User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/April

Tagging Drafts for MFD

You asked when it is appropriate to tag drafts for Miscellany for Deletion. I have done it in three situations. The first is if the draft has been repeatedly resubmitted tendentiously without any real effort at improvement, or without any reason to think that there will be improvement. The second is if the topic already exists in article space. The third is if the draft is nowhere close to being ready for article space and the author has been indefinitely blocked (as a spammer, as a troll, as a sockpuppet, etc.). In my opinion, there has to be something seriously wrong with the draft (tendentious resubmission, or the submitter is a problem) or no hope of improvement (including because the topic has already been accepted). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry for the late response (I thought I had responded previously). Thank you for this information. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought

Generally when adding the signature of someone else (usually because they forgot) it's best to use either {{unsigned}} or the other various versions (see WP:UNSIGNED). It avoids any possible issues with signature forgery. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Oh, thank you for letting me know about that! I will for sure use that template in the future. If the legitimacy of the signature added concerns you, you can look in your talk page history (and expand to the 500 edit view, searching for edits by Dansmo) you will see that the timestamp is correct and unforged. Thanks again for the heads up! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Would you like me to replace the signature I did create (based on others I have seen generated with appropriate fields filled in) with the unsigned template or is that just for future reference? Either or, I am perfectly happy to do --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're fine (you don't have to replace it). Primefac (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

An Invite to join WikiProject Canada

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Canada Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Canada. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the many Canadian related WikiProjects. The goal of WikiProject Canada is to improve the quality and quantity of information about the country on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject main page for more information.

Moxy (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tips

Hi there. Just so you know, Billboard as in the magazine or chart always gets italicized. This is per the album style guide which has a lot of useful info: MOS:ALBUM --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Thanks for the info! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:17:18, 8 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 107.77.204.32

• 107.77.204.32 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jessica Vosk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you help me out here. I have 9 different references from several other large newspapers and from playbill which is a national publication. The references look in line with other pages for broadway actors. What type of other references are needed?

107.77.204.32 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.204.32: Certainly! I had a brain-fart last night and did not realize that broadway was broadway (my bad), but aside from that I would just see if you can find any other mentions on notable websites or books/newspapers as all additional referencing will help. (Also having independent sources not affiliated with the play or actors in any way would be helpful) Fundamentally I don't see anything wrong with the draft aside from more references being a major improvement and think - with a bit more work - that it will most likely be approved.

Does that help any? I am happy to answer any further questions

TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios

Make sure you're always checking for copyright violations before you fully review a draft. I just deleted one that you had accepted. Hopefully there aren't others. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: There weren't (I only approved 2 last night) - I'm sorry. Will look closer from now on. I saw that the draft definitely had potential and at first glance did not see any. The other draft that I approved was Yemisi_Adedoyin_Shyllon. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I was linked a useful tool to check for copyvios by Onel5969 on his talk page so that should help in the future as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Byzantine silver

Yeah, that looks okay to me. It does need a bit of copy editing — mainly the reference tags need to be placed after the sentence's punctuation, not before it — but that's a maintenance issue, not an AFC approval dealbreaker in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thanks for the feedback on this! What class would you consider it? start? c?--TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: what class would you rate it? start? c? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the standards for class-rating...beyond the basic stub and start, I have no experience in judging whether something's made it to C, B, or A, so I'm just not the person to ask about that. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: No problem! Thanks for all your help so far :D I accepted it as start class. I am debating about including a {{helpme}} on it asking for someone to assess the rating or asking another reviewer/admin, what do you think of that idea? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Article on Gen Norm Cooling

Hi,

I know you have a lot on your table, but could you please expound on what is still wrong with the article? It was written primarily to list him in the page for USMC general officers as well as provide links from mentions of him in other Wiki articles. As a general officer, he fits the Wiki definition of a notable person who should be included.

More references were added from government sources, books, and both the San Diego Union-Tribune and the LA Times. The main body was rewritten. The final paragraph was left alone as this is the standard format used in every source for the listing of military awards. Everyone will use the same wording and order of the awards. As I told the last editor earlier this week, I can delete that if it would help. It isn't necessary, but as I just wrote, it is standard procedure.

Thanks,

Coloneljon (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coloneljon: I have asked for another reviewer's input on this as you raise valid points, hopefully they will comment here soon. Why would deleting it help? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 04:50:43, 9 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cwegla.01

• Cwegla.01 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Forced Abortion in the Deaf Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I need to have this article to be aproved?

Cwegla.01 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cwegla.01: Add more reliable sources, remove external links from main draft body as they are not allowed there (but are allowed in an 'external links' or 'further reading' style section). I have gone ahead and fixed the formatting issue that had the majority of the content in a block quote. Please also go see WP:Teahouse as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

13:30:41, 9 April 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana

• Maria Grimana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maurizio Pellegrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello TheSandDoctor,

one more thing. I made the changes and saved them, but I don't see my article in the waiting list even if I think I resubmitted. Can you tell me why I cannot see the my article in list after I clicked submission? Thank you again!

Best,

Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maria Grimana: The article has not been resubmitted, maybe try again if that is your plan? I will let another reviewer look at it and get their opinion (as in let them review it). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Shinobi was declined for not having independent sources.

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

This wikipedia page has less information than Shinobi does. Shinobi is an application used around the globe just like ZoneMinder. Please explain in detail what I am missing in comparison to ZoneMinder's accepted page. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moeiscool22 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Moeiscool22, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

12:49:05, 9 April 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana

• Maria Grimana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maurizio Pellegrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear TheSandDoctor,

thank you for taking the time to review my article. 

I have rephrased some words and changed some names (for ex now Academy of Fine Arts is Accademia di Belle Arti; or Painting and Sculpture is now Studio Art; or Rhode Island School of Design is now RISD, and the Venice Program is now Program in Venice) to avoid plagiarism. There is still the name of a Museum that comes up: The Cleveland Center for Contemporary Art. How should I proceed? Does it count as plagiarism?

Is there anything else I should revise, change, add? If so can you please indicate what does not work in my article and show me the right way?

Thank you so much and I appreciate your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maria Grimana: You are more than welcome! I think that you have made some definitely made some improvements however do not abbreviate place names (that is okay). Please leave the Museum mention 'as is'. I will look at your draft more closely when I have the time in a few hours and get back to you with more, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

fix ping. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Maria Grimana: Please see the AFC comment left by Yashovardhan, they answer it there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Crats and admins

Yes, I became an administrator first in 2007, then a bureaucrat in 2009. While it is technically possible to possess the bureaucrat userright without the admin userright, it's a de facto requirement here at the English Wikipdia for anyone going through WP:RFB to have been an administrator for a good length of time. It only makes sense that if we are able to give and take away the technical ability to become an admin, we need to understand what being an administrator entails by being admins ourselves. bibliomaniac15 04:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: Thank you for the response! That does make sense but for some reason I had thought you had to be one or the other. Never talked to a bureaucrat before haha. If you don't mind my asking, what sort of permissions does a 'crat have that an admin doesn't? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:GOVH for an overview.--Moxy (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thanks for the link! Was an interesting read :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AfC submission

Actually, numerous references have been added to Draft:International Documentation of Electroacoustic Music since the first submission. The relevance of these sources has been explained on the talk page by another user. It would be helpful if you could be more specific about the reasons for declining the submission. Thanks! 2003:73:E2A:2C00:35C5:75AD:447C:A299 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@2003:73:E2A:2C00:35C5:75AD:447C:A299: You are completely correct and I just confirmed that with another reviewer and have since accepted it although its rating may change as I am getting a second opinion on that (I rated it as 'stub' class but may upgrade the rating to 'start' class based on the second opinion). Sorry for the misunderstanding - probably shouldn't review drafts at close to 3 in the morning haha. I hope you accept my apologies on this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! 2003:73:E00:3000:A9C4:4728:FB8:2DFF (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@2003:73:E2A:2C00:35C5:75AD:447C:A299: You are more than welcome! Sorry once again for the misunderstanding and thank you for bringing it to my attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AFC sidebar script

