User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 10

Request on 00:58:36, 23 December 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Rexracer11

• Rexracer11 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mark Jennings-Bates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the comments. I will be honest Bobby, I am not the right person to do this. I find the comments extremely subjective, 3 reviewers and 3 completely different declines with no adjudication. It appears a very subjective and proscriptive environment. I am not into wasting my time when my intent was to add value. I do thank you for your comments an perhaps they were the correct ones, but I do not want to waste my time or your.

Rexracer11 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Rexracer11, I'm very sorry to hear your Wikipedia experience thus far has been disappointing and I understand, our policies and procedures are oftentimes overly bureaucratic and unapproachable. I also apologize that--in my opinion--you weren't given the best advice upfront and made it seem like you were getting the run around. I have raised my concerns with the other reviewer and all I can say is that we're volunteers and sometimes we get things wrong; present company included, I'm certainly far from infallible myself.

I understand your desire to step away. Wikipedia will keep your draft available for 6 months. After that, it may get routinely deleted but you can always ask that it get returned to you if you want to come back to working on it even after that 6-month timeline. For what it's worth, I do not think it is inherently a bad draft, rather the last issue is the threshold of notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. This is not an issue with your writing, rather an inherit property of the subject (or rather, the published media about him). If you are able to find three sources about him that are independent, reliable, and non-trivial (i.e.: they contain significant coverage) then I would easily be able to accept the draft (even in its present state, as I said, notability is about the subject and independent of the writing). If you find those sources now or anytime in the future, please do let me know.

As far as your concerns about wasting my time, please do not worry. If I didn't enjoy this, I wouldn't spend my time doing it. I enjoy the ability to accept drafts and help add to the ever expanding library of easily approachable knowledge. That's why I tried to be as helpful as I could in giving my guidance in the original comment I made. If it provided any knowledge or information of any value whatsoever to yourself or another passerby, then no time was wasted.

I wish you all the best, and I do hope you return someday. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bobby, I do understand your point and I am certainly not pointing a finger at anyone. The system is difficult for brain to fit into perhaps so I may in fact be the misfit. Your guidance was fair and clear and thank you for doing what you do as a volunteer. Seasons greetings. Rexracer11 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Confused about comments on draft article: AI Tools for Wholesale Sourcing on B2B Sites

Hi Bobby! Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I am a little lost in regards to the same comment about how it is reading like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I took out all promotional and subjective phrases making sure that every single sentence was attributed to appropriate secondary sources. I am not sure why I am still getting the same comments about it reading like an essay?

I have read other Wikipedia articles and find that this reads just like them, so if you could kindly clarify what do you mean when you say it sounds like an essay?

If there are any unreliable secondary sources, please flag. I saw your comment about one source that needs editing and I can fix that. There are no opinions in the article, I am not sure what that is referring to? Every single sentence is attributed to a secondary source with extensive attention paid to wordings to avoid any promotional, or non-neutral langauge.

I have not used any LLM's to write the article, if anything if it sounds like its written by an LLM its because I had to edit it extensively to take out any language that Wikipedia would deem not neutral, so if there is vaugeness it is because I am trying to follow your neutrality standard. What can I do to improve the article according to Wikipedia standards? Writingflows321 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Writingflows321, I think in part because of the subject matter you're attempting to write about and the limited nature of sourcing in this area or on this topic (it is such an already narrowed premise: we have articles on websites, for the B2B sector, on wholesaling, and artificial intelligence). As a result, you've had to write a bit of a "coatrack" article where you're having to stitch things together that are somewhat related because of the sheer number of nouns in your article title, but don't coalesce around a singular subject. That's your sourcing.

Then your writing, it feels as though you are trying to prove a point. Multiple times you use examples or instances to prove a point (and this ventures dangerously close to original research, see in particular WP:SYNTH), where instead on Wikipedia, all we want to do is summarize things that have already been said about the topic. Our only job is to write in summary style about that instead of trying to convince our readers. That is where your article struggles, is it is really trying to convince me of something instead of just presenting it.

To my first point, it is entirely possible the subject you have chosen to write about might not be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. That is, we would want to see significant coverage from independent sources that discuss the actual subject of the article (in this instance, the very specific subsection of AI tools, wholesale, B2B, and websites).

Hope that helps, feel free to let me know if you have another question. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bobby! I think its more clear now. I think the topic might not be suitable as it is not notable enough. I understand what you are saying about how we just want to summarize stuff, that is actually a great description for new wikipedia writers who may not understand what original research means. Thanks, this was very helpful. Writingflows321 (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Follow up question: If I want to know if a topic would be notable enough according to Wikipedia standards can I run it by you before I start working on it, or is there anyway to run a topic by the editors via talk page. A lot of time is wasted when we work on a long article only to find its not notable enough. Writingflows321 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Writingflows321. Not a problem, but I don't want you to feel like your writing has gone to waste. You could always add a selection to an existing article, consider a new subsection under Applications of artificial intelligence § Internet and e-commerce. Just make sure to abide by the other guidelines (WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) if you still feel there is something to be said about it.

As for writing, of course. It is a bit difficult to exactly know as editors disagree all the time on what qualifies or not (peruse WP:AFD to see ongoing discussions). In general, the rule of thumb is three sources that meet all WP:SIRS:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

If you have three sources that check each of those boxes, it's safe to say you'll be good to move on to the next step, writing. This will get easier to identify as time goes on and you spend more time on Wikipedia (often times you see editors say that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do as a new editor). But if you feel like you want to run a topic by me I would be more than happy to give my initial thoughts.

Happy new year! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobby! That's great that I may be able to use some of the content to enhance an existing article. I will review it and make any changes that may be required before attempting to do that. Thanks for the three rules; these are very helpful. Writingflows321 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to Retrieve Sake Challenges Page

Hello Bobby,

I hope you are well.

I would like to resume work on my Sake Challenges page, but I was not aware that the page had been deleted.

Would it be possible for you to retrieve the page for me?

I would really appreciate your help.

Best regards,

Waxilo Waxilo (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Waxilo, the deletion notice on your talk page lays out the steps, it's minor and procedural, just follow the instructions for undeletion here. I myself don't have the requisite account permissions, but an administrator should answer your request shortly. Hope that helps, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination of User:InformationNerd...LoveLearning/sandbox

Hello Bobby Cohn. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of User:InformationNerd...LoveLearning/sandbox as an excessively unrelated non-draft subpage under CSD U7. That criterion did not apply because the page was created less than 6 months ago. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Ahh, I'm now seeing "and" prefacing the list of (presumably) "or" items. I will review both U7 and elementary BEDMAS operations. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The move from “Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta” to “Miguel Antonio” should be reverted.

“de Arrascaeta” is not an optional descriptor, a location, or a disambiguator, but the family surname by which this historical figure is identified in Spanish-language sources and historical documentation. Removing it substantially alters the subject’s identity and creates ambiguity, since “Miguel Antonio” alone is not a distinctive or recognizable name.

This would be comparable to renaming “José de San Martín” as simply “José”, which would clearly be inappropriate and contrary to common naming conventions for historical figures from the Spanish-speaking world.

