User talk:DoubleGrazing

Hello! I created this draft page. I was just wondering what sources specifically are problematic? All sources published by the school or LPS are used in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion, and all other sources are reputable. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: none of the sources meet the standard required for WP:ORG notability. The three 10 11 pieces are just routine business reporting, and the other three are primary.

The vast majority of schools are not notable, and while this particular school may be an exception, the odds are against that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for the quick response! While I do agree with your reasoning, I can't help but wonder whether there is a separate set of notability guidelines for Educational Institutions. I personally wouldn't consider a school to be a 'company', but maybe prior consensus says otherwise. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: you're right, a school is not a company (except private for-profit ones), but it is an organisation, hence WP:ORG (and not WP:NCORP).

There used to be an assumption of notability for secondary schools (and higher), whereby merely existing made them eligible for an article, but that was changed ~10 years ago, and schools now have to establish notability by way of secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I will point out that both the links you provided do go to the same page, though. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. What was I trying to say was that I was pointing to that notability guideline not via NCORP, which would imply that we're talking about a business, but rather via ORG, which applies to non-commercial organisations like schools. But yes, by either route the destination is indeed the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to ask if you had any feedback on my edits so far? Thanks, Jess --Jess (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

I received a message from another editor that the removal of maintenance tags on wiki page can only removed by you - thank you very much for your assistance and guidance Davidt47 (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you recently blocked my draft about Hugo Demetz and DemetzArch, both well-renowned in the 5-star hospitality industry. Could you please explain why? Also, I would appreciate your guidance on what I should change in the copy. There is plenty of information available online about both of them, including articles and other sources. I kindly ask you to review it. Thank you in advance. Lily de Monaco (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lily de Monaco: I will answer your question, but first you answer mine, please:

1. Are you operating both the Lily de Monaco and Andrearossi62 user accounts? If yes, why do you have multiple accounts? And if no, then are you coordinating with each other?
2. What is your relationship with the subjects you're writing about? Between the two of you you submitted in quick succession five drafts on two individuals and two of their businesses. I assume there's a reason for that.

I did, in fact, query these matters on both your talk pages, but neither of you has responded. I would prefer that you reply there, because your answers relate to you, not me, and others may also have similar questions and it would be better that your answers were clearly visible on your talk pages. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your message.

Yes, I am operating both the Lily de Monaco and Andrearossi62 accounts. I created a second account because my original draft was blocked, and I wanted to understand the issue and proceed correctly.

To clarify, I am a journalist based in Monaco. I am not directly affiliated with, nor do I have any personal or financial interest in, the individuals or businesses I have written about. My work consists of covering well-known and established institutions in Monaco, particularly those recognized for their prestige and contribution to their respective fields.

The individuals mentioned in my drafts represent institutions in their sectors due to their reputation and standing, which is the reason for my coverage.

Thank you for your time and guidance. I look forward to understanding how I may adjust the drafts to comply with the required standards. Lily de Monaco (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lily de Monaco: firstly, on the matter of your user accounts, I would very strongly suggest that you only continue with one of them, and abandon the other. Using multiple accounts is a very easy way to get into trouble, and there is normally no need for it. If you absolutely insist on using both, then see WP:SOCKPUPPET, esp. sections WP:LEGITSOCK and WP:ALTNOTIFY, for advice on how to manage that.

As for your drafts, they are/were entirely unreferenced, which violates our core principle of verifiability, and that also in turn meant that they provided no evidence that any of the subjects were in any way notable, which is another core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about the subject, with each source cited against the information it has provided so that readers can check the source to verify that it says that which has been attributed to it. This process is outlined in WP:GOLDENRULE, I suggest you study that carefully.

Speaking of sources, since the information in your drafts didn't come from published sources (or at least none was cited) where did it all come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ll stick with Lily de Monaco. I also added some links for Hugo Demetz and the hotels he contributed to create. As for Demetzarch, you just have to Google it, and you’ll find many of the hotels they’ve designed. Unfortunately, I can’t even edit the draft since it’s blocked, so I can’t add links directly. But if you search for both on Google, you’ll find a lot of information and articles about them. As I said, they are well-renowned in the luxury hotel industry. Lily de Monaco (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lily de Monaco: it's not my job to Google anything, that's not how this works. You need to do the research to find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, then summarise what they have said, and cite the sources as references.

And yes, I deleted the Draft:ADM Club (both attempts) and Draft:DemetzArch drafts, because they were purely promotional. You will have to write new ones, following the GOLDENRULE approach.

You didn't answer my question, where did the information in these drafts come from? Also, where did you get the photos that you uploaded? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I gathered the information from their website, as well as from articles discussing them, and I also interviewed them directly - this is part of my job as a journalist!!! Regarding the photo, I took it from their website, and I asked the photographer for permission before using it!! Lily de Monaco (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lily de Monaco: you interviewed them and asked the photographer for permission to use their photos. Okay, that tells me quite clearly that you have an external relationship with these people, which gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which must be formally disclosed. I have already posted a COI query on your talk page; it contains instructions for how to disclose, and how to manage your COI while editing on Wikipedia.

Such close primary sources are of no use here. We have no interest in what these people have to say about themselves or their businesses, or in what their website says about them. We are only interested in what independent and reliable sources, mainly secondary ones, have said about them.