I should point out that I made a mistake on the instructions at the AFC talk page, which have since been corrected. The line to add to common.js is:

importScript('User:ProgrammingGeek/afc-sidebar.js');

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: Thanks for getting back to me on that! :D I love using it now haha :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: The weirdest thing just happened, I used that button in your script - and got the same draft twice in a row....--TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's happened to me a few times. All the script does is redirect you to Special:RandomInCategory/Pending AFC Submissions, as you probably saw. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 21:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: I figured that is how it worked but thought you might want to hear of that haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: One thing I do find annoying though is how I seem to generally be presented with the same 10-20 submissions over and over again despite there being 600 some odd ones. If I skip them I do for a reason (ie am not that experienced in X area and want to leave to more experienced editors) - I don't want to keep seeing them! lol --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I need all the help I can get :) FedderSL (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@FedderSL: Was this meant for the post you made higher up or was this in response to ProgrammingGeek? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Improving the references on the Dilly Gent page

Hello There, I saw you recently left the following comment on my draft for my article on Dilly Gent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dilly_Gent): "More work needs to be done on references."

I was wondering if you might be able to tell me specifically what you would like to see improved. Would be happy to make any suggested changes.

Best, Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoWondros (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheoWondros: Certainly! I am happy to help answer your question as best I can. What I meant was that additional reliable, significant (and of course relevant) secondary sources should be cited whenever possible in order to help prove notability per Wikipedia policies. Having Variety is a good start but more references are needed, maybe something on the level of the Washington State Journal or Los Angeles Times or something like that if at all possible. Basically there has to be significant coverage in the related industry and (if possible) media. Also, in the few entries that I checked from the lists (Live Earth and a few others), Dilly is not mentioned at all. This adds to what was mentioned in the AFC comment left by SwisterTwister on 6 March 2017 at 21:12 (UTC), "notability cannot be inherited from others". Please check out the teahouse if you haven't already for some additional help as well as Wikipedia:Your first article for some tips and Wikipedia:CITE for more information on references/citations. Hopefully this helps and if you have any more questions please feel free to ask myself, another reviewer, or at the Teahouse. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

17:38:15, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Elena12leo11

• Elena12leo11 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Forced Abortion in the Deaf Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edit my article can you please take a look at it and tell me what I'm need fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena12leo11 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elena12leo11: Significant improvements have been made in the wording of it however the issue I raised of not having enough references has not been addressed. Please see the teahouse and Wikipedia:Your first article for tips on writing articles and WP:CITE for tips on referencing. Hopefully this helps and if you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Adam Armstrong pioneer settler Dalkeith Western Australia

Hi I seem to be going round the block on this.I removed "essay" style vocabulary and had already cited three published books plus newspaper clippings from the the 1830s. I am at a loss as to what more you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.105.117 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@59.167.105.117: I was going in part by the edit history of the draft and the reviewer comment. My apologies that I did not realize that the language had indeed been fixed (not sure how I missed that). I will get a second opinion on the draft from another reviewer and get back to you. Also, the standard thing for Wikipedia is the more note-worthy citations and references the better. Are those the only ones that could be found? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@59.167.105.117: I got a response which you can view here but basically although the actual decline reason was not as accurate as it could have been (my apologies on that), it still has some notability issues according to the more experienced reviewer I talked to. To assist with notability (as I said in the previous message), please add any and all relevant sources you can find that are reliable (WP:CITE) and feel free to resubmit once improvements have been made. Good job so far! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

22:52:02, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana

• Maria Grimana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maurizio Pellegrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello TheSandDoctor,

thank you again for taking time for my article. I think I followed what Yashovardhan suggested.

Do you think that now I can try to resubmit my article? Is there anything else I should change?

thank you so much!

Maria GrimanMaria Grimana (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@MariaGrimana: Please do not resubmit it at the moment. Not because there is anything wrong with it necessarily, I just want to have the time to look over it in closer detail which I will not have for a few hours, okay? I will get back to you after that. What I can say is that you addressed by concerns and the reason why I declined the draft. If it is acceptable I can easily accept it without you having to resubmit it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@MariaGrimana: I have looked over the draft and have now accepted it as it had addressed all the concerns I had raised (copyvio now calls it 'unlikely' to be a violation and only listings were the place names I said to keep - which should be fine) and I believe it to have also addressed the other issues raised by other reviewers. Congratulations and good job on that draft! It has been accepted but I urge you to continue to work on it and improve it further if possible (more reliable and relevant citations the better so long as it isn't WP:CITEKILL with 6-10+ citations for one sentence ). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

08:29:28, 9 April 2017 review of submission by MyopsBrussels

• MyopsBrussels (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Denis Maksimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you give some suggestions in relation to references? Shall the internet links (aka news) be avoided and rather academic publications left only? Thank you.

Do you have any recommendations for me on what exactly I should do to help me get this approved? I keep making edits but nothing seems to work. Thank you :) FedderSL (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@FedderSL: What I meant was to simply improve the references. Look for more notable news ones as well as academia. I will get back to you with more in a few hours when I get time, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to my submission you declined... any help you can offer me regarding proving noteabilty and making this acceptable is appreciated! FedderSL (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, thank you!

MyopsBrussels (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MyopsBrussels You are welcome! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

yup, seems we got a confusion in here :) would love to have your comments as well, thank you so much in advance MyopsBrussels (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@FedderSL: @MyopsBrussels: yes we do, give me 1-2 hours and I will get back to you two okay? -TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@FedderSL: @MyopsBrussels: Okay, the above comments were directed at MyopsBrussels's draft. I assume that you (FedderSL)are referring to Draft:Patrick W. Hitchon and will answer accordingly (if I am wrong and you meant a different draft, please do let me know). Why I declined Draft:Patrick W. Hitchon (which I will refer to as "your draft" from here on in for simplicity's sake) was because, while your draft has some good and seemingly reliable references, I do not believe it adequate in its current state (reference wise). This is further compounded by only largely superficial edits being made since it was declined by SwisterTwister in regards to the issues raised (notability of references). All that is shown in the edit history is a reduction in size of a section, removal of one reference, and the adding of two references. How you would resolve this would be to try and find as many quality reliable and significant independent sources/references to cite that you can that are relevant to Patrick W. Hitchon. This will help prove notability per Wikipedia standards. I encourage you to work further on this draft and resubmit when some more changes are made to address the issues raised by the AFC comments on the draft. Please see the Teahouse for additional help if you haven't already as well as Wikipedia:Your first article for tips and Wikipedia:CITE for more information on citations. Hopefully I helped to answer your question and if you have any more questions please feel free to ask either myself, another reviewer, or at the Teahouse. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate your assistance on creating my page (Hanover Research)! I will continue to find more viable sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mer223 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mer223: You are more than welcome! I have asked another reviewer for a second opinion on it as I am 'on the fence' as it were regarding the draft at this time. What I will fall back on saying though is that you should continue to improve it and add more references to it regardless of if it is accepted or denied. I have marked it as 'under review' as well but by all means feel free to add more references/citations regardless. If I do not hear back from the other reviewer within 10 or so hours I will mark it as not under review and get back to you ASAP. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mer223: I got a response from the two reviewers (one was an administrator) that I asked. They concluded that it is not notable enough for an article at this time and do not recommend resubmitting it at this time. You can view the discussion here User_talk:Mz7#Second_opinion_request_on_Draft:Hanover_Research. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for the update. What do you propose next steps would be? I still would like to get this page live in the space. There are many other sources I can pull regarding this company, and speaking frankly, there are plenty of other companies (like Forrester Research) that are similar to Hanover and they are in the space (also if you check the sources on Forrester's page, none are valid or workable links). Would love some advice! Thanks! --User:Mer223 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mer223: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. As primefac said to another user on my talk page a couple of days ago (replace 'ZoneMinder' with X article), "please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia."