According to Wikipedia’s naming conventions, article titles should use the name by which a person is most commonly known in reliable sources. In this case, the full name Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta is consistently used in historical records and secondary sources, and the particle “de” is an integral part of the surname, not a removable element.

For these reasons, the original title “Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta” should be restored. Rocomotsu (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rocomotsu for your note here. I've already self reverted. I did this because I thought that was your request on the talk page: From Special:PermaLink/1332705491:

== Requested move – correcting article title ==

{{error|[[Template:Requested move]] is not for moves from draft or user space.<br>If you would like to submit your draft for review, add <code>{{tlf|subst:submit}}</code>to the top of the page.<br>Otherwise, see [[Help:How to move a page]] for instructions.<br>If you cannot move it yourself, see [[Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves|Requesting technical moves]].}}<!-- {{subst:requested move|Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta|reason=Personal names are not translated; 'of Arrascaeta' is incorrect per English Wikipedia naming conventions. Translated article from Spanish Wikipedia and ready for mainspace.}} --> [[User:Rocomotsu|Rocomotsu]] ([[User talk:Rocomotsu|talk]]) 10:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rocomotsu, as the now-resident expert on this talk page, please review my most recent addition of the {{family name hatnote}} to ensure it's correct. It will be more clear than your message on the talk page and will help ensure this doesn't happen again.

P.S.: If you're using an LLM chatbot like ChatGPT, I'd prefer if you just used your own words. If you aren't, there's no need for random bolding; wikilinks to namespaces and shortcuts are better for supporting your position, and you can just quote the relevant and specific supporting parts as it pertains to your case, not the general guideline.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Bobby,

Thank you for being my first feedback. Your feedback is kindly appreciated on my first day of Wikipedia. I will always remember you as I continue my journey on Wikipedia! Salv0603 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Merely procedural, but more than happy to help nonetheless! Let me know if you have any questions and I can help further @Salv0603. Know that there may be a bit of a backlog having your draft article reviewed, there is presently a backlog of about 1,200 submissions and these are reviewed in random order.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

oops!

We both played in the same pond at the same time. I suspect we are both correct, too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

As always, I greatly appreciate the ability the disagree but discuss in a healthy manner. I know that I'll always come away better off as a result of our having met. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I had no idea we were disagreeing! Are you certain we are? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably not more than the threshold of a CSD tag and my use of "bigger issue" in a throwaway project space comment. It is also possible I was looking for an excuse to use a hoity-toity quote and a fancy template. I'll add it to the pile of cringe-inducing moments in the archives. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I like the quote. I must mosdef try to upstage your 'hoity' by at least a level three 'toity', but I may need to do it by stealth.

😈

Now, where did my halo go? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business.

— A.A. Milne, If I May (1920)

😉. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I just have to think of the right quotation! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Rather, it was self-targeted depreciation. An ironic use of an ironic quote, if you will. I fear the edit summary may have been better suited for the comment itself. Regardless, the cringe has well arrived. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 

Seems appropriate 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

To no one's surprise, it would appear your finely tuned senses were proven correct. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

As were yours, over which there is no surprise either. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2025

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2025. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lillian Edelstein

Hello, Bobby Cohn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lillian Edelstein, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

rejected

i would like to gave your notes on why I got rejected Lw2311 (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lw2311 what was the purpose of your submission? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I love writing to people. Lw2311 (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

That's great @Lw2311. But your submission appears to be a plaintext copy and paste of the article Los Angeles, a topic we've had on the encyclopedia since at least 2001. The Articles for creation process is for new articles on subjects that are not yet covered by Wikipedia. If you have productive changes and contributions for topics that already have articles, you may be bold and make those changes yourself to the existing article. This was explained when I declined (not rejected) your article. You can see where it says "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Los Angeles instead." Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you Lw2311 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lw2311: and then you just go ahead and resubmit that – would you care to explain your thinking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyreneanism, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Possibilism was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre

Hi. In your opinion, what should be done with this? Half the article isn’t really about the topic, the other half exudes self-promotion, a good chunk is about business figures and future plans, then an endless list of books and videos. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: yeah, that is ... a mess. Some promo, a lot of off-topic stuff. I gave up after the first third and was merely skimming paragraphs after that looking for things actually about the topic. I was going to throw {{Promotional}} and {{Off topic}} at it as a start, on it only to realize the later is for sections, not whole articles. With that said, I'm not too sure what to do and depending on the mood it would catch me in, I can't say I couldn't see myself blanking whole sections of that article.

I would wholeheartedly endorse someone turning it into a stub and rebuilding from scratch. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for Review My Article Agian

I recently drafted an article that was declined on the grounds that the subject was considered not notable. Following the feedback, I made revisions to the article and added an external source from the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), where Alyson Rodges is featured, in an effort to strengthen the article’s notability and sourcing.

So, I would kindly appreciate it if you can review the article again and check if it's notable now.

If possible, I would also be grateful for your guidance on what types of sources are generally considered acceptable to establish notability in cases like this (for example, independent secondary sources, media coverage, academic or industry publications, etc.). Any suggestions on additional sources or improvements that could help bring the article in line with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines would be very helpful. Wiki Editor Ali (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Even with the new citations, I don't believe the subject is notable and the writing itself is promotional. A lot of those citations are innapropriate or do not verify the content which use them as verification.

Are you being paid to write an article? You previously described yourself as an "SEO professional"? Please make sure to respond to the PAID contributions notice on your talk page. Thank you Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I described on user page. I'm not a paid editors, or not any compensation, any payment or benefit from Aly's Puppy Boot Camp. Wiki Editor Ali (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as demonstrating notability, I'm not seeing anything beyond a run-of-the-mill small business so it is unlikely that this subject will pass the threshold of required notability for corporations.

To answer your earlier question, consider the following pages: Wikipedia:Independent sources; Wikipedia:SECONDARY, which redirects to Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources; WP:SIGCOV for an explanation on significant media coverage, and specifically passing mentions; and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which discusses extensively the the nuances of academic literature as source material--in specific, medical writing has a much higher standard, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Thank you. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in. @Wiki Editor Ali: you say on your userpage that you have an "association with [Alys Puppy Boot Camp] through my work", and as Bobby Cohn noted, an earlier version of that page said you're in SEO. Can you explain those two things put together in a way that doesn't make me convinced you are, in fact, a paid editor? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I’d like to clarify that I am not a paid editor and that I do not receive any compensation, payment, or other benefit from Aly’s Puppy Boot Camp or its owner.

When I mentioned an "association through my work" on my user page, I was referring only to general familiarity within the industry, not to employment, contracted services, SEO work, or any kind of promotional activity. I realize that my wording may have caused confusion, and I apologize for that.

I understand that this may still be considered a potential conflict of interest, which is why I disclosed it on my user page and asked for guidance instead of pushing for publication. I also accept that the subject does not currently meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements.

Wiki Editor Ali (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you – Paolo Cesaretti conflicts with an existing article about a homonym.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for your review! I understand that the page title conflicts with an existing article about a homonym. I’m planning to create a draft page titled “Paolo Cesaretti (architect)”. Could you please help me with moving or renaming the current page, or advise me on the best way to do this?

Thanks a lot!

