Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

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

Please have a look onDevara: Part 1 box office. While Pinkvilla stated it grossed only₹403 in its final run,[1] BH stated that it grossed₹521 crore in just 18 days.[2] BH source does not feel good for me here.Charliehdb (talk)13:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make a range from 408 - 521 and add both pinkvilla and BH sources. Some editors do make errors when reporting but BH is still reliable source.NDTV andTimes of India have reported figure of over 500 globally so maybe it could be right but I did not find any other source that says 521+.RangersRus (talk)13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNA reported the collection to be₹380 crore. It too can be added.Charliehdb (talk)13:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add it as I'm not free nowadays.Charliehdb (talk)13:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then it will be 380 - 521 showing all three sources.RangersRus (talk)13:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight againstvandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of thetop five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. –DreamRimmer(talk)16:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Hi RangersRus, I’ve seen your work on Wikimedia, and it’s truly commendable—please keep it up! I’ve also noticed your active participation in AFD and AFC, which is impressive. Editors like you are invaluable to the community, and I believe you should consider applying for NPP. Wishing you the best of luck!Baqi:) (talk)14:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight againstvandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of thetop five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. –DreamRimmer(talk)15:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the Rudman draft. I have reviewed all references, including links and page numbers, and have personally double-checked their reliability multiple times. I do not believe there should be a separate article on this topic. However, as I suggested edits, some individuals stubbornly removed all information without providing proper suggestions. You can read the full conversation here under exclusivity:User talk:Bkonrad

Could you please review it again and independently edit either this draft or the original article? That would be much appreciated.Gondishapur.uni (talk)13:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this pageBrian Rudman and you can see how the citation links are added at end of each paragraph, showing where the content is coming from. You can click on edit to see how the citation template is added and can copy the template and add to your draft and modify it. In your draft you have [5], [8], [9] showing at end of paragraphs and lines but those are not clickable. So you will need to add citation template. Please let me know if this helps.RangersRus (talk)16:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was helpful. I have added inline citations. I hope this is acceptable. Could you please review and approve?Gondishapur.uni (talk)09:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate any further suggestions you might have for the page draftDraft:Rudman . I have put a lot of effort into gathering this information and would love to see it published @RangersRusGondishapur.uni (talk)08:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resubmit draft for review.RangersRus (talk)10:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RangersRus,

Recently you rejected my submission of myDraft:The Palace Company; the reason was the article hadn't yet met the notability guidelines. I really thank you for your labor of taking the time to read my article, but now I think the reason was a little ambiguous, so could you help me with your comments about what I think is missing for this notability in my article? Previously, another editor told me to change a couple of sources, and I did, but now I don't know what's missing so that I can move forward with my article.

Thanks.Murbizo (talk)15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads very much like promotional and advertisement. Wikipedia articles about a company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts, but unfortunately, this is what majority of the sources on the page shows. When writing about "The Palace company", the sources should have coverage directly and in depth about the company in secondary independent sources. Significant coverage should provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements.RangersRus (talk)15:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral and well-sourced article that aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on independent, secondary sources. I will review the references currently cited and work on incorporating more in-depth, independent coverage that provides analysis and evaluation beyond promotional content.

Although I may change and create a shorter version of the entry leaving only the necessary information that has sources that follow the encyclopedia's guidelines, I will work to incorporate more in-depth, independent coverage that provides analysis and evaluation beyond the promotional content.Murbizo (talk)15:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRusYou declined the submission, because i quote "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - In the submission there are links to an interview and an article in the biggest bulgarian weekly newspaper "Capital" that is dedicated to the festival entirely and not a "passing mention", an article in one of the older daily newspaper of Bulgaria "Sega" - again not a passing mention and a different media, another article in the biggest thematic cinema site in Bulagria - operationkino, plus material written from a popular local cultural guide.

