Hi, I've reviewed Aquaporin at Talk:Aquaporin/GA1. The article needs some small fixes to reach GA; I'm telling you this because you nominated it but the bot seems not to have bothered to tell you about the review. Please let me know how you intend to proceed. With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well,thanks!But I'm going offline as of now.Will surely make some of the desired changes within the next few days.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades ^Godric 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the history. I've suggested the sources you can use. You just need a sentence or two on each one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we got through it, well done. You will find future GAs easier if you familiarise yourself with the range of editing techniques required, and check articles thoroughly before submitting. The process can be arduous, and by no means all GA reviewers will bend over backwards to help you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap:----Well,I corrected the copy-vio and extensively edited the structure section and pressed the save button--only to discover an edit conflict.Anyway,a lot of thanks for your help.It's my first GA..Winged Blades ^Godric 14:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good practice, I guess! I thought I'd better make sure it was clean. I shall try to remember to check for copyvios before doing anything else, it seems to be becoming more of a risk; but this one does seem to have happened years ago. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!That's a point.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sajilo Recharge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. Thank you. SoWhy 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Winged Blades of Godric. Could you please review the document Draft:Samved School (2), and let know, if this can be accepted. Or if there are any more changes required to be done. - Regards poojnm1985

Per your tally for Q-2 on the closure for the Trump suit, I did a tally, noted on Feb. 16th comment, finding 5 for minimal mention and 7 for not mentioning. This is different from your closing comments that the consensus was for a brief, or minimal, mention. Hoping you can review and update. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show:--Hi! It's 8th of March today.Secondly, RFC is hardly a vote count.Now if I tread your way--Vote no-1,3,4,6,7,8,9 & 11 in the support section supported it's inclusion albeit briefly.Vote no-5 & 6 did not opinionate about the issue on hand.Votes-2 & 10 in the same section opposed on the ground that it was retracted and that's the precise reason why I made it mandatory to mention the subsequent retraction.The 2 votes in the oppose section(incl. you) objected clearly.Also, I am near-certain there's no BLP violation per the way so many discussants agreed to and I listed in the closure statement. Summarizing, I do not perceive any error in my closure.Any thoughts?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. By my reading, #s 1, 6, & 11 had no comment on Q-2. As for #s 3, 4, 8, and 9, those are questionable on Q-2. While those 4 comments supported either minimal mention or Melanie's wording, her wording was mostly related to the ethics issues, which were never part of the RfC. And looking at comments #s 1, 3, and 4, you'll see that ethics was their main concern. But the ethics issue, besides being off topic to the RfC, is moot in any case, since they modified the lawsuit. This does seem to be a sensitive BLP issue worth analyzing. Thanks again. --Light show (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show:--You're right about Vote 6 .Their answers to this specific question are impossible to decipher.You're wrong about Vote-1 per my opinion.And Melanie wrote--that alleged that she had once worked for an escort service. The Mail retracted the allegation a month later.If you do not view this wording as a minimal support to the question asked in Q-2, I am undone about your views on votes-3,4,8,9.Vote 11 also later supported Melanie's passage.So his answer is fairly understandable.Now, the source you cited--is hardly of any utilisation/concern to me.I never edit in the concerned area and my duty as aRFC closer is to summarize the policy-based consensus and the way-out to be followed based solely on the consensus and discussion developed therein--whatever the heck that be.I am not entitled to show my personal opinion/understanding of the issue there.It may be also noted that the support votes to Q-2, I struck goes to the neutral category!Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show:--Pinging you because I changed a point in my reply.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. A 3-question RfC like this one made it a bit complicated.--Light show (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myocardial infarction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Topcipher. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Matale Sri Muthumariyamman Temple, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

TopCipher (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to contest the deletion. Can you explain how this is promotional? Specifically, I wrote it from a neutral point of view. As the rules state, "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." What wasn't neutral? Willeadie (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Willeadie:--Sorry, I don't remember the contents of your article.Please contact the deleting admin.

