Welcome to mytalk page. Please adhere to thetalk page guidelines and particularly the following: Pleasepost your new topic at thebottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Pleasespecify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Pleaseindent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respondhere to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want towatch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index1,2,3,4,5,6

This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be automatically archived byClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Thanks Cabrils for the detailed feedback on the Ping Post Article, it is much appreciated . I went through and made some changes, figured out where the talk page was (I has missed this before) and added a disclosure about my connection to industry as well as three notable sources to help speed up the vetting. I also make edits to the page in line with your comments. I would like to resubmit if this has gotten the article up to WP guidelines.Kingnap (talk)17:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

In short, the page is still a fair way from meeting the relevant criteria, includingWP:GNG.

Please take some time to peruse my Comment, and the many links I included therein, especially ‘Your First Article’. You need to address all those issues I raise. All the best with it.Cabrils (talk)23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, I did go through your comments and the issues raised, the articles cover many subtopics so I want to make sure I am hitting the most relevant issues. It seems like the notable point seems to be a major sticking point. I am fairly new at creating wikipedia articles but it would be very helpful if you could give me a little more guidance on what in your opinion would show the article is notable. If you don't think there is really anything that will bring this topic to that level that would also be good feedback so I can reevaluate if Wikipedia is really the best place for me to start my journey writing about marketing topics. Thank you and best regards KNKingnap (talk)17:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a fundamental principle here.

I can't really speak to the topic per se, but presently, frankly, the article feels like a promotional piece you have been paid to write as a marketing or advertising vehicle to promote the businesses included. Whether or not that is true, that is the impression I have. None of the links included to standardinformion.com, federal trade commission, patents.justia.com etc contribute towards notability, and most of them should be removed as being unreliable sources (as defined), creating significant problems for the article insofar as meeting the relevant criteria.

I can say that Wikipedia is certainlynot "the best place for [you] to start [your] journey writing about marketing topics".Cabrils (talk)21:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and thanks for the candid feedback. A bit disappointing to hear but better to get the feedback upfront before investing more time into something that is not going to be helpful. Hopefully someone else will pick up the topic eventually.Kingnap (talk)14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cabrils. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Cameron Stewart (journalist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)03:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on this article. I have tried to address them and have added details on the talk page - I hope the notability is clearer now. I've added a few more citations where I can find them, and have removed some others. There are a few that are still in professional organisation posts though, which might not be ideal - I'm lacking any more source information for these things though. Do we just delete them, even if helpful? Any advice welcome.Cmbird1Cmbird1 (talk)19:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made good revisions the draft and it has now been accepted. Well done!Cabrils (talk)10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrie_Mifflin

Hello Cabrils! I made some updates to my page on Lawrie Mifflin. At your convenience, are you able to take a look? I added more notable sources and inserted them within the text. Thank you!BoolaBulldog (talk)17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoolaBulldog,

Thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I encourage you to create a userpage as it will make communicating much more efficient.

Good work on your edits, they have helped. I've done a bit of work on the draft and added some additional references. I'm hoping to do more clean up to strengthen the notability, as I do feel this page has great potential, so I would please ask you to not submit it for review until I've had more time to improve the draft. I'll let you know here (or via your userpage if you create one and let me know here) when I think the draft is ready for submission. ThanksCabrils (talk)02:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils! Thanks for taking a look. I really appreciate your help.

Here is my userpagetalkBoolaBulldog (talk)18:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Could you please now address the issues I raised in my comments in relation to whether you have a conflict of interest; andWP:THREE.

Please let me know when you have done so, which will likely mean you need to create a Userpage also, and I would be happy to reassess.Cabrils (talk)00:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils. Hope you are well!

I am not the subject of the page, I am not being paid by the individual, nor do I personally know them. I am a sports historian and enthusiast. My goal of this page is to elevate an impactful woman who was a trailblazer in the world's Title IX issues. To further discuss, I have created a userpage for us to continue our conversation and hopefully be able to strengthen my page for publication.

For the WP:Three piece, where shall I put that information? Am I to include the three most notable sources? I am hoping to better understand what is needed for that to help. Thank you!!BoolaBulldog (talk)00:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BoolaBulldog.

Thanks for that clarification regarding COI.