Aside from that that though, my suggestion would be to first of all not resubmit it at this time and possibly ask for assistance at the teahouse as well as add all the reliable (and relevant) notable sources/citations/references that you can find whilst avoiding it becoming CITEKILL (basically that means not having 4-6+ citations in one literal spot). If you have any more questions or want further help please see the teahouse (linked above) or maybe talk to SwisterTwister or Mz7 and ask them for advice regarding this? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

11:00:13, 11 April 2017 review of submission by Spaceagepop

• Spaceagepop (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nancy Hale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just trying to understand your application of the notability criteria. A 21-year-old archer whose entry has two sentences qualifies as notable. A woman who published twenty books and is mentioned in The Oxford Companion to American Literature and Twentieth Century Authors does not. Hard to connect those two dots.

@Spaceagepop: Sorry for the delay in my response. Upon further review I have accepted the draft. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you for bringing this to my attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations fixed!

Hey there,

All the citations were properly distributed per your instructions!

Cheers, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFuzes (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@DFuzes: Thank you for properly distributing the citations. Please see my response to your comment on SwisterTwister's talk page here. Also, please don't forget to sign your messages with --~~~~ as, even though a bot will fill it in later, it is best practices to see who made the comment without having to look into page edit histories and is covered here Wikipedia:Tips/How to sign comments - thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey again,

Okay, then could you please tell me what exactly notabilty is defined as then? I've been modelling it off as other music performers pages, and as he is booked on a North American Tour, as well as Australia, and has been through much of it already, that indicates notability, doesn't it? DFuzes (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@DFuzes: I moved this up a section as no need for multiple sections ('topics') for the same thing. Having as many reliable and notable references/citations as possible (not just interviews) is a major factor. Please see WP:CITE and please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the notability guidelines for music as well. Also, I just looked at the draft and there are some citations that still need distributing in the Discography section. For more help with this please see the teahouse as well as the aforementioned links. If you have any additional questions please do let me know. My only other suggestion would be to not resubmit for review but maybe ask another reviewer or administrator to look over the draft and give you some pointers on how to improve it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the help, i'll go into fixing it some more. DFuzes (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@DFuzes: Thanks for the cookie! I am guessing you saw the message at the top of my talk page? That cookie was delicious by the way! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ITEC Entertainment Draft

Hi TheSandDoctor - Thanks for your feedback on the ITEC Entertainment draft: as a new editor, I'm working on learning the ropes. Would you be willing to take another look at the article? Do the updates made improve it? YvR89 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@YvR89: Not a problem! I am always happy to help. I have only been here for a bit over 3 months (3 months and a couple days) myself and, while I have learned majority of the ropes in my every day editing - I still am learning constantly when it comes to reviewing (only been doing it for around 4-5 days) and other things, so no need to apologize or feel bad. I think you have made some good improvements to it but please see if you can find some more sources related to it, possibly in major publications? If that is not available then possibly stuff on Universal's websites or something like that? While the latter does not necessarily prove notability, it would definitely be worth while to include. Basically include references/citations etc that will help us (the reviewers) verify the notability of ITEC - the references can make or break it in some scenarios. For additional help I welcome you to go check out the teahouse if you haven't already as well as WP:CITE. If you have any more questions or would like me to look at the draft again in the future please don't be afraid to ask (I might not respond right away but I will look and get back to you ASAP) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

02:42:28, 13 April 2017 review of submission by Nojiratz

• Nojiratz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TheSandDoctor, could you kindly be more specific about what you're looking for? You mentioned that I need references from news or newspapers, and yet I had that in there, so what more are you looking for?

Thanks, nojiratz

@Nojiratz: I just meant to add more than the 3 references that you already have listed as more is typically always better if at all possible. If an article were nominated for deletion, the more reliable and notable citations within the article the better in increasing its chances of surviving an AfD nomination - that's all. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:49:45, 13 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jim Cross

• Jim Cross (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ACMS Marine Surveyors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good day TheSandDoctor, I am Jim Cross the editor of the submission noted. I would like to clarify the term "merge". I am pretty sure that the association you suggested our article be merged with of into would not appreciate the co-existence of our article into theirs. As I am new to Wikipedia I need advise on this situation as NAMS and ACMS are two separate entities. How to proceed? My initial intention was a simple paragraph so that folks who inquired about marine surveyors would be aware of our existence. I appreciate your help and thank you for setting me in the correct direction. R/ Jim CrossJim Cross (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim Cross (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Cross: Fair enough and I apologize for the confusion there. You are correct, merging would probably not be the best course. I have updated the declination reason on the draft to be more accurate. What I would recommend though is seeing what independent reliable sources/references you can find to add to the draft in order to help show/demonstrate/prove the association's notability. If you have any other questions or would like further clarification please feel free to ask me and I am happy to help where I can. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Soundkode

Thanks, TheSandDoctor, for your advisement. Is the only issue you find the citation? Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Best regards, TimeForTruth (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TimeForTruth: The issue I declined it on was due to not having enough citations (ilc) but there are other issues with the draft - particularly the references. I would recommend adding as many reliable and independent references that are notable and relate to the subject as possible in order to help demonstrate notability, otherwise the draft will just be declined for either notability issues or another technical issue. If you want me to take a look at it before you submit it again (or after you do) please do let me know and I will take a look as soon as I get the chance and get back to you. Please also check out WP:CITE for assistance with citations. All the best & happy editing --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about the appropriate webpages for Draft:Matty T Wall

If not reviews about his work, and articles in multiple languages, showing his global coverage, what kind of websites would show notability? I've read the guidelines for it, and it isn't clear given the web pages I have put up. Due to the fact that it is music, what kind of pages and or documents are required to show notability? I do apologise if this sounds redundant. DFuzes (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Typically notable reviews, mentions etc from what I understand. If they were ever interviewed in the New York Times or Washington Post etc those would be worth including (even if just mentions, although those hold less power but can occasionally be good for fact-checking). Hopefully that helps and I see that you have made a post on SwisterTwister's talk page as well. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know or ask SwisterTwister or another reviewer (or at the teahouse). Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

19:41:34, 13 April 2017 review of submission by Thegatunduprince

• Thegatunduprince (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Eke U. Eke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received a decline on my article and do not seem to get around the issue to do with footnotes. Most of my references are web URLs. I would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction as I believe I may not be so far off in my arrangement.