I thought the note said you were the deleting admin. I'll check again. Willeadie (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing an entry for SAP Web IDE software, but has been rejected, with 2 issues:

• Too many sources from SAP: ALL the SAP press releases and sources have been removed, and all are independent. The list also includes several very prominent, well-known independent sources -- CIO, Forbes, Eclipse, ComputerWeekly, Forrester.
• Notability: The article states at the beginning very clearly that (independent) analysts see SAP Web IDE as key to moving SAP developers to the cloud. That is, this is part of a strategic initiative of one of the leading software companies in the world with 22 billion euros in sales in 2016 (according to Wikipedia). That sounds pretty notable, no?

In addition, there are many, MANY other articles with very similar content. Take Cloud9 IDE), it is basically the same type of product as SAP Web IDE yet has less strategic importance. In addition, of that article's 10 sources, HALF are from Cloud9.

I truly believe that the article speaks for itself and is not commercial and is notable. Please tell me what else can be edited to make it pass muster.

I am the daughter of Janice Evans aka Minerva Pendragon. Everything I wrote was fact and I cannot contest the request to delete the page as I can't find it to click on the contesting button. I had planned to expand alot more about my mother and her book in due course and add pictures of her once I figured out how to add them. I'm just sad that my mothers work seems to have not gotten the glory in history it should do and am missing her terribly as it's my 2nd birthday without her today. Someone needs to put a page up about her and her book, and who better than the person closest to her and the person who actually proofread it and has the rights to it. Electric Dreams (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Electric Dreams:--While I understand your pain and frustration, she(Minerva) does not seem to meet WP:GNG and specifically WP:NAUTHOR, mainly due to a complete dearth of coverage about her in sec. sources.If you manage to find WP:RS discussing about her, please cite them in the article.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh I see. My bad. I should be able to find newspaper articles and cite her amazon page, would that be enough to qualify her hun? And thanks for the help by the way :) Electric_Dreams Electric Dreams (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even got her IBN number here somewhere too :) Electric Dreams (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Electric Dreams:--IBN number/Amazon do not qualify as WP:RS.If you have got coverage in prominent non-local newspapers use those as sources.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dear Godric, all the cast and crew is new in this film 21 (film 2016). but film is notable in Telugu language. i' l try to improve this article what can i have to do undeletion for this article please help thank you. Goutham raju tfi (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you very much for revewing the article I have created recently. Yours sincerely. Gharouni ^Talk 08:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the time nor the place. But now... This is the time and This is the place. Take care 🍨 — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 07:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Yeah, I understood. I was prob. a bit too stunned by the peculiar action of the admin.As always, you did good by removing my comment.Cheers!.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! And Thank You for maintain. Please Move a Page Draft:Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi to Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

If you will done it then left a message on my talk page. ((World556 (☎) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• AtulWikiacnt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Geetanjali Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, first and foremost, thanks for giving your time to review this page. This page is created for Geetanjali Sharma. She is the youngest citizen of India, who has won these both award together. The one Sangeet Natak Akademi Award which is the highest award in the field of music and arts from Government of India and the second Yash Bharti Award which is the highest award from her state, Uttar Pradesh. References 1 and 4 in the list are the reliable sources for these awards respectively. Wikipedia can have an entry for this unique personality from India. Thanks.

AtulWikiacnt (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AtulWikiacnt:-

• Ref-2, 5 & 6 fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
• All the rem. sources just mentioned the subject in a list of all the people who received the award and there's not a slight speck of any discussion specially about her/her work etc in any of them.

So, I fail to see any notability/uniqueness of the subject.And a Sangeet Natak Akademi Award/Yash Bharti Award automatically does not confer notability on it's subject to have a stand-alone article specifically when the number of recipients of the award is so huge.We need more WP:RS covering exclusively her and her art/work.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:-

Thanks for your quick reply. I very much agreed with you that the number of recipients of Sangeet Natak Akademi Award/Yash Bharti Award is so huge. But the number of recipients who have won these both award are very few. When I found this uniqueness then only I thought of creating a page for the artist. We do have some references of leading Hindi News papers. will those references work ? Thanks.