Good work creating a user page. Further discussion about the draft should probably best be held on thedraft's talk page, where it will be most accessible for other reviewers.

Regarding WP:THREE: as I wrote in my comment on the draft: "It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on thedraft's talk page, theWP:THREE best sources that establishnotability of the subject." Please peruse (and not just scan)WP:THREE for the answer to your question.

I trust this helps. Please feel free to ping me here when you have had a chance to address the issues and I'd be happy to have a look.Cabrils (talk)01:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils! Hope you had a nice weekend. I have added sources on this Draft talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Lawrie_Mifflin. Are you able to please review when you have a chance? Thank you!BoolaBulldog (talk)14:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BoolaBulldog, thanks for that information. I think the draft looks good so I've now accepted it into main space. Well done and, given your background and interests, I encourage you to draft more pages you feel could be appropriate. All the best.Cabrils (talk)00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your careful comments. I have combed over the draft and provided more backup on your suggestions on the "Draft: Eva Diaz (art historian)" talk page. I believe the notability within the field of contemporary art is clearer now. As far as I can see all cites are from outside organisations, not blogs or such. In the case of the current Wikipedia article on Art and General that lists Diaz as a former curator, I don't believe I can cite that but it seems appropriate for her to have her own page (that is how/where I discovered she did NOT have her own page), and a link from the mention of her name on that page. Cheers!Avengers23 (talk)19:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Well done, those revisions look good.

Could you please now address the issues I raised in my comments in relation to whether you have a conflict of interest; andWP:THREE.

Please let me know when you have done so (which will likely include you creating a userpage), and I would be happy to reassess.Cabrils (talk)00:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by WP: THREE, I'll go ahead put the WP: THREE on the talk page.

Re: conflict of interest. I am not the subject nor have I been paid; I am a specialist in 19th century French art, but with great interest in contemporary art and design, and particularly contemporary art theory, curatorial practice, and gender studies. To that end I have taken up your suggestion and made a userpage that speaks a little to my projects and passions :)Avengers23 (talk)02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied on the Draft's Talk page-- let's continue the discussion there for better visibility.Cabrils (talk)05:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous, I've replied to your reply over on that talk page with further backup on the subject's expertise e.g. articles Diaz is quoted in from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the like. Thanks for your careful editorial feedback, and good day to you!Avengers23 (talk)18:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your latest over in the subject's talk page, a labyrinthine correspondence! Thanks for your patience and your careful editorial eye, it seems to read really clearly now. I've drafted the Felicity D. Scott page which published, I'm afraid I got caught in a noob loop here on the Diaz page. Once that one goes live I can get cracking on some further ones, exciting!Avengers23 (talk)13:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page has been accepted by another reviewer. Well done and hope you continue to contribute given your expertise and what you've now learned during this process. All the best with it.Cabrils (talk)21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your keen editorial eye is appreciated. Thank you!Avengers23 (talk)21:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to let you know that I made the necessary changes you noted.

Best,

PSYCHREL (talk)00:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)PsychREL[reply]

Nice work, draft accepted into main space.Cabrils (talk)00:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils,

I write to you following your kind review of my proposed page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Teo_A._Khing_Design_Consultants on 7th March 2025.

I wanted to work through the feedback you've provided to ensure your suggestions are met and the page can be published as hoped.

Your feedback listed the following (summarizing):

1. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

2. The draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements); reliable; secondary; strictly independent of the subject

1. Qualifying For A Wikipedia Article

The subject in question, Teo A. Khing Design Consultants, is an internationally recognized architecture and master planning consultant that has won numerous awards for its work. There is a precedent with Wikipedia recognizing its peers including:

- Burrell Foley Fischerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Foley_Fischer

- Dominique Perraulthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Perrault

- Populous Holdingshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populous_Holdings

It is proposed, and hopefully agreed, that the body of work of the proposed subject qualifies it to similar treatment.

2. Multiple Published Sources

Your feedback here is certainly taken on board and I write for further advice. One of the challenges being confronted is that some of the projects being listed are now 15 - 20 years old. The internet wasn't as comprehensive as a database of information then as it is today. This issue is exacerbated in developing parts of the world where many of these projects were completed (Malaysia, Dubai).