Al those sources are reliable, independent and secondary. So frankly i dont think you have done your due dilligence in ratingg them.Dontoblerone (talk)16:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operationkino.net seems like a BLOG with no editorial insight and interviews are not secondary independent. From the study of other sources, problem I found is that the topic of an article is not notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I also do not think that the event is of lasting, historical significance, otherwise it would have been widely covered nationally or internationally in various reliable news media. The coverage in the page is routine kinds of events reported that is usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. But you do not agree with me and I see you have resubmitted the draft for review and I will leave it for some other reviewer to take a glance at it.RangersRus (talk)16:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the reasons stated, anyway, thanks for the answer.Dontoblerone (talk)19:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when accepting pending changes;this should not have been accepted.OhNoitsJamie^Talk20:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one, I looked at the following paragraph that showsKosminski was aPolish Jew who emigrated fromCongress Poland, so I didn't think it was necessary to havePolish before a barber since it is already mentioned in the following paragraph that he is Polish. If you think this is still not acceptable, I will be more careful.RangersRus (talk)21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AnalyticsSeeker (talk ·contribs)
  • Draft:Nihal Joel (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

AnalyticsSeeker (talk)11:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is needed for athletes who compete in the field of athletics and you are missing this criteria. Please find and add multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on the subject and about all the achievements he made as an athlete.RangersRus (talk)15:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi Ranger, you have marked my draftDraft:Tropical Storm Wukong (2012) for review at 19:56 (UTC), 17 February 2025. It has been over twelve hours since your review, is there any issues that you can't decide whether to accept or reject the draft?A1Cafel (talk)08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be patient because you have to wait for an existing "redirect" page to be deleted by administrator and then complete the acceptance. No editor is here 24/7.RangersRus (talk)10:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. There has been a history of persistent sock-puppetry on Pooja Hegde-related articles. One such fluffy articles on her song,was recently deleted. Do you think articles on some of her other songs (created and/or maintained by the socks): "Jigelu Rani", "Elluvachi Godaramma", "Butta Bomma" and "Arabic Kuthu" pass the notability criteria for songs? I think "Arabic Kuthu" probably does meet the criteria, but definitely needs trimming for promotional fluff.Krimuk2.0 (talk)06:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup on all these pages, removing unreliableWP:ICTFSOURCES. Still lots of promotional stuff in all. Apart from Arabic Kuthu, I don't see why the other pages can not be a redirect or merged to film soundtrack pages.RangersRus (talk)11:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the articleDraft:Shree Datta Padmanabh Peeth to address notability concerns by incorporating independent and reliable sources, reducing reliance on self-published content, and expanding key sections with verifiable details.

Added independent sources from reputable newspapers and websites covering the Peeth’s activities, including women’s empowerment programs, religious events, and educational initiatives.

Expanded key sections such as History, Activities (vocational training, environmental efforts), Shravani Festival (cultural significance, attendance), and Women Priests Initiative (training details, impact).

These updates strengthen the article’s adherence to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I appreciate your review and feedback.MH-wiki2025 (talk)18:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections |Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in this game, but wouldDraft:Ramesh Prasad (professor) academic-qualify for being a Dean?David notMD (talk)18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why it is not notable enough to be a page? I see that you mean it needs more sources outside of Wikipedia that indicate its notoriety, but if that is the case thenPagan Moon, a fellow short from the LT/MM series should not qualify. It cites fewer sources than my draft, and the two sources that it does cite are also included in my draft. To me it seems that the only differences are this short has a longer plot summary, and that the short is included as it is in the public domain. If the thing holding back my draft at that point is the lack of the short, then I suppose in eight years we can make a page for it. I am just a bit frustrated since I know that my draft is not poorly sourced, and that in some regards it is of better quality than other pages on this project. Best,SDudley (talk)23:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find and add coverage and reliable sources that shows

• Film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
• The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
  • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
  • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
  • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
• The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
• The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
• The film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

RangersRus (talk)00:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I will withdraw my submission for now, and perhaps re-publish it once the short is public domain.SDudley (talk)17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight againstvandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of thetop five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up.–DreamRimmer(talk)15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloRangersRus. I hope you are doing well. Regarding theInfobox forMichael Richards at its alma_mater parameter: you allowed2600:4040:b680:3300:5121:d86b:f236:d2cd to addLos Angeles Valley College andCalifornia Institute of the Arts, both addedat this edit and contrary to my edithere; however, there isno reliable source that Richards graduated from either school and, per his article, apparently he did not a graduate from either. In case you were not aware, perMOS:INFOEDU andTemplate:Infobox person#Parameters / education / alma mater, "It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates...". If, unlike other articles,2600:4040:b680:3300:5121:d86b:f236:d2cd had a reason to add them, I believe he was first required to take his argument toRichards' Talk page and obtain aconsensus of editors to add them. Kind regards,Quaerens-veritatem (talk)08:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloQuaerens-veritatem. Thank you for reaching out. The change by IP 2600 was accepted after I did aquick search to verify where I found that Richard's did attendLos Angeles Valley College, where he continued to dominate student productions. But now that you mentioned graduation, doesn't say if he graduated from there but definitely shows attended. Source also says Richards attendedCalifornia Institute of the Arts but later received a BA degree in drama from Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA in 1975. I just took a quick glance at attended but not at graduation. I agree with you that such changes should first be discussed in the talk page of the article to reach consensus. Thank you for constructive inputs. Regards.RangersRus (talk)13:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JustJamie820 (talk ·contribs)
  • Draft:Rahul Kanwat (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