AtulWikiacnt (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dixon324 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alex Dixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My submission was rejected due to unreliable or insufficient sources, and I'm not sure why. I'd like to know if this is applicable to every source, or just some in particular? Can you please help me? Thank you!

Dixon324 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dixon324:--

• Well Reference-1 and Ref-2 do not cover the subject.There's no inherited notability.

• I'm skeptical about Ref-3 and Ref-6 !
• Ref-5,7 & 8 fails the scrutiny of WP:RS and two of them even don't cover the subject.

Overall nothing points to notability and discussions about the subject(not his grandfather) in reputable media outlets, books etc. will be welcome.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retengineer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anna Ciddor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would appreciate more details about what needs to be fixed in this article. I thought I had addressed all the issues identified by earlier reviewers and provided plenty of third party references. Please note this comment from a previous reviewer: Comment: She may very well be notable. I just think the reviewers here have difficulty identifying what notability means in the field of children's literature. This needs wider attention than that offered by the AFC habitués. Hegvald (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retengineer:--Ok! I will be informing the necessary projects to take a call on the draft.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Adapt16 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Reliant Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can you please provide specific examples of copy that reads like an advertisement? I used the databases provided by Wikipedia to find neutral citations to back up the facts about Reliant Energy. Can you please advise how to best update this page?

Thank you.

Adapt16 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adapt16:--While there are some problems with the sourcing used, the writing style matters a lot too!.I will be seeking specific changes in the following portions:-

1)

Reads like typical PR.The section could either be heavily trimmed or done away with.The details of a plan--the company provides is generally not encyclopaedic.

2)

Same concerns.

Furthermore,Ref-1 fails WP:CIRCULAR.Ref-8 and 11 fails scrutiny of WP:RS.Ref-4, 6 and 7 are essentiallly written/heavily manipulated by own staff and do not count as WP:RS.See WP:INTERVIEW..Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to communicate your problems regarding my evaluation.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. After reviewing your helpful suggestions and looking at other wikipedia pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Electric_Power, we now have a better idea of how to write this article. We will have an update soon. Thank you again for your help with this.

Adapt16 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)adapt16[reply]

Hello I am user:22mikpau. I notice that you rejected the draft, Draft:William H. Bell (Witness) I understand that you do not view Wiliam Bell as following Wikipedia's nobility guidelines. I do not understand why a African American man who; Opened the door and soon chased after a man related in the Lincoln assassination, identified the captured criminal and was a key witness ageist a white man in the trial that the entire nation was watching. Other witness's of the Seward assassination have Wikipedia articles and we have both first and secondary sources from major historian and news networks. If the problem in in the number of sources please tell me how many you would suggest. Thank You for your input in the creation of this article.22mikpau (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, I've noticed that you've rejected the draft for an article about early childhood trauma. I have to admit that the previous submission was far from perfect, but I used it as a case in point in a Slate op-ed. The current submission looks much better to me and I'm surprised you find it unsuitable even as a sub. Would you be so kind as to give some constructive and useful feedback to the authors? My concern is that they can be naturally frustrated and disappointed with the rejection, and without proper guidance they will likely leave Wikipedia for good, which obviously is highly suboptimal (the article is well grounded). best Pundit|utter 17:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pundit:---Well, I have accepted it and it was a mistake on my part to reject it outright.

Now, you wrote an op-ed criticising certain features of the WP system.Here are my replies:--

1)You wrote the ed at the time when the draft was rejected by Robert McClenon and was still in such a pathetic state.So I shall not be wrong to assume that it questioned whether Robert was right in declining such a mess or he should have improved and main-spaced it.Whilst I found your article quite a good-read, it is worth remembering that--

AfC is not like a sewage gauntlet - someone does a dump of whatever they feel like and expects other people to clean it up.Some people and especially the foundation has a false obsession that every single article has to be rescued; that it is what brightens Wikipedia and without it WP will be extinct.All I can say is that some people need to actually work at AfC and/or NPP to fully understand what's involved.