The link to my article is as below. Draft:Eke_U._Eke

Thegatunduprince (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thegatunduprince: Sorry that I was not clearer on that. What that means is basically there are not enough inline citations within the draft (something that is generally more of a requirement for bios than anything else). (Talking in partially in general here) Citations should be included around any information that could be challenged or needs verification (ie marital status, kids names, job positions, achievements, where they live, etc). If it is a quote the citation should immediately follow it, when it comes to other things if they are supported by different citations (different pages/sources) then it should go beside the information it supports; if the source(s) support the entire sentence or couple of sentences, then they go at the end of the sentence. Hopefully that helps. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask me or at the teahouse and please do take a look at WP:CITE. Thanks & happy editing! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

afc comments

I saw you commented on this afc (Draft:New Era Square) to fix some small citation style/punctuation problems. It's always better to fix them yourself because you're already accustomed to the wiki syntax than new users. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Will do, most likely just didn't have time at the time and forgot about it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No issues! By the way, my user name is ' Yashovardhan Dhanania' so your ping didn't reach me. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Oops - sorry about that. Fixed the ping and made sure that this one will reach you haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem (again!)I face this often due to my signature! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:47:55, 14 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Triangularsunset

• Triangularsunset (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Martin D-35 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Triangularsunset (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and feedback, so add references like on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_D-28 - then it is good to publish? Triangularsunset (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Triangularsunset: I don't want to say 'yes' as others may have a different opinion and the other one you mentioned was not submitted through AFC but what I can say is 'possibly'. Having more than one reference and trying to expand the draft with relevant content is definitely a good step, that's for sure. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lore A. Frost

Hello TheSandDoctor, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lore A. Frost, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: founding a notable firm indicates significance/importance. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SoWhy 14:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: You are more than welcome! While I can't mark pages as patrolled as I am not a new page patroller permissions wise (will eventually apply - probably in a couple months when I gain more experience), I do look for vandalism to help combat it by looking at the contributions of new accounts in the account creation feed and welcoming newcomers who have made constructive edits. Thanks for letting me know about the outcome of my nomination. It is now a redirect by the looks and even tripped up another administrator who nominated it for deletion (before it was turned into a redirect). I am occasionally wrong in my nominations for CSD but it is typically few and far between (thankfully) then again, I typically stay within the draft and user spaces - the latter only when someone AFC submits from there - and that was one of my first times nominating a fully-fledged article. I learn from my mistakes in most cases so thanks again for letting me know. Always looking to better myself as a Wikipedian. :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ty J. Young

Hey,

I just received your message on my article, but I dont understand what you mean by: "Possibly notable however would benefit from all available additional citations."

Could you explain a little better to me? I am new and dont seem to get everything that's going on. I want to do whatever I need to do to get this article published so I can move to the next one. Are you just suggesting I need additional citations?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithnr (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Smithnr. First off, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia. As for your question, that is precisely what I meant. What I meant was that the individual is possibly notable and that additional references/citations would help in verifying notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. Maybe you can help me understand this a little better. I seem to be having problems with notability, despite my article being about a wealth manager in Atlanta with multiple multi-million dollar businesses, appears regularly on notable news sites like Fox Business, CNBC, CNN, etc as an industry expert, owns his own radio show which has had very notable guest appearances from people like Steve Forbes, Newt Gingrich, and Tom Price, owns his own racing company and drives (and wins) his own formula car, and has over 15 prestigious industry awards, all of which are cited in the article clearly. I guess I just dont understand how that doesnt make a person notable enough given there are people on wikipedia with far less achievements. The guy was just recently listed as one of the 10 top powerful bald white guys alongside names such as Bernie Sanders, Larry David, Jeffrey Tambor, and Steve Ballmer (http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/the-top-10-powerful-bald-white-guys-pbwgs-of-2015-54900/). In fact, this article is what prompted me to create this wiki page for him. I contacted the actual office of this guy and they did not have any additional sources for me except more youtube videos of him talking on various shows like Fox Business (of which I have already listed more than 5). I appreciate any help. Smithnr (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Smithnr. You do have a point however to verify that by having citations (see WP:CITE) beside any information/statement that could be challenged that support it (directly beside it if a quote) would greatly help as it does not appear to have enough citations at the moment. I was on the fence in regards to whether or not to accept the draft and so I requested a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer (SwisterTwister) who responded (as can be read here Draft:Ty J. Young) in an AFC comment stating that it was "too advert-like" and needs "better focus in only the best news" regarding Ty J. Young. Hopefully that helps to provide some insight, if you have any more questions please do not hesitate to ask myself or SwisterTwister (if so, please do so here to keep it all centralized unless is a specific question or unrelated), or at the teahouse. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again TheSandDoctor. Just a bit of clarification. I have 26 references, 6 are from Young's site which is the only place to obtain biographical information (and are used only as such), and 20 are from verifiable sources. Of those 20, 1 is from CNBC, 5 are from Fox Business, 1 from US News and World Report, 1 is from CNN International, 3 are from The Street, 3 establish his racing credentials (including lists of winners from Goodyear and NASA races which include Young's name), and the rest are from credible industry specific agencies like Insurance News and AOL Finance (these sources are also mostly youtube vids of Young on screen talking to folks like Neil Cavuto as an expert, or are direct quotations from Young in articles about the economy or wealth management - Verifiable and Reputable sources). Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time understanding what SwisterTwister means by "better focus in only the best news" if Fox Business, The Street, CNBC, CNN, and the others don't qualify as "best news." Just so I can understand and not make the same mistake in the future, what agencies or news sites would be considered "the best" to both of you if these are not? I concede on the point of the article not being neutral enough - first time foils I guess (currently being corrected), but the "notability" and "lack of sources" dings seem a bit arbitrary and perhaps a bit hasty. Smithnr (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Smithnr, I just went through all but the NY Times (cookie block), and not a single one does any more than a) verify he won something, or b) have the phrase "said Young". In other words, with the exception of possibly the NYT article, there is no significant coverage about Young - it's all just stuff he's said. You need reliable sources that talk specifically about Young. See WP:42. I'll leave a copy of this on the draft itself for when this gets archived. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Primefac, There seems to be a misunderstanding here about how specifically to use sources. If I had said, "Young made $15 Trillion last year" then yes, I would need a news source that talks specifically about Young and his annual returns However, as you can read in the article, I said "Young is widely recognized and has been a frequent guest in national media outlet such as..." which means the only citation I need to provide is that Young did in fact speak on those news outlets, which the sources I have provided prove this and are reputable and verifiable sources. You admitted yourself that each source at least had a quote from Young in it. That proves he was on said news outlet. I can assure you, CNBC and Fox Business would not cite Young's quotes without the understanding that he is an expert in the field. The sources that show Young won a race is provided to prove that I didnt make up the fact that he has a racing team, drives for said racing team, and won (all things said in the article itself, thus needing a citation). I'm going to continue to press this folks, because I have been through each one of your talk pages and I see articles you have approved that have far fewer sources from far less reputable media outlets (volleyball players, gymnasts, etc.) Funny enough, while looking for additional "best news" Young was quoted again today on CBS about the value of the dollar (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-dollar-strong-trade-wall-street/) Smithnr (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac In response to WP42 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cite_WP42_at_AfD) - "Some editors feel that it is not an accurate description of the notability guidelines. Some editors feel that it could not fulfill its purpose if it was. In pithy language, it arguably represents the notability guidelines as being somewhat stricter and somewhat more unequivocal than they really are."

Smithnr, I've been reviewing drafts for over two years now; please do not just assume that I don't know how referencing works. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what notability is defined as on Wikipedia. WP:42 may not be acceptable at AFD, but it does accurately summarize the general notability guidelines, which (to reiterate) require significant coverage of a subject. Quoting a person (or listing out every appearance they've made in public, as you've done on the draft) is neither significant nor independent of the subject (and the huge list could be construed as promotional and/or not neutral). Now, if you wanted to quote Young in an article about investing, marketing risk, or what have you, then by all means do so. I'm not saying these references cannot be used, I'm just saying that they do not demonstrate his notability. We don't need "[proof] he was on said news outlet", we need proof that someone's actually "took note" of him and written about him. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note on moving to draft space

Hey! Just a quick note. When moving articles from main space to draft space (for afc or otherwise), Nominate the redirect page for deletion under R2. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I was just going to do that (I know to tag R2 and have been doing that) and was just writing an explanatory note to the editor first (you beat me to it haha - was literally just going to do that when I saw your message), note can be found here. Thanks for letting me know regardless though!--TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the amount of articles you make and your work at AFC. ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek: Thank you so much! :D I have not received a barnstar before nor was I expecting to. Thanks! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