Half Mute

~~~~ Half Mute (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Give me one sec to clean this up. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that @Half Mute. I've done some cleanup and your draft article should be at the correct title now, and I've left a pro forma note on your talk page. I've also removed my declination notices from your both user talk and the submission as those were incorrect. Sorry about the confusion. I think I caught everything but if not, let me know and I am happy to do more clean up. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and assistance @Bobby Cohn Half Mute (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Highmark Stadium

In your attempt to correct disambiguation links following an RM, you have incorrectly changed some of the links from Highmark Stadium (New York) to Ralph Wilson Stadium, which is the soon-to-be defunct stadium. Instead, they should have been changed to Highmark Stadium (new stadium, previously named New Highmark Stadium). For example, Buffalo Bills was pointing to Ralph Wilson Stadium until I corrected it. Please make sure that you correct all references to the new stadium to Highmark Stadium and not to Ralph Wilson Stadium. Much appreciated. Assadzadeh (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Assadzadeh, I was doing my best to follow the current style of NFL-related articles which appear to have a consistency to say that (despite the Bills' elimination last week) the article currently at Ralph Wilson Stadium is still technically the stadium for the current 2025 NFL season, this year at the time of writing. I did take a look through the articles on the "what links here" list to make sure that the changes would make sense when I used the script; for the ones that needed special attention I thought I caught them all. That is to say, when I made the following change to the article National Football League:

−

|[[Highmark Stadium (New York)|Highmark Stadium]]

+

|[[Ralph Wilson Stadium|Highmark Stadium]]

Two things were true: (1) I believed this was the correct destination for the piped link as the article says 2025–26 NFL playoffs as the current season, as explained above; and (2) all this change did was preserve the status quo as previously to that, Ralph Wilson Stadium was located at Highmark Stadium (New York)Highmark Stadium (New York) and would have otherwise worked before this change, since (New York) would no longer be an adequate disambiguator following the RM, and has since been redirected to the (disambiguation) page.

However if you disagree, I support your ability to make changes you think continue to improve the project. All I did was ensure links that worked yesterday ended up at the same place, in accordance with the instructions at WP:RMCI. I can't say I have a horse in this race, I am of course choosing to remain uninvolved following the closure of the RM and will not revert your edits.

Hope that makes sense to you, and I appreciate your attention to WP:ESDONTS from CIVIL with regard to all of your edits summaries about my screw ups.

Best. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

...the article currently at Ralph Wilson Stadium is still technically the stadium for the current 2025 NFL season – The problem with this is that the opening sentence of Ralph Wilson Stadium states that it "is a defunct stadium". Since the stadium's own article is stating that it's defunct, then the current NFL season has already ended for the Buffalo Bills, which is also supported by the fact that the "Current season" field in the team’s infobox has been changed to 2026 Buffalo Bills season. Anyways, I'm looking through articles that now link to Ralph Wilson Stadium to see if they need to be changed to Highmark Stadium instead.

Regarding my edit summaries about "screw-ups", I apologize, as it was made in a moment of frustration when I thought hundreds of articles would have to be updated, instead of a handful. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and the opening sentence of Highmark Stadium says it is under construction in Orchard Park, New York" which "will replace the existing Highmark Stadium" (emphasis mine), so it looks like we're in a weird spot until kickoff week 1, or until we can follow a definitive RS.

No harm done, it's better that it's getting sorted out. I will re-check all the former script moves to make sure there aren't any that I missed that don't make sense to the reader. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Tenio Popmintchev

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenio Popmintchev

@Bobby Cohn Hi, since you are one of the milder commentators, would you be so kind and look at the changes/addings I made? Any comment is more than welcome! Thanks Johnwilliamsiii (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Johnwilliamsiii, I'm happy to take a look and I'm going to take two tacks with my response here but if you bear with me I hope it'll help.

Notability on Wikipedia

Firstly, with regard to the on-going deletion discussion, you should know that what editors are trying to ascertain is whether the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. This is a threshold issue we use as a measuring stick as to "whether a given topic warrants its own article."^[1] There's lots of different thresholds for things like companies, species, or books that are content specific. That is one avenue by which something can be determined notable and therefore be permitted to be the subject an article. The subject-specific notability guideline in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (academics), or WP:NPROF as you may have seen it referred to in shorthand. There are 7 criteria that, if satisfied (just one is necessary), then an article is allowed, as I mentioned. That's why in my !vote,^[a] you can see that I've tried to apply information from the citations in my arguments to demonstrate those different criteria, namely WP:NPROF#C1, #C2 and #C3. You can see the responses people have made to my arguments poking holes in them. That is good, it tells you people are thoroughly investigating the subject, the citations, and the criteria.

The other way by which any biography of a living person^[b] may be demonstrated notable is through the WP:ANYBIO criteria. There are three things there and again, these are applied as either hit or miss. If you have just one of them, checkbox cleared, an article is okay to be written.^[c]

Going even further up the pyramid of specificity, any topic (person or otherwise) can be notable if it meets the general notability guideline, or WP:GNG. By that measure, we look for multiple sources (each of which that meet a requirement by virtue of it's publication: secondary and reliable) that cover the subject in such a way (both independently written and with significant coverage) that tells us they are considered notable. A lot has been written about this throughout the project, three sources are often considered a good amount to demonstrate notability.^[2] I've also seen it argued that the breadth of otherwise good sourcing make make up for sources that may otherwise alone fall slightly short of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). That is why in the other argument I made, I pointed out that I was looking for the independently written profiles and summarized my findings in the table. I will copy it here:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Witze, Alexandra (September 21, 2016). "Tenio Popmintchev fits X-ray laser on a tabletop". ScienceNews.				✔ Yes
"Advances in Bulgarian Science 2016" (PDF). National Centre for Information and Documentation. 2017. p. 81.	Disclaimer p. 2 says "The articles are published as provided by their authors, without additional editing."			✘ No
Clark, Thomas (September 1, 2020). "Let There Be Light: Designing Popmintchev LABS at UCSD". Lab Manager.	WP:INTERVIEW		Not sure there is enough independent analysis to warrant being acceptable for the GNG.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Those are the things that people are considering when discussing notability at a venue of AfD.

Writing about academics on Wikipedia

Secondly, I will address the actual writing, as you've requested in your comment. Going back, you'll note one of the things I did when I first cleaned up the article was remove the <ref> tags around the citations. You can see the change here That has the effect of removing citations that were written by the subject from the "References" section and instead just placing the journal template in text. This does a couple things but namely it reduces the risk that people view the article as notability bombed, or reference bombed. That is where people apply a bunch of tags hoping to increase the citation count of the article, in the hopes people think it will clear the three required of the GNG. I'm not saying that was your intent here, but we are just trying to write a better overall article and this gets to improving the article as a whole. In your recent additions, you have re-inserted a bunch of list items again as citations. You'll note that @Theroadislong noted a concern about this in their !vote here.

To the point of notebombing (see WP:NOTEBOMB), especially for academics, listing things that are minor might actually be doing you more harm than good. Listing minor awards or junior acknowledgements might actually be worse for your case than better as it makes it harder to see through the noise the citations and arguments that actually help your case. Note that a stub is a perfectly acceptable form of an article, if that is all there is to be said about the subject.^[d]

To the effect of using primary citations (i.e.: ones written by the subject) to demonstrate facts about the subject, there is a common mistake people make when writing about academics in particular. In your recent addition, you wrote "for the first time and then cited to things written by the subject. That's a promotional claim that would need to be written by someone unconnected (i.e.: independent) of the subject.