It is understood that there is a preference for more detailed references. This remains the goal. Accounting for the above listed challenge, multiple references have been provided for each of the projects and these reference are attributed to independent industry publications and independent media publications. To assist further on this:

1. Are there specific references/publications that are concerning please?

2. With acknowledgement to the above listed challenge, do you have any further advice as to how approved references may be sourced?

Your further feedback is warmly welcomed. The intention is to work with you to overcome obstacles and shortcomings so that the requirements of Wikipedia are met.

Thank you in advance.Blackgoldsiro (talk)13:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

My best advice is to please peruse, not just scan, my comments and ALL the links included therein, because your questions are all addressed there. It's clear from your draft, and questions here, that you are new to creating pages on Wikipedia, so you do really need to take the time to thoroughly absorb and become familiar with all the relevant guidelines, policies and procedures: pointing you in that direction is the best way I can help.

I would discourage you from comparing your draft to other existing pages: each page is (continually) assessed on its own merits and whether it meets the relevant requirements.

The best place to ask for advice to "overcome obstacles and shortcomings so that the requirements of Wikipedia are met" is theTeahouse.

And to assist in the functionality I would encourage you to create a Userpage.

All the best with it all.Cabrils (talk)22:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabrils,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will review your comments again as advised.

I do hope the first query, regarding the potential merit of the new page, has been addressed even if making a 'like for like' comparison with a series of other notable international architecture firms is not recommended. Would you be so kind as to comment on this. If the merit of the subject matter is not assessed as relevant, sourcing appropriate references to support the achievements of said subject is a mute point.

Thank you again.Blackgoldsiro (talk)15:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for the belated reply.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as doing so will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

I am assuming that this is your first foray into creating a Wikipedia page and appreciate that can be somewhat daunting. It is. Given the nature of the subject, and the form of the draft, is one of the reasons I am asking you directly whether you have a conflict of interest, because if you do (which would be the case if you are being paid to create the page, either directly or as an employee of the consultants, which seems likely), it raises the bar of meeting the relevant criteria. Having said that, the Consultants may still meet those requirements, but the draft will require amendment.

Beyond my relatively thorough comments (which I again encourage you to peruse), I can't offer much additional advice. Again, the Consultantsmay qualify but I can't realistically assess that until you have undertaken all the suggestions included in my comment (includingWP:THREE). And very importantly, please also address the conflict of interest.

And once again, certainly the draft has potential.

I trust this helps.Cabrils (talk)00:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CVU Academy Graduate

Hi Cabrils, On behalf of theCounter-Vandalism Unit Academy, congratulations! You have successfully completed all assignments and have now graduated from the Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of95.5% – well done! It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past year. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program and do always note that the motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility. Do drop by my talk page if you have any questions, as I am here to help. Thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this CVUA role. Best. Cassiopeiatalk06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Cassiopeia! I have learned a great deal, and your patience and guidance has been wonderful. Hugely appreciative for all your precious time.Cabrils (talk)07:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeiatalk06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedWorm Shepherd for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to anamespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Worm Shepherd to be deleted, you cancontest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CFA14:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some external links and made adjustments, I would like you to review the draftDraft:Juninho Manella.Sebastiana M.Soares (talk)23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

The draft is still replete with unreliable sources,WP:PEACOCK prose and no evidence that the subject meetsWP:GNG orWP:ANYBIO.

Please peruse my original comments and the plethora of links I included therein.

You have done very little to address all my suggestions, includingWP:THREE, clarifying any conflict of interest, and explaining with specificity why you feel the draft meets the relevant requirements.

I'm sorry if this is disappointing news but the draft is a long way from meeting the relevant requirements. If you would appreciate further help, please post a message on the Teahouse.

All the best with it.Cabrils (talk)01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@Cabrils: I'm requesting your help in improving typo, grammar most preferably tone and references (if you've an extensive reach on libraries and books available on this topicAabhoon thank you in advance.JogiAsad (talk)23:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not really in a position to help as requested. I would encourage you to edit the page to meet the relevant requirements, and then post a comment on the deletion discussion informing reviewers that you have done so. Alternatively, you may choose to move the article to the draft space where you can develop it further, and when you think it meets the relevant requirements (includingWP:GNG), submit it for review there. You can ask for help at the Teahouse. All the best with it.Cabrils (talk)23:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking the time to review this submission. I would like to provide additional justification for notability under Wikipedia guidelines, and ask for specific clarifications before proceeding.