22:02:37, 14 April 2017 review of submission by HankitoJ

• HankitoJ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Albert E. Jarrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, TheSandDoctor, I'm wondering if the article was rejected due to inadequate references that I provided, or because the last 4 "Awards and Decorations" did not have citations. The "Biography" section is from my personal knowledge as the subject's son and personal records such as Bible entries, etc. I have reviewed a number of USN Admiral articles and see that biography sections often do not have references (ref: John M. Alford). Similarly, "Awards and Decorations often do not have citations (Ref: Daniel S. Mastagni, William Halsey, Jr.). I would appreciate it if you could steer me in the right direction to fix the article. Thanks ````

@Hankito: Sorry for the late response. If you are indeed their son, this should be disclosed on the draft's talk page as a potential conflict of interest (WP:COI - in no way is this meant negatively towards you, just stating the general guideline). While personal knlowedge could add depth, it is important that there is also significant and reliable independent coverage of the subject that is cited. In general, any assertion/statement made should be backed up (whenever possible) by a citation. Please see WP:CITE and check out the teahouse if you haven't already. If you have any further questions please feel free to let me know/ask them and I will answer them as soon as I get the chance and as best as I can. Hopefully this helps! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

05:57:53, 15 April 2017 review of submission by RolandKluge

• RolandKluge (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EMoflon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear SandDoctor, thank you very much for the time you spent reviewing my proposed article. This is my first article in Wikipedia and it appears that I did not write the article in an appropriate tone. I am currently trying to improve the tone, but I am pretty unsure whether I do it in the right way. Can you help me by pointing me at concrete passages that should be rewritten/omitted/extended. Thank you, Roland

RolandKluge (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@RolandKluge: Sorry for the delay in my response. In quickly looking the draft over, you appear to have addressed the tone issues. I will not review it again and leave it to another reviewer should you choose to resubmit it for AfC. My suggestion would be to check out the teahouse as well as WP:CITE and WP:CITEKILL. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@SandDoctor: Thank you very much for your help. I read the articles you suggested and tried to improve the article in this respect. Best, Roland -- RolandKluge (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

04:17:57, 16 April 2017 review of submission by Laura griffith

• Laura griffith (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jessica Vosk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you take a look at the changes I made. I think the number of references are now consistent with the pages for other broadway actresses. Now have from several national and regional newspapers. Thanks for your help!

@Laura griffith: It looks okay to me but I will let another reviewer take a look at it/review it, if that is okay by you. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Moves to Draft space

I appreciate your article moves to Draft space. It can save good effort from being deleted. However it creates some work to move acceptable articles back. Apart from moving the article, it is also necessary to recreate the wikidata links. I suggest to take extra care if there are wikidata links, as this indicates that the subject is likely to be notable. It would also be helpful if you leave a note on the talk page of the creator. Inwind (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inwind: Thank you for the feedback. What do you mean by "wikidata"? WikiLinks? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

language links. Inwind (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inwind: Thanks for the clarification and suggestion. I normally do leave a message on the talk pages and will be sure to do so more often from now on - I just wish that there was an automated template for it haha (will have to develop my own so to speak I guess that I just copy & paste & tweak I guess). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Vladimir Pimonov

Hello. Thank you for your comment. I have trimmed references to sources to address CITEKILL. Would greatly appreciate assistance re. Formatting corrections. Kind regards. 176.115.54.206 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Thomsen

@176.115.54.206: I went ahead and corrected the issues I could see off hand. I would have done it at the time however I was most likely unable at the time due to time constraints (sorry to say 'time' so many times in a sentence - there I go again! :D) Anyhow, I was able to correct what I could see off hand and added more WikiLinks as well. I will leave the reviewing of the draft to another reviewer however. But, in my personal opinion, the person in question is most likely notable. The advice I give to anyone writing a draft though (and in general) is to simply have as many reliable and independent citations as you can find that are relevant to the subject, especially in BLPs. They are what I consider the hardest type to write and also can be the toughest to judge from a notability standpoint - not all (probably very few) are 'cut and dry' (or 'black and white') so to speak. If you have any more questions please do let me know and I will do my best to help you out with them, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. A terrific job! Thank you so much for help. Looks much better now. I have been sort of confused as some reviewers would like to see as many reliable multiple sources in different languages as possible to show a significant coverage, while others prefer max. 3 sources for a given statement to avoid CITEKILL. So to address CITEKILL I had to "kill" such reliable and good sources as The Washington Post and The New York Times as well as references to Stanford University and Cambridge Universuty libraries. The person in question has had a long and versatile international career, including journalism, academic work, civil activism and chess. That's why there are so many sources (in Danish, Russian and English) over the course of at least 40 years. There is no doubt in my mind that the person meets notability criteria. Cheers, 95.181.248.99 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Thomsen

@95.181.248.99: What we mean by CITEKILL is to not have all the citations in one area, rather to spread them out beside the information that they support. If you must remove citations do not remove the most notable ones like the Washington Post and NY Times or Stanford/Cambridge etc. I encourage you to add them back and just distribute more evenly. You can view old versions of the draft in the edit history and get the citations from there if that is easier. If you have any further questions or need help please do let me know and I will do my best to help answer them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Have earlier added back a ref. to The Washington Post (citing the subject's letter to Pres. Reagan - that story actually hit the world headlines in Nov. 1985 as the human rights issue had overshadowed disarmement agenda at the US-Soviet summit in Geneva - so one ref. is enough) and a ref. to his work on Shakespeare held at Stanford university library. Not sure it is so important, as his academic work is held in nearly 100 major university library holding around the world. Regards. Thomsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.181.248.99 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@95.181.248.99:You are more than welcome and thank you for adding those back as they definitely add to the draft. I will most likely not review this draft and will leave it for another reviewer but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Would this googled image from Wikipedia Commons be overkill to support statements regarding the subject's chess background? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Pimonov,_a_chess_master_and_journalist_at_%2264-Chess_Review%22,_plays_against_Mikhail_Tal_(eighth_World_Chess_Champion,_from_1960_to_1961)_in_Moscow_Blitz_Chess_Championship,_USSR,_1980%27s.jpg

Regards, Thomsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.181.248.99 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@95.181.248.99: I don't think that it would be overkill. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Have tried to add the image, but it looked huge on the pre-view page. I don't have experience in formatting images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.181.248.99 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@95.181.248.99: This might help? Wikipedia:Picture tutorial --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. But appears to be too complicated for me. 95.181.248.26 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)thomsen

@95.181.248.26: I will try and format it for you if you add it to the page where you want it, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure whether two images of the same person is a good idea. As you said it would not be overkill to add the photo of the subject playing chess with the former world champion Mikhail Tal to support statements regarding his chess career, I originally intended to place the image right under the main photo. But most articles in Wikipedia have only one photo, so I am still in doubt. 94.231.174.116 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)thomsen

@94.231.174.116: If you would like examples of Wikipedia articles that have more than one image, here are some: Mick Jagger (scroll down once you click link), Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood, Charlie Watts, Paul McCartney, Sheryl Crow etc - the list goes on for probably tens of thousands if not more (although that is my guess - I don't know for sure). There are tons of them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples of Wikipedia articles.