I need some clarification on what I need to do to get my draft to pass.Thank you for taking the time to review my draft, even if it was to decline it. Since the reason it didn't pass wasn't listed with your decision, I wanted to know what sorts of things I need to work on with this article to eventually get it passed in the future. That's all.JustJamie820 (talk)23:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is mentioned in the decline. The page is missing significant coverage on the subject. All the sources are just stats or passing mention. You will need to find multiple secondary independent sources that talks significantly about the subject, and will have to show if the subject is someone notable to have a standalone article. Such notability can be coverage on the subject who played at a national or international level.RangersRus (talk)21:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair reason. I've tried to find as much as I can on him, and I'll make a note that I need some additional non-statistical sources on him to make him look more "human". I'll still retain some of the ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive references; there is value in scorecards and important stats. I need to find other things to hit that perfect balance, however. Got it. --JustJamie820 (talk)21:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your comments, and the sources are one thing, but I'm commenting on the criteria you've laid out that question their notability as a group.

• Sparks had 5 albums on major label Island Records.
• They had a single reach no. 2 in the U.K. (This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us), for which they had an incredibly notable appearance on Top of the Pops
• They are often considered a representative/pioneer of the Art Pop genre
• Their last international tour was very successful (you can find a video of them performing at Glastonbury 2023, with an appearance by Cate Blanchett),
• They have a documentary, The Sparks Brothers, that was made by one of the most extremely prominent filmmaker Edgar Wright
• On Paul McCartney's music video for "Coming Up" he does a Ron Mael (from Sparks) impression.
• They have won several awards, a list of which you can see on the artist's wikipedia page, in addition to receently winning an AIM (Association of Independent Music) award, during which they announced their signing to label Transgressive for this album. I am now working on adding a good source to corroborate this.

I will say, that an artist has to win major awards, should not be a qualification to be considered notable. Some of the most influential artists in history were not commercially successful and never won a single award in their time (see the Velvet Underground or Big Star).— Precedingunsigned comment added byDavejfudge (talk •contribs)15:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sources for criteria for"They had a single reach no. 2 in the U.K. (This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us), for which they had an incredibly notable appearance on Top of the Pops" will be really good if it is not already on the page. I can only recommend that try to meet as much criteria as you can, because even if the page is accepted, you want to make sure it doesn't get nominated forWP:AFD.RangersRus (talk)16:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RangersRus,

Thanks for the feedback on the initial draft of the Wikipedia page for Jason Kalirai. I should have been more careful to amplify his academic-specific accomplishments and recognition, and also should have cited more secondary sources. I looked at the wikipedia pages outlining this and offer a revised submission that I believe meets the criteria. Note that I left the opening paragraph largely alone as most others I found online did not have heavy referencing there. But, I made significant edits to the rest to address your comments. Here is a summary of the changes and responses to the wikipedia requirements.

Meet one of the eight academic-specific criteriaThe wikipedia guidelines require academics to meet *one* of the following conditions. Jason actually meets almost all of them, and I’ve summarized the 5 strongest cases below. The article has been updated to reflect this.

Item 1: The person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline as independently demonstrated.Jason has an impressive h-index of 58 in his publication (i.e., he has 58 peer-review published papers that have been cited more than 58 times). He also has multiple first author papers that have been cited independently by other scientists more than 100x each. Here are the citation examples.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..594K/abstract303 citations from the communityhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648..389K/abstract172 citations from the communityhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..748K/abstract120 citations from the communityhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..408K/abstract118 citations from the community

... and there are many more. This is a very impressive publication record for a young scientist. These papers have numerous online press releases and stories, and he even received a person letter from the Prime Minister of Canada in 2007 that he once showed me. If necessary, I can get a copy of this letter and include it but I hope this is not necessary.