Bringing it together

You'll note that these are two distinct issues that are a little intertwined. The notability of a subject is a property of the subject, not the article.^[3] So while improving the article is useful in the sense that it will help you find citations to support arguments made at an AfD discussion, the mere fact of writing a better article is not actually the solution to keeping the article on the project. You goal when making a keep !vote in AfD is to make a better notability argument. Consider reviewing Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions.

Lastly, and this is a personal note. Because an article may be determined to be not notabile, it is not a reflection of your writing. As I said, it's a property of the subject. If this one doesn't stick, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's not your fault. This has been a pretty well attended deletion discussion and it looks like it's actually being well argued. This is good, regardless of the outcome you can feel as though the subject got a fair shake. It takes more time but it's more thorough than a declination at AfC. @Star Mississippi said as much in their comment in the discussion. There is always more writing to be done, whether in new articles or improving others. And everything you're learning here will be applicable in principle to other articles you write.

Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn Thank you for the time you took to give this remarkable extended answer. Chapeau!! I think the article now, as I commented in the discussion page, is the final version. Unless that you maybe still have improvements? Thanks Johnwilliamsiii (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Roy C.J

 Section renamed from About.

yes Roy C.J. is correct title by --Sunuraju (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sunuraju, not a problem by me, but all your own citations use: "Confident Group Chairman CJ Roy found dead in his office, he was 57",^[1] "12 Rolls-Royce, Koenigsegg Agera and much more; CJ Roy's collection of luxury cars and his feature films in Sandalwood and Mollywood",^[2] and "Confident Group chariman C.J. Roy's death sends shock waves through Kerala"^[3] (emphasis mine).

Something to consider. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

his full name is Chiriankandath Joseph Roy Sunuraju (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Zoe Terry

Sorry, we kept edit conflicting. I think I picked your edits back up, but let me know or feel free to re-add if I missed any? Star Mississippi 02:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, the only edits I had done at the time were simple copy editing, I hadn't yet begun adding any content. Looks like you got the sources I was able to find too. I didn't notice any edit conflicts, so if there were, it was only me getting in your way--apology not needed, or rather mine to you!

I will say, I added {{birth based on age as of date}} and I'm always confused by the Category:Year of birth missing (living people) norms come into play in instances with that template. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Bobby Cohn

I didn't know about the birth based... template and will try to remember so folks don't have to clean up. Learned about the YoB missing... from clean up too.

You definitely weren't in my way at all. I was just like "oh, this has potential" and I think you saw same. Star Mississippi 15:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely a handy one, and I've added Category:2000s births based on clicking around the template's transclusions so I think that's correct (if my "(?)" in the edit summary wasn't confidence-inspiring), but if not, have at it. I'd say this has been another team-job well done! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

And I just learned as of (thanks @UtherSRG!) Yes indeed on team work. Part of what I enjoy about AfC patrolling is finding potential. Star Mississippi 17:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion?

hello, I am Antavius Weems. I noticed that you deleted my page that I wrote, suggesting that it was written by an LLM of Chat GPT. Please be assured that I am an educated person, with a firm grasp on the English language. And while it may be suspicious to you that folk are regularly utilizing LLM's, I assure you that I have or had no need for it in order to write my page. It appears that names such as Jared and Billy Bob are really accepted and published, however, ethnic names seems to receive your highest level of scrutiny. To that end, I ask that you reconsider your decision, so that I won't have to escalate the matter Antavius (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Antavius, I think you're mistaken. Looking over your talk page history and the relevant logs on my end, I doesn't appear that I was the one who tagged anything for deletion, all I did was leave a pro forma notice on your talk page advising you about the relevant policies and guidelines on autobiographies. However the deletion tagging and the actual deletion itself were done by two different editors, so from a blind guess it looks like two separate people thought the draft contained LLM-generated content. And the deletion log entry notes that communication intended for the user was present, indicating LLM usage.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your message, but other stuff does exist on Wikipedia, that is never an argument for the inclusion of something that doesn't belong. I also don't know if you're trying to make a threat with your last message but you should be aware of the policy we have on legal threats, see Wikipedia:No legal threats.

As for your second message, it appears to just be a copy/paste from an article talk page, so I've collapsed it here so as to not duplicate efforts. People can see it and address it on the relevant page itself.

Hope that helps clarify things for you, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Jeff Vahle

Could you please review my Afc request I saw that you edited it and I would very kindly like you to review it. Fallendoor2 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Fallendoor2, I tend to not take reviews on request. A quick look doesn't really demonstrate notability at the threshold I think is required, but I think there is potential. I won't decline it at this time, but I'm also not sure I'd accept it either. I'll leave it in the queue for someone who is more comfortable with businesspeople to tackle the assessment. In the meantime, try and see if you can find more sources that are independent, reliable, and demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre

Hello,

You added a flag that I do not understand: This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.

Can you be more specific and explain ,according to you, what precisely does not comply with Wikipedia quality standards?

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Albacore60, the article is strangely written with a lot of items that I doubt their necessity to the overall encyclopedic quality of the article itself. There are a lot of sections that are not about the subject at all, and, while likely related in the sense that they're both about theatre or opera, don't even come back to stating their relevance to the subject in the text. There is a lot of promotional language that should be reviewed and either removed or attributed. There are also a lot of strange details that I don't even know how to categorize. For example, the coordinates given use 15 decimal points of accuracy--that corresponds to 100 picometres, or roughly double the diameter of a helium atom. There are links that don't make a lot of sense, there are figures that don't have any citations that look internal or promotional. There's a bibliography section that I think might be a programmes section and then a filmography, etc. section that might be the same, but it's used in the references, so are these primary? In some cases if they are used as citations, then they definitely can't be supporting what they claim. There is a level 2 header just titled "What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest?" Unless I'm reading it funny, and prospects is being used as a verb (wikt:prospect#Verb), I don't even think that's a complete sentence--not that we should be using sentences (questions or otherwise) as level 2 headers in the first place; as an encyclopedia, we should be answering questions, not asking them. Why are we asking them, are we promoting the subject? That's a definite failure of WP:NOT. If they are references, they're out of order, so is the external links section. Both of which I'm questioning the value of.

Yeah, I landed on {{Cleanup rewrite}} because there were so many other tags I thought about adding and nothing else could capture the number of issues I thought the article had. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bobby,

I believe your answer is mixed up with another one that has nothing to do ( "picometre...") with the article I wrote... The one I wrote deals about Operetta :). Keeping only your text that deals the relevant article (on Dacian Operetta Theater), I can hardly work on such general and numerous remarks. I need to have the relevant parts of texts.