I've added a photo to illustrate the subject's chess career. 176.115.61.109 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)thomsen

@176.115.61.109: You are more than welcome! :D Congratulations on the acceptance of your draft as well. Anything else I could help you with? Sorry for the late response. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit query

Hey, I see you moved my page-in-progress, "Draft:David DiMuzio", as it wasn't yet ready for publishing. My mistake in hitting save, instead of further editing. But I've spent the past three hours editing to correct wiki standards, and now it's all vanished? I seem to have saved my edits at the same time as you moved the page. Any idea how I can recover my draft? I've spent hours researching reference links, and they're all gone. Any help appreciated, thx. BluegrainBluegrain (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluegrain, I've looked at your edits (deleted and undeleted) and I can see no record for the changes of which you speak. Unfortunately, I think that work has been lost. There is the small possibility that it's still in your cache (try opening up the "edit" page in your history and/or use the back button), sometimes the old text is saved temporarily. If not, bad luck (I know how that feels). Primefac (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Primefac, thx for your reply. no, it appears all my work is gone. pretty upset about it, as I'd taken hours to find all the links for a proper reference section, to give the article relevance. any chance this can happen again, in your experience? thx. Bluegrain (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluegrain, edit conflicts happen a fair amount, but as far as I've seen the only time you ever actually lose information is when a page is moved during an edit. While it's unlikely to happen again, I might suggest either saving more frequently or copying your work before you attempt to save. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluegrain you have my sincerest apologies as I was not aware that anyone was editing it at the time, if I was I would have waited for inactivity before moving (which is what it appeared as at the time). As Primefac said, it is recommended to either back up your changes by copying them before you save or saving more often as it has a couple of benefits: it shows other editors that the page is actively being edited and also makes any losses (due to edit conflict) less severe. As for the sources you had added, maybe try checking your browser history for the links etc? Otherwise maybe see what you can add from memory. Sorry once again for the loss - it was an unfortunate (and unintentional) accident. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And thanks Primefac for monitoring/"stalking" my talk page. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor hey no probs. it was just bad timing. and my mistake for accidentally publishing the page before it was formatted. yeah, I have the broswer history, so will just redo. thx to you both for your help, best rds! Bluegrain (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bluegrain: I am glad that you still have the browser history to continue working on it. For future reference maybe take a look at Template:Under construction and maybe add that to pages (and save) before you start major edits like you did before? Might save some move related headaches (so long as you remove it when you are done). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello TheSandDoctor. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 18,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Amazonum Kure Vyakulathakalum

Dear TheSandDoctor, Added references to Amazonum Kure Vyakulathakalum. If you can then please move to Non draft. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ranjithsiji:  Done

Request on 17:48:51, 16 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sowhatt65

• Sowhatt65 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lorenza Borrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sowhatt65 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I AM REALLY ANNOYED BY REWIEVERS BEHAVIOUR.

Sowhatt65, I'm sorry that you're frustrated by receiving little to no feedback from reviewers regarding how you can further improve your draft. It looks like the main issue is a lack of inline citations (in other words, footnotes). On Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living people, we need references for pretty much everything (especially the contentious stuff). If she worked with someone, reference it. If she lead a performance or won an award, reference it. Make sure, though, that you're using independent reliable sources that talk about her in detail - brief mentions are fine, but they don't really do anything to demonstrate her notability. I know the draft process can be frustrating, but stick with it! If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Draft: Shinnosuke Shigenobu

Hi! I recently submitted the draft for an article on the baseball player Shinnosuke Shigenobu and you declined it based on a lack of notability and references. I was wondering, though, why certain articles which are very similar are allowed? I'm not criticizing you, just wondering what I could do differently. This is the first article I've tried to make, so I want to understand exactly what the mistakes were in it.

I basically looked at the existing Wikipedia articles for Japanese baseball players, such as Yoshiyuki Kamei and Yasuyuki Kataoka, as reference for creating this one. They are similar in notability and in references.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmconeby (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jmconeby: Thank you for your message and I do understand your confusion. I declined the draft as I did not believe it to have adequate references. Any major publications that mention the player would be a bonus as well as having inline citations where needed (see WP:CITE and WP:CITEKILL). If you would like I could request a second opinion on it from another reviewer and have them take a look at it.

Although this does not fit perfectly with your situation, Primefac (an administrator) did explain this well for if you believe that an article should not be on Wikipedia (just replace 'ZoneMinder' with X article): "please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia."

Hopefully this helps and if you have any more questions please feel free to let me know or ask at the teahouse. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll try to find references for this page and also for the ones which I saw that didn't have them. :) After that, I'll re-submit it. --jmconeby

You are more than welcome Jmconeby! That's the idea :D Let me know if you have any more questions or would like myself or another reviewer (second opinion) to look it over at any time, okay? And just for your FYI, you can sign your posts with ~~~~ - it's much easier. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reality check: assessment of Abso Lutely Productions

In this edit you assessed a two-sentence, 53-word article as "Start", straining the definition provided by Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Do you intend to develop this into a prose article or is it going to remain a list? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@DanielPenfield: Thank you for pointing that out - I switched the rating to List. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Deep Time History

I just wanted to let you know that you have put the reviewing template on Draft:Deep Time History. You did this a couple of days ago. Are you going to review the draft or not? Plum3600 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Plum3600 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Plum3600:  Done You have my apologies that it was not reviewed sooner, it obviously slipped between the cracks so thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have accepted it as a start class article. Sorry for the wait! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Why did you remove a post from my talk page? It is very seldom useful to remove material from someone else's talk page unless you just posted it and decided to revert it. After material has been on a talk page for a while, it is better to leave it there. The person whose talk page it is will be in charge of whether they archive their talk page (as I do) or delete messages from their talk page (to maintain a so-called clean talk page, a practice which is permitted but which I do not especially like) or just let their talk page grow. In particular, if you remove material that has been on my talk page for some time, I get an alert that you updated the talk page, but then have to use the history to see that it was only a deletion. Why did you remove a post from my talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My apologies, the question I asked was not answered there and I figured the question was better suited for my talk page anyways so I moved it here. Once I moved it here I figured having my question on your talk page was no longer necessary so I removed it. In the future I will leave things like that. My apologies. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Don't remove things from other editors' talk pages in the future. You didn't know. Now you do. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I got your comments on Draft:Theresa_Edem regarding the external links. They've been removed now. Is there anything else I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrisemin (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

List of court cases involving the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

Hi TheSandDoctor, I noticed you added a tag to List of court cases involving the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association indicating it does not cite any sources. Given that it is a list page of court cases that the association has worked on, the list itself is a list of citations. I hope this clears up your concern - please let me know. AoJ.KM (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@AoJ.KM: Yes it does, thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thank you :) AoJ.KM (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@AoJ.KM: Just for your information, it was moved to your user namespace by someone (Shalor (Wiki Ed)) so that you can work on it apparently. It is now located at User:AoJ.KM/List of court cases involving the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maggie Jeans Wikipedia Page

Hi TheSandDoctor,

You kindly reviewed my amends to the Maggie Jeans Wikipedia page. I was hoping for some further clarity as the page was declined on referencing grounds. Is it the format in which the references are displayed which is the issue? Or is the content of the references themselves. All references have been sourced from independent news websites and I am unsure why they aren't deemed reliable?

Best wishes, Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelPolaris (talk • contribs) 07:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@SamuelPolaris: I am seeing some CITEKILL within the draft that could be an issue. Fixing that is fairly easy, either remove less reliable/notable references, distribute them beside the information they support respectively, or expand the article content slightly so that they all fit. The latter two are options I would recommend. Please also see WP:CITE. Hopefully this helps! If you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your request on 17:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC) on AfC Theresa Edem by mrisemin

Hi TheSandDoctor,

I got your message regarding the external links on Draft:Theresa_Edem. Those links have been sorted now. So, can I get the article approved? :-D --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrisemin (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mrisemin:  Done The draft has been accepted and published. While it has been accepted, I would recommend continuing to improve/update it where possible. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

09:11:40, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Sandra Weese

• Sandra Weese (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maria Ripoll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft: Maria Ripoll Hello SandDoctor, you had declined the draft on Maria Ripoll with the comment: Improvements have been made since it was last declined by SwisterTwister, however, more could be made in expanding some bare sections and improving citations." Could you elaborate which sections you consider bare and how to improve citations? I am really quite lost to how to improve ...