2)And in my talk page filled with AFC review helps, I don't know what made you state/think I was providing unconstructive help to the authors!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3)And while cited the Hemovanadin as a counter against our deletionist policies.I believe if the copy-vio has stayed, the same user would post on BoeingBoeing arguing how we don't respect intellectual/other copy rights, how our editors are blatantly ignorant of copyright policies and hence, how we are going to be extinct!And mind you, he wasn't a new user and fairly had the idea that pinging the deleting admin/posting at WP:AN about the problem would have pretty well resolved it!And I don't know about the users who nominated and deleted the page but no body spedies CSD G12 material on their gut feelings.It was at most a honest mistake!Please!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting the article, and also for open admission of a mistake (we all make them, but we don't all admit to it). (1) the first draft was horrible, I agree. My understanding is that the authors didn't know how to improve it, though. (2) I apologize if I made an impression that you're generally unconstructive. I only observed (perhaps mistakenly) that the authors did not know how to improve the article, and the feedback given to them was quite general. (3) my Slate piece was a direct reply to Boingboing, hopefully giving more perspective on the issue (the Boingboing piece was quite biased towards wiki). Thank you for your constructive help and reply! Pundit|utter 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ANIRBANB724 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Calcutta Social Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do understand that the previous detailed sections missed public referable material. I have removed them all and kept it simple to information that has good references. Would appreciate if you can re-review and let me know your thoughts.

@ANIRBANB724:--Regrettably, the draft does not pass WP:GNG and I re-failed it.Ref-1 is their own websie and hardly qualifies as WP:RS.Ref-3 just trivially mentions it.And you should have kept the Telegraph reference.Further, vast quantities of data are unsourced.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Winged Blades of Godric. I understand you have done the required corrections and edits for the draft Samved School (2), Could you please review the document Draft:Samved School (2). Its been under review Queue for Quite a long duration now.Could You please let know, if this can be accepted. Or if there are any more changes /corrections required to be done. - Regards poojnm1985

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric The Wikipedia page Anil Baluni has already a reference of BJP's official website.(LIKE RZZ 14:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Likerzz:--Yeah I added it.Nothing to worry about.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Winged Blades of Godric. thankyou for your correction. Indonesia U-23 againt Myanmar is counted as a senior team by FIFA, but indonesia using U-23 or U-22 Team. Cheers! TommySyahputra (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

@Tommy1933:--I don't get it.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia U-23 against Myanmar is counted as the senior team by FIFA For further information you can see this link. Cheers! TommySyahputra (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

• MarkWDowd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:TORA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I'm relatively new to this so forgive me if this is a silly question but what else needs to be done to get this TORA page over the line? The company is a known provider of trading technology globally, having been around for over 10 years and having more than 225 employees. In Asia TORA is the top EMS provider along with Bloomberg. If in your eyes they'll just never be relevant I'll stop trying to submit but I think what I have, while not terribly long, demonstrates that they are worthy of inclusion and provides a decent number of 3rd party sources.

Thanks for your consideration and for all that you do to make Wikipedia a great resource.

Mark

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've made several articles about comic book series before (such as The Punisher War Zone (1992 series) and Punisher: War Zone (2012 series)) and I'm planning on working on this article substantially today. I was originally planning on working on it earlier but some stuff came up which I have to deal with right now, so I'll have to do it a bit later. I promise I will fix it up soon enough but I hope you won't put it up for deletion even thought it looks like trash right now. I might end up redirecting it myself and redo it in the future if I end up not having time later today either. Cheers.★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pagloor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Early Childhood Trauma & Resilience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have totally rewritten the article in encyclopedia style, and drastically shortened it , any claim is supported with numerous references from well-respected scientific sources. We would appreciate it to get more concrete advice instead of the same boilerplate answer from before, which unfortunately is unhelpful for fixing whatever issues you still think should be fixed? Thanks a lot Pagloor (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been mainspaced.Thanksfor your contributions.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Godric Thanks for your kindly looking into the page for Anwar Iqbal. We have made necessary changes, removed patronizing words, etc. The reference from Vision Gawader is a bona fide source, have added it again. You have to believe that Mr Anwar Iqbal is an old and respectable actor on TV in Pakistan, has millions of fans. He was more active in the 80's and 70's before the internet came. You can find his interviews and drama's on Youtube and DailyMotion etc simply by doing a search "Anwar Iqbal" PTV. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyen786 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winged Blades, I am having trouble understanding your decline-reason over here.