Can you please list more precisely all points that might be an issue since the descriptions you made lead to a lot of work ? I have spent a considerable time on this article and cannot correct or modify it without being sure I am correcting the right piece of text of references. Should you not be able to provide to me a list of all paragraphs or sentences that are questionable, I am afraid the banner you put above it will stand months with very few changes since the subject needs a writer that knows the matter precisely. Finding someone on Wikipedia that is interested by Operetta in Romania will be very hard. In the best-case scenario, someone will butcher the text and drastically impoverish it, whereas I can make appropriate surgical changes. As you have certainly noticed reading my English, I am French and the previous article that existed on the matter in the Romanian Wikipedia was very poor, obsolete and bland. I wrote the French version and translated it to English and Romanian. No Romanian wikipedia writer ever modify the previous RO article for around 15 years... I doubt that, even though the English Wikipedia community is much larger, some English speaker will have the knowledge and will to correct it. So I am very likely the best writer to do this change and I would be glad that you help me to be able to do so providing a detailed list (pointing at text passages). That will also help me to modify the RO and FR versions accordingly :) Albacore60 (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Albacore60, si tu m'excuses mon français canadien, je vais essayer d'expliquer. Tu m'as mal compris--mon commentaire sur le picomètre était une remarque incidente à propos de l'un des problèmes dans l'article qui, à mon sens, était représentatif de tous les autres. La précision des coordonnées exprimées avec 15 décimales correspond à environ ±100 picomètres. (La plus petite vis métrique que tu peux achèter dans une quincaillerie a une tolérance de 0,067 mm de diamètre. Cela fait 670 000 fois plus que la précision que tu as indiquée. Si quelque chose est précis à 100 picomètres près, il a probablement bougé de 3,94 micromètres au cours des 21 jours qui se sont écoulés depuis que tu as écrit l'article, à cause de la dérive des continents seule, il est maintenant inexact à près de quatre millions de pour cent. Comme pour le reste de l'article, il n'est pas nécessaire d'entrer dans un tel niveau de détail.) Je pensais que c'était symbolique, parce que l'article, dans son ensemble, est trop détaillé sur des choses qui ne sont pas liées au sujet (ici, c'est Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre). Ce serait probablement plus approprié dans un article Operetta in Romania. Tu définis des termes, tu donnes une histoire générale, mais tu ne te concentres pas sur le sujet de l'article. Quand tu écris apropos de le théâtre, tu emploies un langage trop promotionnel (WP:NPOV) sans attribution et tu n'as pas de citations appropriées là où elles sont nécessaires avec des chiffres (WP:V).

More information En anglais ...

En anglais

Hi Albacore60, if you'll excuse my Canadian French, I will try to explain. You misunderstand me--my comments on the picometer were a side-remark about one of the issues in the article which, in my opinion, was representative of the problems as a whole. The precision of coordinates expressed with 15 decimals correspond to approximately 100 picometers. (The smallest metric bolt you can buy in the hardware store has a tolerance of 0.067 mm in diameter. That's 670000-times bigger than the accuracy you've given. If something is accurate down to 100 picometers, it has likely moved 3.94 microns in the 21 days since you wrote the article; because of continental drift alone, it is now inaccurate by nearly 4 million percent. Much like the rest of the article, there is no need to give this amount of detail.) I think that's symbolic because the article, as a whole, is too detailed about items not related to the subject (Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre). It is probably more appropriate for the article Operetta in Romania. You define terms, give generic history, but don't focus on the subject of the article. When you do discuss the theatre, you use language that is too promotional (WP:NPOV) without attribution and you don't have proper citations with figures where required (WP:V).

Close

That is to say, the reason I described whole sections in my first message is because, respectfully, I think it probably should be cut back drastically, and why I chose the template I did. By the sounds of your comment "that is interested by Operetta in Romania", that is likely the article that needs to be written. A lot of the content should be moved to a new article there. What should remain is content that solely focuses on the theatre itself. Look at it this way: the article Radio City Music Hall focuses on the building, the company, the acutal subject of the business located there, but does not have a lot of overlap with the subject Music of New York City.

And then when deciding what is appropriate to be in an article on the Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre, we need to be more judicious in our writing. "What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest?" is a section that is both promotional and likely WP:OR or a failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Whether it is appropriate on different language variations of the project is up to their independent communities, what works on one may not work on another.

I'm going to CC Biruitorul here who also had concerns about the article earlier on my talk, in case there is something more to be added that I missed, or who might be able to better explain than I can. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily have that much to add, but I would call attention to the strongly promotional tone. For example in this four-paragraph section, we have an endless parade of peacock terms: high-quality, outstanding, milestone, great passion, bridge, enormous success, success, excellent cast, landmark, most important in history, consistently praised, remarkable acclaim, success, key role, true challenge, exceeded all expectations, overwhelming success, praised, revelation, great national and international fame.

I think there are more subtle ways of indicating that this was a remarkable period for the operetta. We don’t need to hit the reader over the head with it every five words. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bobby,

I now catch your picometre allusion :) You must be a scientific "dans l'âme" to use such an unexpected image :). Votre français est excellent :)

Well I see more or less yours points. What I tried to do is (I do the same in all the articles I wrote previously) an extensive, complete and precise work that helps the reader to understand the root of the subject, its essence and it evolution in history, should it be relevant. That is why the article is so rich and deeply rooted. I do agree that some part might be switch to another article for instance to the existing Operetta article. I can also work on the promotional vocabulary. But I will do this step by step to be sure no information is lost or that I am not modifying the wrong passage. So here is what I propose to you: I will list some changes I think I can do and you will tell me whether it sounds good (I await your approval before doing it since I do not want to work in vain...):

• 0/ I corrected the coordinates data. Initially I just copy/paste the coordinates given by google (which was much too precise in deed) - DONE
• 1/ Move the first chapter == Opéra-comique, operetta, opéra-bouffe, and musical == to the Operetta article
• 2/ Drastically summarize the == The origins of Romanian operetta: French influence and Viennese flavor == chapter as I did in the Romanian version and move or adapt this text so that it will be included in the Operetta article (I already wrote the Romanian chapter in it previously, see Operetta#Operetta_in_Romanian ; or to a new "Romanian Operetta" article. But I am not a fan of creating the latter because it could strip the article of its essential content. In fact, the Ion Dacian Theatre is deeply tied to the history of Romanian operetta, so I do not think this would be a good idea, as it would risk distorting the article and completely impoverishing it, ultimately making it uninteresting and bland. I have always felt that it is essential to have rich, enjoyable articles to read, since the goal is to keep readers engaged and to spark their curiosity.
• 3/ Work on the promotional vocabulary throughout the article since it is obviously an issue. However on some passage it is the exact reflection of official reports and survey published by the Ministry of Culture or by the Theatre... I will try to use more quotes.
• 4/ work on the === What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest? === trying not to lose interesting data, avoiding the "cristal ball" effect
• 5/ The biography section include all books and media that helped me to write the article or are relevant references for a reader that want to go deeper on the subject. Some of them are used as reference in the text. I do not really see what I can do about it... However many will disappear if point 1/ and 2/ are done.

My point of view on some of your comments:

- Looking at the Radio City Music Hall I can see that the article is also very complete, deep and similar to this one. However history is always shorter for American institution for obvious reasons:) In Europe, history is a strong pilar for (most) institutions and can root a long centuries ago. That is why I have included a comprehensive text about it. Moreover stating in 2015 (when the new building was achieved) would present a truncated and very poor presentation of this theatre, cutting form its essential roots (before the communist period)