I believe the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, particularly the following:

WP:NPROF #3 – The Rural Sociological Society offers and annual Ralph B. Brown Scholar Paper Competition in his legacy. In 2004, he also received the Excellence in Instruction Award from the Rural Sociological Society (RSS), a national organization of scholars. This award is given to one individual per year and reflects significant pedagogical impact in the field.

WP:NPROF #6 – His intellectual contributions to community attachment theory, rural development, and the sociology of development in Southeast Asia have had measurable influence on scholarship and public policy. These include work cited in many peer-reviewed journals like Rural Sociology, Community Development, and Agriculture and Human Values. His legacy is also honored through a permanent endowment at BYU supporting student experiential learning in international development and sociology.

WP:GNG – The following independent and reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage of Brown’s work, influence, and legacy:Ward, Carol J. (2015). "Honoring Ralph B. Brown". Rural Sociology, 80(1): 1–5.

Peer-reviewed biographical article that evaluates Dr. Brown's scholarly and pedagogical legacy.https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12065

"Sociology professor shares love of learning." The Daily Universe, Nov 30, 2005.

Feature article on Brown’s teaching philosophy and international education initiatives. This is publication is editorially independent.

"One Last Lecture." Kennedy Center, Apr 28, 2022.

Retrospective feature that outlines the principles and philosophy of Brown’s final lecture. While hosted on a university-affiliated site, this content is widely cited in student testimonials and institutional reflections.

"BYU’s Ralph B. Brown honored by national Rural Sociological Society." University Communications, Oct 7, 2004.

This article documents his national teaching award from RSS. While not fully independent, it provides verification of the importance his legacy recognition by a third-party organization.

In addition, the Rural Sociological Society named a student paper competition after Brown—a strong indicator of posthumous professional recognition.

I have made some changes to the draft. Could you please point out any specific phrases or sections that "read like a CV"? The current draft is organized thematically and narratively (e.g., pedagogy, research, leadership), but I’m happy to rework structure or tone where needed.Are there particular spelling or writing errors or examples of peacock language that stand out? I’ve reviewed the draft carefully but may have overlooked some issues.

I have no personal or financial connection to Dr. Brown and am not being paid for this contribution. I have disclosed this on my user Talk page per WP:COI guidelines.

The prior image was removed and will initially be published without an image. I am currently seeking permission from his primary university for a freely licensed alternative consistent with Wikimedia Commons policies.

Thanks again for your willingness to reassess once edits are made. I’ll wait to hear your clarifications before proceeding with revisions.Loujieming2 (talk)19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louijieming2.

Thanks for the pings.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page (you have created a Talk page), which will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

Thank you for all that helpful detail.

I have added a reference to the draft, and while Brown's notability is not as strong as would be ideal in the draft, I think it's sufficient to meet the requirements, so please go ahead and submit the draft, then leave a note for me here and I would be pleased to accept it.

Good work.Cabrils (talk)21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the encouragement, Cabrils. I've resubmitted the draft, and craeted a User Page per your recommendation. Cheers.Loujieming2 (talk)21:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see another reviewing editor accepted the page before I could! Well done again and I encourage you to keep up the work.Cabrils (talk)00:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

I saw the comments that you have made on my recent approval request. I do apologize as this process is much more complicated than I had expected even after reading docs and watching videos.

I thought that half of the articles that were provided came from notable and independent sources, specifically "The Korea Daily" and "Korea Times". Would you be able to give me an example of a notable/independent source that would be accepted for a similar situation like this?

In regards to the COI disclosure. I had already placed the COI in my user page, would I need to place it elsewhere?

Thank you for taking the time to review my page, I appreciate the feedback!Hanisaac (talk)18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hanisaac, thanks for the ping.

I see you have not made any changes to the draft since I declined it. Please thoroughly read ALL my comments, AND the links I included therein. There are some very basic issues that must be addressed, for example, the draft does not contain a single inline citation to reliable sources. Perusing my comments is really the best place for you to start. If you require specific help with something, the best place to ask is at the Teahouse.