References to these peer-reviewed publications are already included in my draft write up. I’ve added some text that speaks to the citations to satisfy the independently demonstrated scholarly impact

Item 2: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.Jason has received numerous national awards. These are awards that one person per year is selected for. They are listed in the write up and I’ve tried to improve the references. I believe one or two of these would count as meeting the wikipedia standard, but in Jason’s case there are literally a half dozen of these.

Item 3: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Examples included mention being a Fellow of a Science SocietyIn 2025, Jason was elected as a Fellow of the American Astronomical Society. Less than 0.5% of astrophysicists in the society are elected each year. I’ve elevated this honor to the opening paragraph and also added directly the AAS selection announcement on top of the press release by his institution to satisfy the secondary reference.I also added secondary references (e.g.,https://spacenews.com/dr-jason-kalirai-selected-as-one-of-baltimores-future-visionaries/) to other prestigious and rare awards he has received. These are listed in the bottom of the second paragraph.I also removed one award as it was weaker than the criteria you have set.To avoid duplications, I removed the summary of the awards list at the bottom since there are now robust references to the awards including secondary sources (i.e., an award or scientific discovery being noteworthy that it was picked up by a media outlet).

Item 5: The person has held a distinguished professor or chair appointment. In relation to this and the general guidance on who is an academic (i.e., a faculty member), I note the following.Jason was a tenured astronomer with the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) that runs STScI. He gave up the tenure to join Johns Hopkins APL, where he now has a much higher position. I’ve now cited AURA as the institution that he had faculty tenure with.I had not included this in the original write up, but Jason was recently selected to be the Johns Hopkins Universities Whiting School of Engineering Applied Physics Chair. This is the largest graduate Applied Physics program in the country. I’ve added a short paragraph with two sentences explaining this position and the 30 PhD faculty and 300+ students that he is responsible for. I’ve also added a primary and secondary source reference for this.

Item 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacityThis is perhaps Jason’s strongest suit and the reason I tried to include a few of his accomplishments outside of academia. Unlike most professional scientists, he has gone out of his way to lead large teams that execute major NASA spaceflight missions and to promote science and inspire the next generation of leaders. In fact, his citation for his 2025 Fellow nomination to AAS even calls this out,

Jason Kalirai Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab): For taking a holistic approach to astronomical sciences by leveraging ground- and space-based telescopes to place novel constraints on astrophysical mass functions; for expertly leading and enabling new space missions including DART and Dragonfly; and for bold advocacy for astronomy and inspiring the next generation.

https://aas.org/press/aas-names-24-new-fellows-2025

This is already referenced in the piece and tried to add more secondary links.

If you still feel I’m off the mark on anything, it would be really helpful if you could send me the specific pieces where I need to bolster more secondary sources and/or provide additional referencing and I will dig that all up. But, I hope this is more than enough for a well-deserved wikipedia page.

Thanks,AlbertoAlbertoconti (talk)16:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rus, are these comments sufficient to ensure we can publish the page?Albertoconti (talk)23:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloRangersRus,

I have made changes to the draft, and it would be helpful if you could review them.

Best Regards,

LunarFrostyLunarFrosty (talk)12:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RangersRus,

Thank you very much for taking time to review my draft.

I see the notability guidlines for Wikipedia.

My subject : Gaurav Dwivedi is an FTII , Pune graduate and exhibited a variety of roles in mainstream indian movies, short films (which were featured in international film festival of Tampa Florida) , TV series ,web series and commercials. He has played main lead (DD National series "Gora") , supporting roles and cameos also. He has been featured in many commercials for renowned brands.He has worked with many famous directors.

I provided the reference links citation for his web series and movies reviews. Also provided commercials youtube links as those contained vidoes of those commercials. I kept the links which had review about Gaurav Dwivedi's work and links of his interviews and photos at press conferences and launch. I see those were not accepted by you and were removed from reference section.

I am new to wikipedia editing and would like to learn from experienced editors like you.

Please suggest what else I can provide as reference for his work. Also I took reference of his co actor Rucha Inamdar's wiki page (Rucha Inamdar) and I see similar type of work and references mentioned there.

I searched for Gaurav Dwivedi and his movies, TV and web series on google and got many mentions of him in different platforms including media like The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express.

I request you to please re review my draft and let me know if more corrections needed.

Thank you very much for your time and efforts!