@Sandra Weese: The bare sections part is not accurate, my apologies. I have updated/corrected the reasoning. Please see WP:CITE and I have edited the draft to include citation needed templates (so will look like this ) where adding citations would be beneficial. Basically any claim or statement made needs to be backed up, especially when it comes to a biography. I hope that this helps. If you have any more questions please feel free to let me know and I will answer them as best as I can. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your notes in my draft. That is very helpfull, thank you!! Will have a look at fixing that. Thank you so much for your time, hope it will work now .-) This is my first article from scratch, much more complex than I initally thought hehe:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra Weese (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1955 Singapore Harbour Labour Strike.

Hi,

I have submitted for draft for review.

I need to published my page for a assignment to be graded by my professor. And I can't seem to move the draft to the page? Pls help?

(Reginazhou2017 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC))

Reginazhou2017, your draft is at Draft:1955 Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association strike. Unfortunately your draft is not acceptable at this time, as it reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia entry. I have declined the draft and left some notes at the page.

If your grade is based on your draft being accepted, and your professor is on Wikipedia, please have them contact me on my talk page so we can discuss how basing grades on whether a draft is accepted is not a good idea. If you have any further questions, you are welcome to ask them on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

User:160darts160darts/sandbox

I'm sorry, but what? This is not a draft--it's a user who's pasted a whole bunch of articles into a subpage; I'm deleting it as a webhost violation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I assume that this was the long page without references that had picture(s) of Michael Jackson or something like that? I did not look closely at it, my bad. I just saw it did not contain any references and did not realize that it was a copy and paste move. My apologies. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a cut and paste job of dozens of articles, 200k or more long. Anytime a new user drops that much data anywhere, it warrants inspection--typically it's a copyvio. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I shall look out for that in the future. Sorry about that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary; you've only been here a few months and there's lots of things to learn, as I discover every day. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks and same here haha. Happy editing! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lfobbs page

I received the notice of deleting my page. I am new at editing on this site. I checked other similar articles on here as a guideline. I am just learning how to write articles on Wiki. I'm not trying to promote anything, I'm trying to write an article about a group that people have requested that I write an article so they would find out more about the making and history of the band.I hope I get help, not deletion while creating this page. --Lfobbs (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lfobbs: It appears as if the page (User:Lfobbs) has been deleted. Maybe Primefac or another administrator could assist? I am unfortunately not who you should talk to about restoring a page as I am not an administrator nor the one who nominated the page for deletion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lfobbs, it appears that your draft is at Draft:PAR~A~DIGM. While your userpage was fairly promotional, the draft is unlikely to be deleted as overt promotion. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 08:15:49, 21 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dutchblues-too

• Dutchblues-too (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Josh Turner Guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sand doctor, Can you be more specific why your turn down my page about Josh Turner in stead of giving general guidelines? I spend time and effort to write a page about someone I do not know at all, I have never seen, talked or written with him. I live in Belgium and Josh Turner lives in USA. I am just a person who loves his music and I am a writer of books and articles. I certainly believe that this extremely talented guy with more than 24 million views and performances for many many people and national TV deserves a Wiki page. I contributed before under dutchblues, but lost my login data. Could not retrieve because have another email address and do not have access to the old one.

Regrads

Rob Dekker

Dutchblues-too (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dutchblues-too: I can understand your frustration and will do what I can to help. Basically, wordpress websites are not considered reliable sources and, in general, should be not be sourced. External links are not allowed within the body of an article/draft (however are in an 'external links' style section) and the draft does not contain any citations, which are required for bios (please see WP:CITE). If you have any more questions please either let me know here or ask at the teahouse. Hopefully this helps and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

11:14:50, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Maranchery

• Maranchery (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sheeba Ameer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe the article is fairly well-referenced and the subject is covered in reliable sources such as newspapers ( Mathrubhumi - the second most circulated daily in Kerala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathrubhumi, The New Indian Express- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Indian_Express) and other online news portals totally independent oft the subject. And the subject is notable for her work and the recognition she has received in Kerala and outside kerala both from government and private entities. Please see ref.2, ref.5, re.5,re.8,9.

I have seen many wikipedia biograhical articles with hardly any references on the notability of the person. Please see below, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._P._Parameswaran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._N._Karassery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Murali

I can tone down the POV, if that would help.

Pls reconsider.

Regards, --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maranchery (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maranchery: That would help. I would also recommend addressing the CITEKILL that is present in a couple of places. The "Social work", "Early life", and "Books" sections do not contain any references either. The basic rule of thumb (when it comes to bios especially) is that any statement or assertion made that could be challenged need to have citations attached. If you would like a second opinion from another reviewer on this draft, I could set that up for you. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 08:15:49, 21 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dutchblues-too

• Dutchblues-too (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Josh Turner Guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sand doctor, Can you be more specific why your turn down my page about Josh Turner in stead of giving general guidelines? I spend time and effort to write a page about someone I do not know at all, I have never seen, talked or written with him. I live in Belgium and Josh Turner lives in USA. I am just a person who loves his music and I am a writer of books and articles. I certainly believe that this extremely talented guy with more than 24 million views and performances for many many people and national TV deserves a Wiki page. I contributed before under dutchblues, but lost my login data. Could not retrieve because have another email address and do not have access to the old one.

Regrads

Rob Dekker

Dutchblues-too (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dutchblues-too: I can understand your frustration and will do what I can to help. Basically, wordpress websites are not considered reliable sources and, in general, should be not be sourced. External links are not allowed within the body of an article/draft (however are in an 'external links' style section) and the draft does not contain any citations, which are required for bios (please see WP:CITE). If you have any more questions please either let me know here or ask at the teahouse. Hopefully this helps and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

11:14:50, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Maranchery

• Maranchery (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sheeba Ameer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe the article is fairly well-referenced and the subject is covered in reliable sources such as newspapers ( Mathrubhumi - the second most circulated daily in Kerala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathrubhumi, The New Indian Express- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Indian_Express) and other online news portals totally independent oft the subject. And the subject is notable for her work and the recognition she has received in Kerala and outside kerala both from government and private entities. Please see ref.2, ref.5, re.5,re.8,9.

I have seen many wikipedia biograhical articles with hardly any references on the notability of the person. Please see below, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._P._Parameswaran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._N._Karassery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Murali

I can tone down the POV, if that would help.

Pls reconsider.

Regards, --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maranchery (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maranchery: That would help. I would also recommend addressing the CITEKILL that is present in a couple of places. The "Social work", "Early life", and "Books" sections do not contain any references either. The basic rule of thumb (when it comes to bios especially) is that any statement or assertion made that could be challenged need to have citations attached. If you would like a second opinion from another reviewer on this draft, I could set that up for you. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

About that film

Hi yes I think you made a mistake about my edits to Kis Din Mera Viyah Howay Ga Because I was mostly just rearranging things which were already there. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rex Iudaeorum: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. From what I saw within the article, there was no reference of cross-dressing and you changed names without citations and removed the bit stating that they were the main characters. Hopefully this helps explain. If you like, I could get a second opinion on the edits and get back to you on it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please get a second opinion, those edits are quite important to me. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rex Iudaeorum: I looked at the changes and the article again and I have reverted my revert and restored your edits. My apologies. I somehow missed the part where it mentioned that the character disguised themselves as a girl (aka cross-dressing). Sorry about that! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

14:21:33, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Nagarajan08

• Nagarajan08 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Darez Ahamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TheSandDoctor Can you help me understand why the article does not meet notability criteria? It is about a civil servant in India who has won the Prime Ministers Award - about 5-6 civil servants out of 8 million get it each year. For example, there are articles about the following civil servants from the same state in India -

• T._Udhayachandran
• U._Sagayam
• Rajesh_Lakhoni

Not to compare, but the notability seems to be similar level to many others, for example Andy_Watson_(mayor)

Can you guide me if the article has to be edited in any particular way, or the person is not notable at all for Wikipedia standards?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarajan08 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a section opinion on the draft from another reviewer and will get back to your shortly however what I can say is that a comment Primefac (an administrator) made on a post of my talk page a while back is worth noting (just replace 'ZoneMinder' with X article), "please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia.".