• Please decrease the number of refs at the earliest.avoid needless ref-bombing.[1]

My reading of the ref-bomb essay does not seem to match any such problems, that I can perceive in the draft-article's prose. This article is about a controversial political group, and therefore almost every sentence needs at least one cite, since they are all "likely to be challenged".

• WP:REFBOMB#Misuse_to_prove_an_obvious_point, Do Not Over-Cite Obvious Stuff == '...the sky is blue...'[6] ... does not usually require a citation.
• WP:REPCITE, Do Not Over-Cite Repetitive Facts More Than Once Per Article == 'Elephants are large land mammals[3] ...those of most other mammals.[3] Unlike most mammals,[3] ...' ...Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every single mention [just the first].
• WP:REFBOMB#Reprints, Do Not Over-Cite Identical Copies Of WP:SOURCEs == ...if the same article has been linked to both The New York Times and The Palookaville Herald, then The New York Times should be retained ...multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications... [e.g. via] wire service... [or] news aggregator
• WP:REFBOMB#In-article_conflict, Do Not Over-Cite Single Sentences == 'According to scholars in MySchoolOfThought, ClaimOne.[1][2][3][4][5] However, experts at TheOtherCamp suggest that ClaimTwo.[6][7][8][9][10]' ...Competing assertions with no context are not encyclopedic. Instead, the material should be rewritten...

Can you be specific about what you want done? As you know, removing WP:RS from a draft will not help it meet WP:GOLDENRULE!  :-)

However, in addition to your comment asking for removal of refs, your 'official' decline-message was that the draft fails wiki-Notability, with the usual boilerplate message:

• Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9) ; WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N...[2]

Maybe you were just intending to focus on this part of the boilerplate message: "Please improve the submission's referencing"? But if so, which refs do you see as failing WP:RS, or as identical copies of each other, or whatever specific complaint you were trying to convey?

I read your grey banner at the top of this usertalk, but to be honest I am not sure if I have erred, or if you have erred... at this point I just flat out don't understand the decline-rationale. So if you could help me out please, by clarifying what you intended, then we can go forwards or backwards or whatever is needful  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment..Winged Blades ^Godric 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@47.222.203.135:---Has worked at the draft.But, I'm still declining the submission--as it stands currently.And, frankly, I have seldom seen such grandiose promotional/POV writing subtle-ly hidden with a barrage of self-cites and non-WP:RS--coupled with a no-nonsense writing style!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for giving the draft a working-over, to slim it down to what you see as the essential bits. To be clear, there *are* several people involved on the draft-talkpage (see the COI templates at the top thereof) who have a connection to the topic-matter. But I personally do not suffer from any COI, and have been trying to help train the COI-encumbered folks in how to properly source things, and how to write in no-nonsense just-the-facts style. I am not the author/publisher of any of the cited Refs (or any of the cited Notes either).

Atbashian is the author of his books and his artwork, of course, but I've been careful to stick to places where that artwork and/or writing by Atbashian was WP:NOTEWORTHY thanks to being covered or analyzed in some kind of WP:RS. Since he is a graphic designer and writer, as his vocation, it is only natural that most of the wiki-Notability he has achieved is related to his art & writing. I do agree with you that my writing-style is not the norm for the AfC queue, but it is intended purely to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and thereby Stay Neutral. Do you have anything specific you would like to see accomplished, before you will believe the current state of the draft is ready for mainspace? What is the issue that needs working on at present? Let me know and I'll see what I can do. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AtulWikiacnt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Geetanjali Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your quick reply. I very much agreed with you that the number of recipients of Sangeet Natak Akademi Award/Yash Bharti Award is so huge. But the number of recipients who have won these both award are very few. When I found this uniqueness then only I thought of creating a page for the artist. We do have some references of leading Hindi News papers. will those references work ? Thanks.