Prachi VyasPrachiVyas27 (talk)04:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RangersRus,

Can you please review Draft:Gaurav Dwivedi again.PrachiVyas27 (talk)09:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citation needed tag. Please find sources for those. Gora is the most significant work I see. Rang Rasiya and Manjhi, in supporting roles has just passing mention in the reviews and not enough coverage to show how significant the role was. More sources will help that significantly covers the subject's roles. I am having a second reviewer review the draft for me. Any achievements or awards for any of his work, even in supporting role?RangersRus (talk)14:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance RangersRus. I will update the page with required links. Also, wanted to ask that he has worked as radio jockey in red FM and All India radio which are bug radio platforms and he has done many commercials aloe listed in page.These didnot contribute towards notability?PrachiVyas27 (talk)17:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sources have been added to theDraft:Pattie and the Wrath of Poseidon article; please review it. Thank you.Behnam mancini (talk)09:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted and improved the page with multiple critical reviews that was needed to pass notability.RangersRus (talk)14:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very muchBehnam mancini (talk)07:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RangersRus, Thanks for taking the time to review AfC draft:Articles for creation:Madras International Karting Arena. As the same reasons were given all the four times it is rejected, it raises an eerie feeling doubting if it is a cut and paste job... But I am sure you must be having your reasons. I am just curious to know the reasons for its rejection. ASKING in GOOD FAITH, though.Personally, I feel the draft meets all the four criteria as cited in the decline note. All the 24 sources cited are Independent, and secondary sources. All are reliable media outlets including some top ones like The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, NDTV, Auto Car India and Free Press Journal. Also I managed to avoid Times of India clips. Motorsports.com also covered the event. At least six articles have in-depth coverage about the track, and none of the others are a passing reference at all. Also it is CIK FIA homologated and certified and passes General Notability due to the wide coverage all over India. It definitely passes GNG and other notability criteria. I am writing this in good faith, so that I can have clarity to add more sources, or blank it/withdraw it... thanks and happy editing!Davidindia (talk)17:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is the INDEPTH coverage about the corp. Most of the sources are about inauguration and some few others has MIKA as passing mention and more about hosting, drivers and the results. Deep or indepth or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.RangersRus (talk)18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I disagree with you as it has more than three sources which contain at least three full paras of details like length (survey) and specification and certification. It also passes WP:substantial as it has "ongoing media coverage..." and it also does NOT belong to any of the points in WP:CorpTriv (results are not in table and are accompanied by race description). But I leave it for further development when the season starts. Since I have put it up for AfC, I guess I have to agree with the reviewing editors. Thanks again for the review!Davidindia (talk)07:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wait for further development when season starts and hopefully significant indepth coverage will be generated that can then be added to the page and you can resubmit for review.RangersRus (talk)12:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really reasonable to reject someone's entire content edit because they didn't use the proper format for their citation? I mean, you could have just fixed the citation format, or left it for someone else to fix - there are folks who go around fixing things like that. If you felt the content was inappropriate, that's different. (I thought it was kind of marginal, myself.)Brianyoumans (talk)23:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RangersRus! I'm currently writing the St Edward Catholic School article on Wiki. I'm curious to know what you would consider a Primary, Secondary, and Direct Source. Please respond back with some recommendations.Jadezplays1 (talk)04:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I made a mistake on my last message with you. Instead of Direct, I meant Strictly Independent.Jadezplays1 (talk)04:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary would be the website of the school itself or anyone associated with the school. Secondary would be like a source that has no association with the school and Independent means a source that is not dependent on the opinion or views of the school such as interviews.RangersRus (talk)13:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please useWikipedia:Citation templates when adding sources and make sure indepth significant coverage is shown from secondary independent sources. Not just passing mention or entries.RangersRus (talk)14:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created the article onFive Children and It andThe Return of the Psammead. Please help in improving them. Thank you.Behnam mancini (talk)08:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there has been discussion about koimoi as unreliable source for Hindi box office collection. However, the sources for Gujarati movie box office collections are limited, non-existent almost. It won't be right to completely discard it a reliable source.Coderzombie (talk)03:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi is listed as unreliable perWP:ICTFSOURCES and if we begin giving leeway to unreliable sources just because no reliable sources can be found, it would give many editors reason to do the same. If per discussion consensus is that the source is unreliable, it stays unreliable.RangersRus (talk)12:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus aboutWP:ICTFSOURCES is not "black-listed", it's "generally unreliable", which means the source should be ok to use with caution, so unless there's a source that contradicts with this source, it shouldn't be an outright cause of removal.Coderzombie (talk)08:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it means and it can not be used with caution either. If it was meant to be used with caution then it wouldn't be placed under unreliable, instead would have been marked with caution. The Times of India is one such source that has been marked with caution onWP:ICTFSOURCES. Koimoi just can not be used at all as its listed under complete unreliability. It was said in discussion about Koimoi boxoffice thatWP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources has alist of sources for grosses that are considered reliable or unreliable. Koimoi is not considered reliable.RangersRus (talk)10:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Looks like they created this under a different name to avoid seeing the history ofDraft:Tan Man Neel O Neel which leads to the trail of SOCKS. I am sure you didn't see that before approval through AfC (likely why they submitted under a different name) but wanted to give you a heads up as it will likely be G5'd shortly.CNMall41 (talk)07:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not pay attention to the creator of the page during AFC review but it was cleverly done. Thanks for the heads up.RangersRus (talk)12:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. They try to be sneaky. Must be making good money to be bludgeoning as much as they are. Also wanted to let you know aboutthis. I think at this point canvassing is appropriate since SPI and COIN have been dead ends. Seeking feedback if you are willing. --CNMall41 (talk)23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RangerRus - You reviewed my draft for Energy Dome and declined it on the basis that it lacks multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. I just want to make sure that you had the chance to really look at the sources because they certainly seem to meet that criteria. The sources includefive in-depth profiles of the company written by journalists and published in reputable publications:

