on "RS", I would add, "social media platforms, e.g. facebook, twitter, etc." right after blogs. You might even want to break out Unreliable sources and Reliable sources.
5. - "Independence of the author" - does not simply have to have financial connection. For example, an artist's paintings might be being shown at a certain gallery, the exhibit is free, and there are no sales involved. So there is no financial dependence, but there still is dependence. Similarly a person sits on the board of a non-profit, again, no financial dependency, but there is dependency. I would simply take out the word financial. Also, regarding school newspapers, there has been discussion about some school newspapers having independence, but in my opinion, and in discussions I've been involved in, I've never seen that to be the case.

On the whole, very well done. But I would expect that of you. Will get to the SNG soon. I promise.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I incorporated most of your suggestions. [11]. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Novem Linguae, regarding the SNG essay:

On NACADEMIC - that's not a bad mark, but there are many disciplines where if they have a single article with about 100 citations that would pass. Another indicator is the h-index, which is even more convoluted. The easiest pass is the qualifier that they have a named chair, or are the top academic (Dean, vice-Regent, etc.)

On NACTOR - the roles in episodes have to be significant.

On NARTIST - the displays have to be part of the permanent collection of a notable museum.

On NBOOK - has to be a major award.

On NGEO - I'd be one of those arguing about WP is a gazetteer. GNIS is no longer a golden rule. Look at my user page under the Arizona articles, I've had many deleted. And on the NBUILDING, you have the NHRP and Listed buildings backwards, it's the Listed buildings where Category I and Category II* apply. NHRP doesn't have those classifications.

On NSOLDIER - it's been deprecated, so it can no longer be used.

Again, on the whole looks good. I might add a note at the top about this not being a comprehensive list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I incorporated all your suggestions, and made some tweaks to the NGEO section. [12]. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I'll keep adding to this as I master and reverse engineer more SNG's. I have yet to touch astronomy, lists, and a lot of the sports. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:William Wright (Medal of Honor recipient)

Hey Onel. I hope you're doing well. Does U.S. Medal of Honor qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yes. Typically, the highest military/civilian award given by a country does. Although in Germany, there is some discussion regarding the different levels of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Some argue that the lowest level, with over 7300 given out is not selective enough. However, only about 1000 of the higher levels were given out. Since the US has given out just under 4000 CMH, to me it makes sense to include all levels of the Knight's Cross. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NAUTHOR

Hello my friend. One reading of WP:NAUTHOR #3 could be "Created a famous work that was the subject of multiple independent articles or reviews." Does that mean that most authors that have books that have Wikipedia articles probably qualify for their own articles? I imagine any book with its own article has multiple independent articles or reviews. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, If the articles themselves pass WP:NBOOK, then most likely yes. It's not an automatic, but almost. I know there have been rare times when the author of a single notable book did not pass AfD, but off the top of my head I can't think of definite example. Safe to say, yes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Plants, animals, taxonomies

Are there any SNG's for plants, animals, or organisms that have taxonomies and Latin names? Example: Draft:Nemoptera coa. I don't see anything in the SNG sidebar, but I'm a little surprised at its absence. Just double checking. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, not that I'm aware of. My personal opinion is that if any of these are sourced, I mark them review (and tag, if appropriate, e.g. "one source", "more refs needed", etc.). On plant articles, my go-to editor is Plantdrew. You might also ask at the NPP talk page or at the Teahouse. Sorry I don't have better info for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Hey Onel5969. Long time no chat. I hope you're well. Quick question. There's a bunch of different kinds of OBE. Do you know which ones qualify for ANYBIO? I've got an MBE in the AFC queue (Draft:Scott Bateman MBE), but that's the lowest one I think, so just double checking. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, GBE and KBE definitely, as there are only 300 and 845, respectively. Most likely the CBE as well. The other two are not automatic. But this is a matter of interpretation, there have been AfD's where it was successfully argued that OBE's were also notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)