When you have implemented the required (significant) changes, please ping me here and I would be happy to reassess.Cabrils (talk)21:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reviewed my draft page for Julie Buntin and left me some notes. I edited the draft, adding more sources to enhance credibility and notability (links to credible reviews from publications such as The Times of London and The New York Times, comparing Buntin to other notable authors; links to universities and programs where Buntin has taught; etc.). Could you please review the draft again? I believe it now meets the criteria.Dukebball811 (talk)18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page and a Talk page, which will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

Those changes are improvements, but the draft still requires significant cleanup, even if it meets the notability criteria, which is yet to be assessed.

Please peruse (not just scan) my comments on the draft page, and all the links included therein, especially this: To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. The draft lacks any formatting; and includes links to many unreliable sources.

You have not addressed the issue of conflict of interest; norWP:THREE. In fact you have not addressed almost any of the issues I raised.

Again, please peruse my comment and address the issues accordingly: that is the best path forward to progressing the draft, which does have potential.Cabrils (talk)01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at my draft articledraft:Jay Gallentine. Before making further edits to the draft, I wanted to better understand your criteria.

Working with user Flat Out, I made changes to the primary areas you address, adding additional evidence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," including, among others, Publishers Weekly, a publication of the US Air Force, and a former NASA Chief Historian. I would have thought these would qualify asWP:THREE forWP:AUTHOR 3, demonstrating that Gallentine's works are considered notable within the field.

I also removed references that were created primarily or in collaboration with the subject, and Flat Out removed additional references, which I accepted.

I based my draft on that of other authors; while many additional references exist that meet the notability demonstration requirement quotes above, neither do I want to turn the Wikipedia page into the back of a book jacket by listing them all, focusing instead on the more notable.

All that said, an you tell me more about your personal threshold as an editor for number of sources, and I will add additional sources to meet that cutoff. Thanks so much!DavidHitt (talk)00:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thanks for the ping.

That's all helpful background, thank you.

I think the draft generally is looking very good.

My main concerns (in no particular order) are:

1. Conflict of interest: from what you've said above it does sound like there is some connection there, which is fine, but the nature of that needs to be declared on your Talk page (please see my comment on the drat for details), because a COI lifts the bar for ensuring articles meet the relevant criteria (including neutrality).

2. The photo: It was uploaded by an editor "Shang-Ma-Deff" who claims it as their own work. This seems highly unlikely unless "Shang-Ma-Deff" is a nom-de-plume of Gallentine. Some verification about the copyright status of the photo would help justify it's legitimate use. Or simply remove it...

3. The Lawsuit section does not containany references. Matters relating to court cases need to be handled with care so certainly some references (from reliable sources) for all asserted statements are required.

Otherwise it feels to me like a well considered page and good contribution!

Please let me know if you have any questions; and otherwise ping me here when you'd like me to reassess the draft.Cabrils (talk)22:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the help!

1) I've added a conflict of interest statement to the Talk page for the article, per the conflict of interest instructions.

2) The photo was uploaded by Gallentine, and thus is his to enter into the public domain.

3) There is one reference in the lawsuit section, which publicly documents the information in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is documented there as well, behind a paywall, so I'm not sure how that works. The third paragraph used to have a reference, but Flat Out removed it since it was from Reddit; the link remains in the history. I'm content to excise as much as you feel necessary; let me know what you think!

Thanks!

DavidDavidHitt (talk)23:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

That all sounds excellent. I will endeavour to reassess the draft in the next day or so and be in touch.Cabrils (talk)09:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DavidHitt,

Apologies for this belated reply.

Thank you for that clarification.

At this stage my remaining concern is the lack of reliable sourcing for the lawsuit section. I'm in no doubt that the suit took place, but Wikipedia's policies are that content should be supported byreliable sources. The court documents are primary sources. Accordingly I don't think we can justify including the lawsuit section in the absence of any reliable sources. Perhaps it's worth a search of newspapers to see if the case received any media coverage?

Please let me know your thoughts.Cabrils (talk)01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just go ahead and remove it. It's really tangential to the meat of the article, so I'm happy to take it out now, and can review later if better sources are found. I've made the change, so it should be ready for review. Again, thank you SO MUCH for your help with this!DavidHitt (talk)19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. So @DavidHitt please submit the draft for review and I'd be pleased to accept it.Cabrils (talk)23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks!DavidHitt (talk)23:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Draft accepted. All the best.Cabrils (talk)23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabris,

Thank you kindly for your previous review of my Draft article on WayBetter!