• Bloomberg News[3]
• Popular Mechanics[4]
• The Independent[5]
• MIT Technology Review[6]
• PV Magazine[7]. This is a lesser-known source, but a reliable source for technology reporting[8] and editorial credibility: “With its independent, technology-focused reporting, pv magazine concentrates on the latest developments in the solar PV and energy storage markets and local industries”

The company also receivedsignificant coverage in aNew York Times article profiling energy companies that devoted four paragraphs to Energy Dome[9].

These sources demonstrate the company’s Notability as established byWP:NCORP. Beyond these six sources, the draft cites four more articles, three of which are focused entirely on the company, that add more information to the draft. I’ve also added one more source that add information about the company’s technology. Would you mind taking another look at the draft and letting me know if you still find the sources insufficient? Thanks for taking the time to review.Mario42dontpanic (talk)14:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario42dontpanic. During first review, I found that the sources did not have coverage directly and in depthabout the company in secondary independent sources.Significant coverage should provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. If you feel that your article now meets all these requirements, please do resubmit the draft to be reviewed again.RangersRus (talk)21:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight againstvandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of thetop five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. –DreamRimmer(talk)17:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide what is apt for main space?The producerS. Naga Vamsi is national award winning notable producer, also stop your tactics, you remove all the extensive details i provide in my article, u spoil the article and manipulate it with half edits to make it look like non-notable, and take credit for my edits? i created the article, not you. i know what is notable and what is not. stop your tactics or i will report you to administrator and arbitration committe. in the name of notability you take credit for my work? for my work you take undue credit? for my work? if you have issue with notability discuss in talk page and will add references. stop moving it to draft space without consensus. i am experienced editor, stop ur tactis on me. most importantly stop your non sense and stop wasting my time. i dont know from where editors like you pop up to waste time and energy. stop interfering on this article. stop stop stop. are you threatening me? like you did in the above case. this is serious matter.I know habitual draft space movers such as you who want to take undue credit for others work. Non sense.Ustadeditor2011 (talk)06:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. --CNMall41 (talk)18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Roy is now deleted G6. Please proceed with draft acceptance. --Whpq (talk)01:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dont change my updates in the draftUstadeditor2011 (talk)12:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about? What draft? You need to stop posting such personal attacks on editor's talk pages or I will have you reported.RangersRus (talk)13:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheFive Children and It article has credible sources onguardian andBBC; please reconsider deleting it.By the way, this article is related to the "The Return of the Psammead" and "The Phoenix and the Carpet" series and is considered a sort of trilogy.Behnam mancini (talk)08:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix theJaat (film)#Pre-bookings section.Charliehdb (talk)13:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user , glad to see you recently edit that page . I want you to fix the budget and box office of jaat film . The official budget is unknown but According to few its 60 cr and others 100 cr , this lead to misleading edits on huge volume. So,please make this as - 60 to 100 crore & add source:https://sgttimes.com/jaat-box-office-collection-day-1-sunny-deol-opens-at-rs-9-5-crore/#:~:text=The%20film%20follows%20the%20journey,considered%20a%20box%20office%20success.And the recently updated box office collection is approx 41 cr not 26 cr .And please also change old source with new Source:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/jaat-box-ofifce-collection-day-4-the-sunny-deol-starrer-sees-a-huge-growth-on-sunday-crosses-rs-40-crore/articleshow/120266293.cmsRajasabh7788 (talk)02:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better source than SGT Times because it looks like a blog or personal site with no editorial insight or ownership.RangersRus (talk)10:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no official call for budget by makers , so everybody has depicted their own numbers in their respective websites ; Majority between 60 cr to 100 cr . Earlier also the page had been edited multiple times by autonomous users & after 20 april the page will se a wave of edited budgets . So thats why i told you to edit it as "60 cr to 100 cr " therfore making a precaution earlier.Rajasabh7788 (talk)11:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to show a range, source is needed that shows the budget of 60 crore.RangersRus (talk)12:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of critics video and here are some articles