- I do not agree with your remark dealing with theatre or opera: There are a lot of sections that are not about the subject at all, and, while likely related in the sense that they're both about theatre or opera, don't even come back to stating their relevance to the subject in the text.. If you read carefully the text you will see that because of several events (a purely arbitrary decision from the communist dictator Ceaucescu + a big fire in the TBN + RO government decisions) the Operetta Theater has been hosted a long time in the TNB and has been merged with Opera (ONB) and even been be managed directly by the ONB. So TNB, ONB and Operetta have been linked strongly together some years (for good or bad) and this is their history. I cannot erase these facts that has a huge (generally negative) impact on Operetta. This chaotic and unusual "timeline" for such an institution (as are many subjects in Romania, a country closer to Orient than Occident, where byzantine discussion or attitude often lead to absurd situation, not to mention the heavy legacy of communism) is quite complex, but needs to be explained. However I think I have concentrated most of the details in note and references, thus avoiding an overly long and heavy text. These painful event are still printed in mind amongst Opereta's personnel and artists and will last trace for a long time. The Theater as it is cannot be understood without mentioning these.

So tell what you think about points 1 to 4 :) And we will see later whether the article still needs further adjustments.

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Albacore60, definitely a good start, and if you think there are things specific to Romania, I think you could probably draft that article as well. I would be happy to take a look at the bibliographic sections after the cleanup and see if I can get them to resemble the typical MOS style once they've been shortened. And then see if/what is needed after that. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. I will keep you posted when it is done.

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

0/ I corrected the coordinates data. Initially I just copy/paste the coordinates given by google (which was much too precise in deed) - DONE

1/ Move the first chapter == Opéra-comique, operetta, opéra-bouffe, and musical == to the Operetta article - DONE

2/ Drastically summarize the == The origins of Romanian operetta: French influence and Viennese flavor == chapter as I did in the Romanian version and move or adapt this text so that it will be included in the Operetta article (I already wrote the Romanian chapter in it previously, see Operetta#Operetta_in_Romanian ; or to a new "Romanian Operetta" article. But I am not a fan of creating the latter because it could strip the article of its essential content. In fact, the Ion Dacian Theatre is deeply tied to the history of Romanian operetta, so I do not think this would be a good idea, as it would risk distorting the article and completely impoverishing it, ultimately making it uninteresting and bland. I have always felt that it is essential to have rich, enjoyable articles to read, since the goal is to keep readers engaged and to spark their curiosity. - DONE

3/ Work on the promotional vocabulary throughout the article since it is obviously an issue. However on some passage it is the exact reflection of official reports and survey published by the Ministry of Culture or by the Theatre... I will try to use more quotes or change vocabulary. - DONE

4/ work on the === What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest? === trying not to lose interesting data, avoiding the "cristal ball" effect - DONE

5/ The biography section include all books and media that helped me to write the article or are relevant references for a reader that want to go deeper on the subject. Some of them are used as reference in the text. I do not really see what I can do about it... However many will disappear if point 1/ and 2/ are done. - DONE + changed Biography structure

Tell me what you think of this new version :). Albacore60 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely on the right track but I still think it is largely unfocused on the subject. I do think a WP:SPLIT might be the best solution moving forward for the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bobby,

I stick to my opinion and strongly disagree with a split. It would be have a particularly negative effects on this article and would cut it from nearly half of its soul and all its roots. It means that the article would start at best... at the communist period and would let think the reader that communists created Operetta in Romania (that is completely false), or when the previous hall was destroyed by Ceausescu in Romania (1987). The new building opened in 2015. Its would be also wrong to start at that date. Please have a look to Paris Opera. Its does not start when the Palais Garnier was built at the XIXth century, but in 1655 and all the history of Opera is part of the article. The logic is the same for Opéra-Comique or Comédie-Française. You cannot treat the same way an American theater or scene that has a very short history (generally nothing before 1900) and an European art or scene. By the way, I consider that the banner you put is no longer justified and have removed it.

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think I do understand what you are trying to get at with the building, company history, etc. better. However I do still think the article still lacks focus at times, is missing citations, inappropriately opines on certain things, and uses essay-like headings. I'm not suggesting it be cut back to any particular start date so as to suggest creation be attributed to a particular political philosophy, rather overall the sections be more focused; if you think that I'm doing that as a preference to a political philosophy that I have not mentioned, all I will say is that I think that might be a topic you are extra sensitive to given your userboxes—I've certainly not tried to give a preference for or against either in my messages here or my editing on the article.

I won't quarrel with your tag removal, the beauty of the project is we can disagree and neither of us is inherently right by nature of our own say-so. In the end, we disagree because we both want to improve the article, and regardless, we both agree the project is better of for having the article than for missing it.

Happy editing, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, disagreeing peacefully is something precious in this world:) Anyway If you have something precise in mind that you think could be really better, please show me. I will try to improve it. The essay-like heading is voluntary so that its catches readers' attention. So few people read in these days that we need to facilitate them to do the first step. Wikipedia is a sort of "door" to reading. So I do believe that the text should be as attractive as possible, obviously keeping it as neutral as it can be. To understand better what you mean by "the sections be more focused" Please highlight to me two or three passages that not to focus on the matter (title or subject), I will try to do something. Because I present I do not see this precise point...

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of the unsourced issues have been tagged, I can continue to tag when I get a moment. I would also point to MOS:REFERENCES, your inline citations should precede the works cited bibliographies. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. That's why I didn't move the closing references tag myself, there is some cleanup to do. If the full citation is given inline, then there is no need to give it again in the bibliography. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have just read again all the "Notes & References" section and did not noticed any reference that is again cited in the Bibliography. Did I miss something? Regards. Albacore60 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

So then the inline references could be moved before the bibliography and they won't appear twice? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw you moved "References" section before "Bibliography", so this solves this problem right ? Fine for me :) Albacore60 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I will work on your tags (Citation needed) later on. Thanks !--Albacore60 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Working on citations needed, one by one. Albacore60 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bobby,

I have performed some changes and added citations where you believed they were needed. And it is quite positive for the article.

Regarding the chapters: == Status of the Ion Dacian Theatre at the end of 2024 == and == The 2025–2029 Plan ==, there are in deed few citations because a large part of the information (mainly where there are no citations) comes from 2024–2029 management plan, that is a statement I have written at the very beginning of each chapter. Please have a look to this sentence: "The information in this chapter is sourced from the 2024–2029 management plan." and there is the precise citation of the rapport at each time.

Do I have to repeat this citation for each statement (the only difference will be the precise page...)? This is something was not a fan to do in order to avoid unnecessary and heavy repetitions. But if it’s really necessary, I will do it. I’m waiting for your opinion on this :) Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way just FYI, (But that is another matter) All the parts I had written previously and moved to Operetta article have been scrapped, without any warning and discussion, since they apparently did not respect some wikipedia rules. I can hear anything from anyone but this behavior disgusted me definitely. I am happy to have a very different kind interaction with you. I suppose this is you due to your Canadian smooth personality :)) Here positive work is done, respectfully. I admit this article needed to be improved and perhaps still needs on some aspects. What we do here is the right way, since I consider It’s a truly collaborative effort. : you help me to improve the quality of the text, I do the changes I agree or considered really needed :). Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you any link with Robert Cohen (writer) ? Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not, just an interest with a character in a Hemingway novel. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

👍 Albacore60 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Vacation