I believe this draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for companies, specifically WP:NCORP criterion 1, 2 3 and 4, which state that a company is presumed notable if it has received “significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.”This draft includes multiple in-depth, independent, and reliable sources such as:The Wall Street Journal – article on DietBet and financial incentives for weight lossThe New York Times and Financial Times – coverage of gamification in health and fitness appsMen’s Health – feature discussing WayBetter in the context of fitness motivationPeer-reviewed scientific studies, including one published in Internet Interventions (Elsevier) and another in JMIR Serious GamesThe tone has been revised for neutrality, the article is now properly sourced using standard citation templates, and I have disclosed a potential conflict of interest on the Talk page. I am not affiliated with WayBetter in any financial or professional capacity, and my only involvement was in an academic research context, without compensation.I respectfully request a review for potential publication. Thank you for your time and consideration.

David de Buisonjé (talk)09:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

That all sounds excellent. I will endeavour to reassess the draft in the next day or so and be in touch. Dank je wel!Cabrils (talk)09:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, please see my substantive reply on the draft's Talk page.Cabrils (talk)01:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils,

Thank you for your review of my Draft article on Shigehiro Oishi.

I believe this draft meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for academics for the following reasons:

1a. Oishi has been the author of highly cited academic work. Indeed, he was ranked as the #22 most cited social psychologist by Nosek et al. (2010), a peer reviewed journal article that analyzed the most notable psychologists (source included in draft;https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20668215/). SCOPUS confirms high number of citations (H-index of 73).

1b. Oishi developed a significant new concept: psychological richness. His work on psychological richness won him theSociety for Personality and Social Psychology's Daniel M. Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize for its "innovative theoretical contribution to personality and social psychology." His seminal work on the topic (Oishi & Westgate, 2022) was cited over 200 times by peer-reviewed academic journals; a quick SCOPUS search finds over 120 peer reviewed journal articles published on the topics since. Additionally, the concept has garnered significant media attention (Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNN, Financial Times, etc., as cited in draft article)

1e. and2b. Oishi has wonThe Career Trajectory Award from theSociety of Experimental Social Psychology in 2017, theDiener Award from theSociety for Personality and Social Psychology in 2018, theOutstanding Achievement Award for Advancing Cultural Psychology from theSociety for Personality and Social Psychology in 2021.

3. Oishi was elected as a member of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences.

5. Oishi has a named chair appointment as the Marshall Field IV Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago

As you note there are many direct references to Oishi's academic articles, but there are also many secondary sources; additional secondary sources have been added to establish notability, now totaling 30 secondary sources. TheWP:THREE are Nosek et al. (2010),https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20668215/; Oishi's induction into theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences (https://www.amacad.org/person/shigehiro-oishi), and this 2024 New York Times article featuring Oishi's research (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/health/moving-childhood-depression.html)

Note I do not have a conflict of interest, only an interest in contributing to Wikipedia articles on psychology. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this review.

Best,

Ko2024Ko2024 (talk)17:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Well done, those significant changes and that additional information and clarification are great. I have accepted the page. All the best.Cabrils (talk)02:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive |New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part?Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourselfhere.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks for your previous review!I have now added independent reliable sources with better significant coverage.I believe thedraft:Ledion Liço meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

Could you please take another look when you have time?Thanks a lot!

---81.26.204.183 (talk)09:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Please see my comments on the draft page.

In short:

• You have not addedany"independent reliable sources with better significant coverage" to the draft: rather, you have added a single source (NOT"sources"), which appears far from reliable.
• You have not provided any detail as to HOW the draft meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.
• You have not addressed the likely conflict of interest.

I have rejected the page again. Please address these issues before submitting the draft again to avoid disappointment.Cabrils (talk)02:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI Cabrils, can you please check if the artile already qualifies? I think it meets meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thank you!RavenFireblade (talk)06:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade,

Thanks for the ping.