https://www.movietalkies.com/news/jaat-extended-4-day-weekend-gadar-2-8958701

https://thetopindia.in/box-office-collection/jaat-box-office-collection-day-4-5-hit-or-flop/

https://www.midstlive.com/bollywood/jaat-movie-first-look-out/Rajasabh7788 (talk)13:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir, currently I have find the official sources which is followed by all other website, its the only source to track the collection in real time . I request you to change the box office collection of the film and its source according to the " gross worldwide collection " ..Source..

https://www.sacnilk.com/movie/Jaat_2025

Thanking You ...Hope you edit the page .Rajasabh7788 (talk)05:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher): sacnilk is an unreliable source.Vestrian24Bio08:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response , now its the official one @Vestrian24Bio

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/jaat-worldwide-box-office-collection-day-6-sunny-deol-film-beats-deva-at-71-crore-yet-to-cross-sky-force-lifetime-101744787564892.htmlRajasabh7788 (talk)13:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HT report uses sacnilk source, which in this case makes it unreliable as well -WP:FRUIT.Vestrian24Bio02:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added 2 more news reference from Film Companion, and Jagaran. Kindy re checkDraft:Aashiqana.Jitujadab90 (talk)18:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your verdict hereWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Idlebrain.com,_telugu.way2movies.com,_movienewz.in,_telugucinema.com. The issue is that you didn't suggest which alternative we're using for 2000s films (Sify,The Hindu). Imo,Idlebrain.com has to be notable given the education ofG. V. Ramana aka Jeevi otherwise many 2000s Telugu films articles willcease to exist because he was the only one to review them.

Examples of articles you might delete if no other sources are found:Pelli Sambandham,Premante Inthe,Malli Malli Choodali,Poramboku.

AddSify reviews if they exist asap@Kailash29792:! ShouldTelugucinema.com be left on 2000s films' articles that are poorly sourced. Thoughts?@Jayanthkumar123:@L5boat:

I'm planning on deletingPuramboku due to sourcing issues while leaving the rest untouched.DareshMohan (talk)DareshMohan (talk)18:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus in the last discussion, Idlebrain.com and Telugucinema were given OK ( though sketchy) as reliable.RangersRus (talk)20:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus What's the problem i can't understand, i mentioned all reliable and authentic sources, that's not fare... you have to publish this article. It's central government school not a joke. Also it's well known... any problem in article will updated soonVS0GT (talk)22:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sarkarinaukriexams.com/college/kendriya-vidyalaya-new-cantt-prayagraj-allahabad?utm_source=chatgpt.comVS0GT (talk)22:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes:

Reliable, verifiable third-party references from Tracxn and Global Leaders Today.

A neutral tone with no promotional language.

Citations in proper format, and internal links to relevant Wikipedia topics.

The subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for businesspeople and technology innovators. Additional references and media coverage will be continuously added as they become available. Thank you for reviewing this draft.