I will get back to you when I hear anything. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nagarajan08: I have not heard anything and also do not see any evidence in the page history that it was ever submitted for AFC. Weird. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

18:40:46, 23 April 2017 review of submission by Maranchery

• Maranchery (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sheeba Ameer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SandDoctor,

I have now made the following changes:

1.Added references to 'Social Work' and 'Early Life'sections. I find it difficult to get references to 'Books' 2.Toned down the POV. 3.Removed some of the CITEKILL.

Pls have a look before I resubmit. I am new to Wikipedia; any additional help/advice is welcome.

I feel the subject's life is inspiring to those doing voluntary work and therefore deserves a place in Wikipedia.

Regards,

@Maranchery: I heard back from a more experienced reviewer who I asked to take a look at it. They said that they are most likely non-notable as the sources are not significant (you can see the thread here) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

12:27:24, 24 April 2017 review of submission by 2405:204:2007:9E7F:890D:3831:4E51:71D0

• 2405:204:2007:9E7F:890D:3831:4E51:71D0 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Meena Lalit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to rewiew this because this article is genuine so please approve this --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:2007:9e7f:890d:3831:4e51:71d0 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@2405:204:2007:9e7f:890d:3831:4e51:71d0: Please add additional references to help demonstrate notability and also note that IMDb is not typically considered a reliable source. Please also see WP:CITE as well as the notability guidelines for people. Also, external links are not allowed within the main body section of a draft/article (but are in a 'further reading' style section). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

05:22:08, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Wme79736

• Wme79736 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:William Frank Ellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for reviewing the article on William Frank Ellis. As it has been declined would you please delete the draft so that the heading no longer appears?

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wme79736 (talk • contribs) 05:22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wme79736: You did not need to delete the contents, merely improve it and add citations/references. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how to add references regarding someone's career and accomplishments which occurred before the internet age. His death was covered in Australian newspapers but his career ended in 1993 before on line records were common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wme79736 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

9 April 2017 review of draft submission

TheSandDoctor - birth year and birth location have been added to the following draft that you reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joan_Kelley_Walker. Much appreciated if you would be able to review the draft once more. Thank you! Neufoundland (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Neufoundland, I have undone the decline on your draft (i.e. it's resubmitted). Not having a date of birth is not a valid decline reason. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC) {{tps}

Neufoundland  Done I accepted it --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can sources be plagarized(Slightly)?

I was of the impression that the statements in the article can't be copied from other places, but how is a reference source a copy? Draft:The Valiants

 CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@CaptJayRuffins:  Done Upon further review I have accepted it, it can now be found at The Valiants (firefighters). Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

13:04:10, 24 April 2017 review of submission by RinRin2017

• RinRin2017 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gargoyle (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you very much for reviewing "Draft:Gargoyle_(band)" the other day. I added reliable sources as much as I could. Is that OK now? The text is translation from the existing Japanese Wikipedia article at jp:Gargoyle Gargoyle is very popular band in Japan.

Which are the best sources in the article? Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@RinRin2017: When translating an article from another language Wikipedia, it is a good idea to add a link to the other language Wikipedia page in a 'see also' style section (this can be done in this case via [[:jp:Gargoyle]]). I have a question for you though, was it machine translated or do you or someone else who were helping you translate it by hand/yourselves? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your advising. I added a link to Japanese page.

I translated the page all by my self.

ORICON NEWS, CDJournal, etc…are reliable Japanese music sites.

If there is still problem, let me know.

Hope this article be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RinRin2017 (talk • contribs) 00:05:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@RinRin2017: I had already added the link (sorry I did not mention that). I do not see any major issues that would be barring it from acceptance but will get a second opinion on it and get back to you. However, with that said, more citations and references from notable publications/websites that are reliable and independent are always a good thing to add. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@RinRin2017: Please see the response that I got here regarding this. They said that it still requires more significant news since some of the sources are simply listed discographies or notices. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your great help!

I added some sources: Nippon Colombia (Japanese major music label)'s artist profile, Visual Japan Summit (the biggest visual kei summit held in 2016)'s artist page and so on.

Has the problem been solved?

I hope this article to be accepted.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RinRin2017 (talk • contribs) 04:46:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: What do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@RinRin2017: Simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you many times. I added additional sources, which are famous Japanese music sites. It seems that almost all sentences have sources. Is that Ok now? Thanks for your help. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RinRin2017 (talk • contribs) 11:05:42 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Still somewhat thin, but in any case, it's enough to accept. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@RinRin2017: @SwisterTwister:  Done I have accepted the draft. Thanks as always for your input SwisterTwister. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

21:57:58, 26 April 2017 review of submission by Pepperkim

• Pepperkim (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ding On Kwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI! this is Pepper. I am creating a page for Mr. Ding On Kwan. I could not find article that would tell about his business and information because he is very low key. However, I know him personally and I got his resume. Can the PDF version resume serve as a reliable reference? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepperkim (talk • contribs) 21:57:58 (UTC)

@Pepperkim: As far as I know that is not considered a reliable reference as it is not independent. Please see WP:BIO. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TheSandDoctor

Sorry didn't properly document my edits. The original references I removed were from a third party broker here in the Philippines, took that out and replaced with the proper websites of the buildings I edited.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpernickle03 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pumpernickle03: No need to apologize (but thanks for reaching out), I reverted my revert and removed the notice from your talk page immediately after posting since I realized I had made a mistake in reverting the edits. For some reason I did not see the edit summary until after I reverted (as in I glanced at it and somehow thought it to be blank). Thank you for your edits and for helping to improve Wikipedia! :D Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

11:59:03, 27 April 2017 review of submission by Sandra Weese

• Sandra Weese (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maria Ripoll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello SandDoctor, I have added citations to all the places you have marked in the article that needed it. Is it like this now ready to get approved ? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra Weese (talk • contribs) 11:59:03 (UTC)

07:22:27, 28 April 2017 review of submission by Forestgrn

• Forestgrn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Growing Up Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am a producer, writer, actor of GROWING UP SMITH (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1105355/combined) a feature film. Please advise how what we need to do to get the Wiki page for the movie up.

Best, Anjul Nigam Email: anjulnigam@gmail.com

@Forestgrn: Please see my declining comment and the AFC comment left by SwisterTwister on the draft. The draft does not contain any references. Please see WP:Referencing for beginners#Manual referencing as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving Draft:Fulcrum Grip to draft namespace

SandDoctor, Thank you for moving my Draft:Fulcrum Grip article for AfC submission. Drumdudecp (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drumdudecp: You're welcome! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sistema Plastics

It's an iconic New Zealand brand. I can put more detail into the article. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ace-o-aces2, you're welcome to recreate the page, but I highly suggest you use the Article wizard to create a draft, which is much less likely to be speedy deleted, and will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Patrick Thompson

I was also tempted to contest the deletion, but when looking at the article's sources thought that even if the reason was invalid, it might later pass at AfD. However, when looking again at least one of the sources satisfies me, although I wouldn't call it wide coverage. It was probably good to be cautious, as a previous editor with another name also blanked the article before, and we have no idea who this user really is, unless he can follow C.Fred's advice and prove it (moreover, there seems to be no criticism in that article anyway, making it even more suspect)... But even then, many people would like articles about them or their affiliated organizations deleted, but we don't censor for that reason, of course. You did well. Have a good day, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 07:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the complement! I did it on the advice of NeilN (here) as they confirmed that it was invalid. The user in question has also blanked the article several times previously, if they continue they will probably be blocked as a vandalism only account. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)