Bobby Cohn is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you are looking for more timely assistance, please consider my very capable colleagues at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. If your question pertains to a draft article you submitted, the AfC Help Desk may also be of assistance.

Thanks for understanding! 🏝️🍹😎🏖️☀️/ Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have returned from being away and will have more regular access to a computer, though my intention is to remain inactive for the remaining duration of my vacation. I say this because if anyone is seeing this the above notice and afraid to start an outstanding GAN of mine, I leave this to say that I would make myself available for that aspect of the project--though my editing will likely otherwise continue at a reduced level.

I look forward to jumping back into the backlogs with a renewed sense of optimism shortly. Take care of yourselves :)

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

WHY

Hello, I would like to publish an article about the COMPANY I WORK IN. IT'S NOT A SCAM!!! GYEON Official (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@GYEON Official, there's no need to shout. If that's your goal, you need to understand and abide by the policies on the project. You ought to review WP:ORGNAME, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

draft Mourad Karami

Hello, thank you for reviewing my draft. I have carefully rewritten the article to fully comply with the General Notability Guideline and the Biographies of Living Persons sourcing requirements. The current version is based only on independent, reliable, published sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. These sources include multiple detailed news reports that discuss the subject’s work, impact, and activities in depth. All interviews and non‑independent material have been removed. The tone has been rewritten in a natural, human style with no AI‑generated phrasing. I would be grateful if you could take another look at the updated draft, as I believe it now meets the notability and sourcing criteria. Thank you for your time and consideration. Editormed4445354 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Editormed4445354, I don't see your changes to the article following my decision that identify any additional sources, so it is possible you didn't save or publish them. Regardless, I'm always happy to further explain my decision with regards to the specifics of your draft article. Can you identify those sources here and tell me in your own words which sources you have that you believe contain significant coverage and how they meet all three requirements of secondary, independent, and reliable sourcing? Thank you Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I’m happy to explain the sources I believe provide significant coverage and meet the requirements of being secondary, independent, and reliable.

1. Morocco World News This is an English‑language international news outlet with editorial oversight. The article about me is a full feature that discusses my work in detail, including my role in addressing medical misinformation and the impact of my content. It is secondary, independent, and provides significant coverage.

2. Viața Medicală This is a Romanian medical publication with a professional editorial process. Their article discusses my activity as a medical student communicating health information online. It is not an interview; it is a report written by the publication. This makes it secondary, independent, and reliable.

3. Ziarul Evenimentul (two separate articles) This is an established Romanian newspaper. Both articles describe my work in detail, including how I explain medical topics and respond to misinformation. These are independent journalistic pieces that provide significant coverage.

4. BZI BZI is a major Romanian news outlet. Their article focuses on my efforts to combat medical misinformation and explains my online activity in depth. It is secondary, independent, and reliable.

5. Hespress (French edition) Hespress is one of the largest Moroccan news organizations. The article discusses my explanations of medical issues during Ramadan and the broader problem of misinformation. It is a detailed, independent report.

6. Radio Iași This is a public broadcaster. Although it includes an interview, the accompanying article provides context and commentary written by the station, which makes it partly secondary and independent.

All of these sources are published by organizations with editorial oversight, and each one discusses my work in detail rather than briefly mentioning me. I hope this clarifies why I believe the draft meets the notability requirements. I appreciate your time and would be grateful for a reconsideration.

Thank you so much for opening the door for me to ask and discuss i hope my message find you in a very good way. Editormed4445354 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Editormed4445354, in the order that you've given them above:

1. Morocco World News: this is not independent or secondary as you claim as it was written by yourself.
2. Viața Medicală: this article is an interview, see WP:INTERVIEW and does not contribute to any demonstration of notability. As for reliability, it can be used for non-promotional materials but nothing beyond that. It is not secondary.
3. I only see one Ziarul Evenimentul article cited, so I can only evaluate that one, but again this is an interview.
4. BZI: interview, with an embedded video that leads with the the disclaimer: the video you are watching is the result of automatic synthesis by artificial intelligence... So this is also likely not reliable.
5. Hespress: Interview where they ask you things but you are not the subject of the article, as you say, they only ask for your explanation of things.
6. Radio Iași: while you've correctly identified this as an interview, I disagree, there is little to no independent analysis of you or your work such that it would contribute anything to a GNG assessment of notability.

Sorry if that is disappointing, as it is likely not the answer your were looking for. Please review the project page Wikipedia:Autobiographies for more information.

Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the sources in detail and for explaining your reasoning. I appreciate the clarity of your feedback and I understand the concerns you raised regarding interviews and independence.

I would like to clarify one point respectfully: the Morocco World News article was not written by me. It was authored by a staff journalist, and I had no involvement in its writing or publication. I understand that this does not automatically make it significant coverage, but I wanted to correct the misunderstanding that it was self‑written.

I also appreciate your explanations regarding the other sources and how they are interpreted under WP:GNG and WP:INTERVIEW. Your comments have helped me better understand how strict the requirements are for secondary, independent coverage.

Thank you again for your time and for reviewing the draft so thoroughly. I will take your guidance into account moving forward. Editormed4445354 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Editormed4445354, just want to make sure that when we're discussing the Morocco World News article, we're referring to the one in the article "'Doc.karami': A Moroccan Medical Student’s Mission to Use Social Media to Fight Health Misinformation". This article's byline lists "Mourad Karami — Jan, 28, 2026". The caption of the photo reads "Known online as Doc.karami, I represent ..." and throughout the article, it is written in the first person: "I decided", "I represent", "I belong", "I choose", "My journey", "I have noticed", "This observation led me", "My approach", "I believe", "I aim for my content", "My work", "I consistently remind my audience", "my strategy", "I have reached", "My content", "my medical studies, I plan to expand my role", and "My long-term vision" (emphasis mine).

If I'm wrong and there's another article by a staff writer at Morocco World News that you'd like me to read, please do let me know. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn, thank you for taking the time to look closely at the Morocco World News article. I appreciate the detailed explanation.

To clarify respectfully: I did not write that article myself. The byline uses my name because the piece was written in a first‑person narrative style, but it was prepared and published by the outlet’s editorial team. I understand completely why the first‑person format makes it appear self‑authored, and I appreciate you pointing that out.

Thank you again for reviewing everything so carefully and for explaining your reasoning so clearly. Your guidance has helped me understand the requirements much better. Editormed4445354 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

submitting of wikipedia page

HI there,

I am writing you according creation of wikipedia page of Farid Amirov. I want to understand reason of rejection. I know that as a Manager i have not been mention in Fiba, but it was problem of the HR wrong mention of my occupation in FIBA list. if you want i can provide a document of my occupation from the Azerbaijan Basketball Federation. As a player i was in years between 2002-2010. as an Assistant Coach between 2022-2025. From 2025 i work as an Azerbaijan Men's NAtional Teams Manager. if there will be a video guide how to fulfill all those info i will be glad for your help. I could only add a few sentences about myself, and my career, and everything i add is real, if required i can provide prove of all of them.