Hi, I want to know is this source also unreliable?https://www.businesstoday.in/trending/box-office/story/jaat-could-be-sunny-deols-biggest-since-gadar-2-unless-akshay-kumars-kesari-2-472726-2025-04-20

Only after your response I would edit the page .Rajasabh7788 (talk)04:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok but I would recommend you to use range because figures are different in sources. When using bollywood hungama source, please add (nett.) after the figure as it does not show gross for some reason.RangersRus (talk)18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that I will see, but for now it's required an semi protected request for this page; see the no of edits for budget , I have already warn you to show a range for it, otherwise this page will became a mess .Rajasabh7788 (talk)02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear, if you do not have reliable source to show the budget, you can not add unsourced change or range.RangersRus (talk)19:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @RangersRus, hope you are fine. you had requested to add sources related to the notability of the artist career inDraft:Karan Aanand. I have added some notable work and reliable sources related to the work. Request you to look at it. Thnaks2404:7C80:24:B1F:4CB8:CFB5:7E68:97CF (talk)13:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @RangersRus Thanks for reviewing the draft. You mentioned that the artist is not eligible to passWP:NACTOR policies. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that apart from the filmJaaiye Aap Kahan Jaayenge, the artist is also in the lead role in filmIt's Over, the sourceshindustantimes,NDTV,Zee News of which is attached. Apart from this, I have added many short filmAaina in which the artist is in the Lead Role. The film Baby also has an antagonist character. The artist is eligible to pass the policies ofWP:NACTOR. I have resubmitted the draft again. You can check it.2404:7C80:24:151C:7C9B:1F55:ECE8:4675 (talk)12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They'll cheerfully eat themselves to death if given a chance and will do anything if they think a snack is involved.2604:3D08:1A7F:6050:11D:74D5:6F69:510B (talk)15:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left a note saying that the film should be near its release date for the draft to be accepted. But articles likeJailer 2,Suriya 45, whose release dates are very far, are present. Can you explain why this draft is not notable enough?HeisenberG (talk)15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to you with reason is given. The drafts you mentioned should not be in mainspace either but some editors with certain rights after being a long time member on Wiki, create drafts bypassing AFC review.RangersRus (talk)17:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41:@DoubleGrazing:canJailer 2 andSuriya 45 be moved back to draft? Or AFD is the option here?RangersRus (talk)17:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such articles. But as perWikipedia:Notability (films), films whose principal photography has begun is considered notable.HeisenberG (talk)17:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeisenberG: no, NFILM doesn't say that all"films whose principal photography has begun is considered notable"; it says any film whose principal photographyhasn't started almost certainlyisn't considered notable. If what you claimed was true, then every film ever made would become automatically notable the moment the p/p starts, which is clearly not the case. --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are both too old to be draftified, so I'd say either leave them or take them to AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say aboutAvengers: Doomsday? There is even this: Category:Upcoming films (see this page ) whose release dates are far. But there are many, many articles in that category. So what is happening?HeisenberG (talk)01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you how some of these articles were created and when noticed (not every editor is tracking these articles) by an editor, it gets nominated at AFD. Many get deleted like Pisasu2 and Chennai City Gangsters were such articles that were nominated for same and were deleted or redirected.RangersRus (talk)11:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's like users are doing it intentionally, which they are. Why do they have a category too for it? How come no AfC reviewer notice these articles?HeisenberG (talk)13:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC reviewers review the drafts that show in AFC list. Category are when films are completed or in post production stage with significant coverage to pass notability. Many articles are out on mainspace that should not be there and that is why many show on AFD or speedy deletion nomination. Reviewers and experienced editors do not monitor all newly created articles 24/7. You should just focus on your draft and not on what others are doing. I will recommend you to keep the article in draft till it reaches post-production or completion and has gained significant coverage. Then you can resubmit for review or you can resubmit so that some other reviewer can review it.RangersRus (talk)14:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think anymore when we have people arguing to keep afilm not scheduled to come out until sometime between 2027 and 2029. --CNMall41 (talk)17:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CamilleLr21 (talk ·contribs)
  • Draft:Her Private Hell (upcoming film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Hi, I just made a new Wiki page for the first time, and I have read your reason of declining. It's one of the sources that I cited in the page is linked directly to the studio. Is it the only one fault that I need to fix, or is there any other fault that I should be aware of sir?

Thank you for reading and giving me infos, and I look forward to hearing from you.

CamilleLr21 (talk)16:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:40E5:10A9:4730:9CA6:993A:C1D5:713 (talk ·contribs)
  • Draft:Muzahid Khan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

2409:40E5:10A9:4730:9CA6:993A:C1D5:713 (talk)16:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]