Since the draft was rejected in November 2024, the only substantive change has been the addition of 1 new source:https://tribune.net.ph/2025/04/26/jack-logan-from-radio-waves-to-documentary-waves . This is an interview with the subject, and as such has limited weight in contributing towards establishing the notability of the subject. This is especially the case in circumstances where you have a conflict of interest.

On the draft's Talk page you wrote"I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 and #2 because the person has been nominated for such a significant award or honor, and the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; (internet culture in the Philippines)". Please note thatWP:ANYBIO #1 states"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, orhas been nominated for such an award several times" (emphasis added). To my knowledge Logan has only been nominated once (for the June 2023 Asian Television Awards for best single digital program/short film category:https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=jack+logan+vlogger&in=ALL&orderBy=Relevance&searchFor=Articles). Please let me know if this is not correct?

ThanksCabrils (talk)02:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thank you for your prompt response. Logan actually won Breakthrough Vlogger of the Year award in 2023 from Philippines' Golden Eagle Awards. But i did not cite it because there is no press article about the said award, however,there is a video proof posted on his Facebook page about it.RavenFireblade (talk)18:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, i added the recent interview that was published today and resubmitted the article for approval this time. I hope you can reconsider. Thank you!RavenFireblade (talk)13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade, please see my comments on the Draft page.Cabrils (talk)00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, i have added WP:THREE on the draft's talk page, fixed the broken links and added a new one. Please kindly check and let me know if this is okay.RavenFireblade (talk)06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for recently reviewing by draft by me and leaving feedback. It's my first one so I appreciate the help.

I just had a question about citations regarding social media content. In my draft, I cited several social media posts that included the subject identifying herself as a supporter of a specific politician and a supporter of specific legislation as evidence that the subject supports said politician/legislation. I also cited a LinkedIn profile where the subject disclosed their education + employment as evidence of their education + employment on my page draft.

I was under the impression that doing this was acceptable under WP:SOCIALMEDIA which says that "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." I am looking for guidance on how best to approach sourcing like this, if at all.

Thanks!

~~~~HannoC (talk)23:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HannoC,

Thank for the ping.

Firstly, well done on drafting your first page!

OK, your understanding is correct:"self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."

As I wrote in my comment on the draft, a significant issue with the draft is that I don't see it presently meeting the relevant notability requirements. We need to see reliable, independent sources writing substantially about Cianci. I'm not seeinganyreliable sources (as defined).

In such context, where there arenone, or at leastvery few reliable sources, and a weight of self-published social media sources, the draft is some way from meeting the relevant criteria for acceptance.

I would also not there are some issues I raised in my comment on the draft that also need addressing, including whether you have a conflict of interest; and how you see,specifically, the draft meeting any relevant requirements (egWP:ANYBIO).

I hope this answers your question?

I encourage you to persist because it well could be that there are reliable sources out there...Cabrils (talk)03:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made toBeta: you may already know about them, but you might findWikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards thesandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to avandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –HirowoWiki(📝)01:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I believe this draft meetsWP:ANYBIO criterion #3, which states that a person is presumed notable if *"the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."*

To support this:

• I have removed unreliable or non-substantial sources.
• I have added several new, reliable secondary sources, including:
  • Mountain Life Media
  • Vogue Hong Kong
  • Men Today Russia

These provide significant and independent coverage of Nikol Kovalchuk’s mountaineering achievements and public presence.

Additionally, I revised the tone and formatting to align with Wikipedia’sneutral point of view andbiographical style guidelines. The list of achievements now follows a similar tone and structure to that used inKristin Harila's article.

I also published a COI Disclosure on my Talk page.

Please let me know if further improvements are needed. I welcome any input to help bring this draft up to mainspace standards.Lauravictoriaj (talk)08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a user page as it will make communicating much more efficient.

Thank you for the information, and COI declaration.

Could you please provideWP:THREE?Cabrils (talk)03:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils. Your account has beengranted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you toreview other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes andquickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used toedit war.
• Rollback should be used to revertclear cases ofvandalismonly, and notgood faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, seeWikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located atSpecial:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located atSpecial:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on mytalk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on theadministrators' noticeboard. Happy editing!Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)10:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Callanecc!Cabrils (talk)10:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this draft. I answered the question you posed and added one more reference which is more detailed about him and not just the company. Can you revisit the draft and tell me if it’s acceptable?ABBellington (talk)22:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]