AtulWikiacnt (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AtulWikiacnt:--Yeah they will work.I will take a look at the draft and notability criterion again, later.Anyway, have you been paid by anyone to write the article?And specifically, is your account handled by more than one person?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit, here, with all due respect, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric, that is not entirely correct: I have not only edited recently on other VfD pages such as Glayton Modise and The World Tomorrow (radio and television), but I've also edited other articles, such as Frederick Samuel Modise and the Bohemian Grove article, so it is not entirely correct to assert that I am a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, but my IP address is dynamic, and randomly changes because my ISP is a cheap company that does not have static or dedicated IP addresses LOL. Just saying, to correct the record. Nonetheless, I am sure that you acted in WP:Good Faith, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. (Not that a SPA is necessarily always bad, but I just wanted to correct the record.) 96.59.159.254 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AtulWikiacnt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Geetanjali Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have mistaken me Sir ! .. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and have donated couple of times earlier. There is no question of taking money for this sacred job ! and FYI this is my own account, single handed. Actually, I read about her in news papers and magazines(national level). I became curious to know more about her and searched her in Wikipedia but I didn't find an entry even after she has been performing at national and international level for last 18 years. First I was amazed for not having an entry and then later on started writing this article my own. Thanks.

AtulWikiacnt (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AtulWikiacnt:--Sorry for the aspersions.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when making edits like this, you seem not to have noticed the message above the edit window, i.e.

In other words, you omitted to do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:--Thanks for pointing that out.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the procedure for closing an RFC? Does it have to been undertaken by an Admin? Is there a minimum number of participants to reach a consensus? Sorry about all the questions but have never initiated an RFC before... Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Dan arndt: See WP:RFCEND; assuming, though, you are referring to this RfC, I wonder you were considering colliding it yourself? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 04:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--No, Dan probably put it in response to my comment on his talk.Anyway, how do you feel--we relist the RFC to attract more participants or go on with the view of the majority?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have put together a draft version of how the information in a table form would look as opposed to the current list. Is it worth including the link in the RFC? Dan arndt (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Winged Blades of Godric. Thanks for the review and the precious suggestions and comments. I understand, there were only a few references. Have added a few more, and will be continuing to add more, as and when i come across, I have made some necessary edits as well. I have resubmitted the article. Could you please take a look at the article, Draft:Samved School (2) and let know, if there are any corrections required to be made, or is it ok and acceptable.

- Thanks and Reagards poojnm1985

@Poojnm1985: Not done-- Rejected the draft.See there for the details.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Winged Blades of Godric. Sorry to bug you a lot. But seriously thanks a lot for your suggestions and comments. I understand, there were only a few references, and maybe not very apt. Have deleted the irrelevant reference links, and have now added a few more references about the school, featuring in other websites. Actually, i just intend to add the school's article under "list of schools in banglore" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Bangalore. Does this article not qualify even for that? I could see, the pages for many of the schools added there, with not many references at all and just the basic information about the school. I have resubmitted the article. Could you please take a look at the article, Draft:Samved School (2) and let know, if there are any corrections required to be made, or is it ok and acceptable, to be added as an article under "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Bangalore"

- Thanks and Regards poojnm1985

 Not done--A second frivolous submission and a MfD will be the lone way out for the draft.You may add the school's name at the list.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Winged Blades of Godric. Yes i understand, that the notable references cannot be provided for the school. So could you please let know on how is that i can add the school's article under "list of schools in banglore" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Bangalore. Is there any way, i can add the page for the school? under " list of schools in Banglore". Actually i see, there was a draft, Draft:Samved School, (not created by me) which seems to be rejected in September 2016, because of the same reason of no notable references. Do i Need to edit the same. Will it be Ok, if i dont have any notable references, but just the page "Samved School" is added under list of schools in banglore. I could see, there are pages for many of the schools added there, with not many references at all and just the basic information about the school. Should I resubmit the Article.? Could you please help me with this.

- Thanks and Regards poojnm1985

Why? Only partial abstract explanations TeacherTh