Waiting forward for your guidence. Kind Regards, Farid Amirov Farid Amirov (Peja) (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Farid Amirov (Peja), for a subject to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, they need to have been the subject of independent analysis containing significant coverage from secondary and reliable sources. While you have cited to stats websites to demonstrate the facts in the draft article, the above are requirements for the notability threshold for Wikipedia. What you will need to find is reviews of your work and career and independent analysis of the same. Please also consider Wikipedia:Autobiographies for more guidance on writing an article about yourself. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Malame Bhase

rn i m getting few sources for the malame dialect article soon i will edit the article and republish Taulava Sikh (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I have left a note on the article and related talk pages. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Bobby Cohn for accumulating at least 200 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive – Backlog Crusher Award

		Backlog Crusher Award
		This award is given in recognition of Bobby Cohn for reviewing at least 50 pages that were more than 40 days old at the time of review during the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped reduce the older backlog and made an important impact during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Pyreneanism is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Pyreneanism is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Pyreneanism has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Pyreneanism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In line references

may you kindly explain in more detail as to how you would reference an article better than this please? Darmanin1 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Darmanin1, there are a lot of helpful links in the declination notices on your talk page. Specifically in regard to inline references, depending on the type of editor you are using, you can follow either of the below guides:

• Source Editor: Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup.
• VisualEditor: Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Adobe Learning Manager article

Hi Bobby, I added verifiable sources from reputed organisations, please let me know if it works.

Draft:Adobe Learning Manager Malenia5493 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Malenia5493, your edits already look like improvements. I see it is in the queue, so I will let another reviewer take a look. My suggestion is to not use wikivoice to say something has been "covered by" or "discussed in". Instead, write about what those sources have said about the subject and then cite to the coverage. For example:

• The website PhotoshopNews has discussed the history of Adobe Photoshop.^[1]
• Photoshop was developed in 1987 by two brothers, Thomas and John Knoll, who sold the distribution license to Adobe Systems Incorporated in 1988.^[1]

Only one of those is useful to someone coming to learn more about a subject in an encyclopedia, and this helps the reviewer determine the extent of the coverage in the source material. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, genuine thanks for your help and suggestions . I truly appreciate it. I have tried my best to add more value to the citation. Please let me know me know if it’s okay.

I noticed other reviewers flagging this draft on a common point and I’m looping you in on this as well. That the information provided on Adobe Learning Manager overlaps with Adobe Captivate. To be clear, it’s been mentioned once in the Adobe Captivate page as a single clause in the said software’s version history.

While Adobe Captivate helps Instructional designers build course content, Adobe Learning Manager is a software that helps Learning and Development (L&D) teams deliver learning programs and track learner progress. Two completely different teams.

While both belong to the Adobe suite of products, they serve completely different purposes. Adobe Learning Manager would require a separate article of its own just like Adobe’s other products.

For eg; Adobe Premiere Pro and Adobe After Effects, are both video tools in the Adobe suite but maintain separate articles because they serve distinct purposes.

It would help a lot if you could review it. I’ve tried my best to share info that serves the highest possible value to the user while keeping it neutral and aligning it with Wikipedia guidelines. Malenia5493 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Malenia5493, forgive me because I'm not familiar with the subject area; but quoting your draft writing here: "Adobe Captivate Prime and was later rebranded as Adobe Learning Manager", is this not the same product then that has been rebranded? The content of the draft article and your comment here don't align?

May I ask, have you used a large language model "AI" chatbot (eg: ChatGPT) in either your draft writing or your message here?

Please answer those two questions and I can better explain the analogies either way, and I'll explain the relevant policies and guidelines based on your answers here and how they apply to other articles—however please keep in mind, the existence of another article does not set any precedent in regards to other articles; policies are applied to any individual article in question in whole.

I've marked the submission as under review while I wait for your responses. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bobby thanks again for reaching out so promptly and helping me out with the draft.

To your first question, let me clarify the differences super quickly:

Adobe Captivate is an elearning authoring tool used to create course content such as simulations, quizzes and interactive modules. It’s existed since 2004.

Adobe Captivate Prime was a separate product. It was a learning management system launched in 2015 to host, deliver and track that course content.

Adobe Learning Manager is the current name for Adobe Captivate Prime. It was rebranded in 2022. Adobe Captivate Prime and Adobe Learning Manager are one and the same product.

To clarify your second question, no I have not used AI. I work in the L&D domain and so I have a grasp over authoring and learning programs. Malenia5493 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Malenia5493--okay, my bad, sorry I can see now how they are technically distinct but related products, thanks for the clarification. I'm glad I asked because the advice I originally typed out would have made no sense.

I'm going to break it down into a couple things.

With regard to writing the draft, avoid just listing out § Features, § Use cases. As a bullet point list, we begin to drift back into the category of WP:NOT. Especially when they are just two plain lists back to back, it leaves the area of {{Cleanup list}} and starts to look like promo. I understand this can be a fine line to walk when trying to write an article about a product but two of these sections back to back begin to look like WP:PROMO or WP:CATALOGUE. The cleanup tag gives a good recommendation about bulleted lists: "incorporat[e] them into the text of the article." You'll see I've already done some cleanup with regard to this (as well as oversectioning, reorganizing following the typical layout). I've pulled out the "Market context" section into a § Background section, that should help give the article context. I've also separated the items to be what I think read better to make it clearer that these are separate products, and added text that shows that. I would encourage you to review my work and makes sense. I might be off the mark though, please feel free to re-work or remove my additions. I'll also leave a comment mentioning the distinction to make it clear to future reviewers.

With regard to actually accepting the article, I hesitate to because software is one of those things I tend to avoid. By the nature of it, reviews (I'll tell you they are important why in a second) tend to be very informal or digital by nature of the area they operate in. Broadway theatre shows get reviewed by newspapers of record and by critics. Software collects a lot of little reviews and those are presented by review aggregators like G2 or TrustRadius, and these are closer to user-generated content (WP:UCG). User-generated content is not considered reliable and does not contribute to determining notability (on Wikipedia, the policy is Wikipedia:Notability, a policy; with respect to software, see WP:NSOFTWARE, a guideline). So then I like to see three (more about this at WP:THREE) reviews of software that appear in by-lined articles from reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage conducted by independent analysis in reviews that are published in reliable sources that are secondary in nature: WP:SIRS. I can't say I'm seeing that here. That would be my honest take of the draft at this point in time unfortunately.

Let me know if there's more I can help with, or answer other questions you may have. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The last thing I was going to add was something I did have earlier but got lost in the rewrite. Because these are related topics, something that isn't independently notable can be incorporated into a related article. If you aren't able to find sources that you think do sufficiently demonstrate WP:N, then consider merging the content into the main article. Am I correct in understanding Adobe Learning Manager uses only Adobe Captivate? If so, then there is an option for an addition section in the article on the later. Consider how the software GraphPad Prism is only a section of the article GraphPad Software, the defunct company. Not saying that is necessarily the mandatory route at this junction, but always an option. By all means, AFC reviewers are not the gate-keepers of the project; we've just been around long enough to try and apply principles to help new editors--we definitely get things wrong too from time to time.

Sorry I don't have a better grasp of the industry. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)