Also, with regard to the photographs, please note that it isn't enough for the copyright owner (whoever that may be) to give a permission – of which we have no evidence, AFAIK – for the photos to be used on Wikipedia, they must release them under a Creative Commons or similar licence compatible with Wikipedia. By uploading these photos to our servers you have not only violated our T&Cs, you have also violated the copyright owners' proprietary rights by making the photos available for anyone to do with as they please. I suggest that you arrange as a matter of urgency for the photos to be deleted from Commons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a few points regarding the photos and the content I added.

Authorization: I have written permission from the photographer to use the images, and I have explicitly credited them under their name, as per standard attribution practice. To my understanding, this fully respects the copyright agreement.

Conflict of Interest: I understand the importance of disclosing COI, and I am willing to follow the procedure outlined on my talk page. However, I feel that communication has been difficult regarding constructive feedback. I asked for guidance on improving my text, but the response I received seems to focus on discouraging the inclusion of the content rather than offering suggestions for improvement.

Content and sources: My article uses secondary sources where available, and interviews were conducted to supplement information not otherwise accessible in reliable sources. Writing about a prominent architect, whose works include globally recognized hotels, is not intended to promote a business but to provide verifiable information about a notable figure, similar to other architects and hotels currently covered on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate clarification on how I could adjust my contribution to meet Wikipedia’s standards without unnecessary removal of content that is verifiable and properly credited. Lily de Monaco (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lily de Monaco: none of the removed content, if by that you mean the two drafts I deleted, was "verifiable and properly credited", since it was all entirely unreferenced. As is the content in the two remaining drafts which I haven't (yet) deleted.

If information does not appear in reliable published sources, it cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. If you are basing anything in your drafts on what the subjects told you in an interview, that will quite simply not be acceptable.

Your handling of the photos does not comply with our licensing requirements, and there is no evidence (that I've seen at least) that confirms they have been made available under a compatible licence.

If you are finding this experience frustrating, I'm of course sorry to hear that, but I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame. So far you have done pretty much everything the wrong way, and I'm trying to straighten this out so that I don't have to block you from editing. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you. However, what I cannot and will not allow you to do is to promote these subjects, or to contravene our key policies and guidelines, or to violate third party copyright in a way that may make Wikipedia liable under law. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

recently I Post An Artical you Deleted Can You Expalian Why You delete I share My Bio ANd All Achiement Why To delete Also Give TAg promotional Aiabhishektyagi (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aiabhishektyagi: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for you to post your CV/resume or generally tell the world about yourself. You want something like LinkedIn instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that I cannot add my company or group? I checked a profile like Anil Ambani's, and it shares all his business information. Film stars also show their movie info. What am I doing wrong when I add my company info? If I am here, I want to show what I do. If I can't show it, why should I be here? Please correct this. Aiabhishektyagi (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aiabhishektyagi: whilst you can technically write about your business, on the whole it would be best if you didn't.

If you are going to do it anyway, you have to firstly understand our notability requirements. A business (or pretty much any other subject for that matter) doesn't justify an article just by existing, in fact the vast majority of businesses are not notable enough.

Secondly, you must write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and limit yourself to summarising what reliable and independent sources have previously published about your business; Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you to tell the world about your business, and any kind of promotion is forbidden.

And before you even get started on any of that, you must disclose your conflict of interest (COI), specifically the paid-editing kind, see WP:PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

can you help me for post what i write and post Aiabhishektyagi (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aiabhishektyagi: I'm happy to answer questions and point you in the right directions, but I'm not going to (co-)author your drafts, if that's what you mean.

I would urge you to properly take in what I've said above. It is far more likely than not that you and your business aren't notable enough to justify articles, and/or that you are not able to write about them in the manner that we require, and trying to force this issue is only going to result in you being blocked from editing. That benefits no one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I added additional sources addressing your WP:GNG concern and would appreciate your view on whether the draft is now worth resubmitting or if the available coverage is just not enough at all.

Its sure worth getting your opinion before investing more time into this:) LionmerterTHE (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@LionmerterTHE: I can see that you've added a few cites of globalsecurity.org, but that's not considered a particularly reliable source. The other sources are still all primary, apart from the Bangkok Post one.

Speaking of 'a few cites', you may want to take a look at WP:NAMEDREFS which lets you combine citations of the same source so they all appear together in the 'References' section, rather than as a list of multiple sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NAMEDREFS implemented.. I might submit again in the future, after I found more sources.... LionmerterTHE (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a NYT source to Draft:Thaicom 1 (satellite). Do you think, that might improve notability? Unfortunately the Satellite itself is not being named in the article. LionmerterTHE (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi again @DoubleGrazing,

Sorry, not trying to be annoying here.

Thanks for the review on Draft:LUSAT-1. I added now solid independent secondary sources (ARRL 2014 retrospective calling it Argentina's first satellite, the 1990 Universidad de Mendoza journal article "El primer satélite argentino LUSAT-1")

I understand it's a niche historical amateur-radio milestone but I really think, it does fulfill WP:GNG. Also considering, that the article does exist in Spanish, 日本語, Deutsch, Italiano, Magyar, Português

Notability isn't automatic just because it's in other WPs, I get that. Still, I reckon it's worth giving this a shot!:) LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing I am Purnama Resa Adi Purwanto, I am a writer of articles for mass media news who will help correct the case related to Ezra Renggana Parlindungan, please provide instructions and general rules that must be followed.

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezra renggana parlindungan/Archive.

Resapurn192 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ezra renggana parlindungan

please look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harold Foppele/Archive, but allow the two to Commons and to Wikiversity. I have very twitchy antennae about these two, who appear to have a similar argumentative style and appear to love the sane pseudoscience, pseudo academics, images of same type of things and people. Reporting things to WV is fairly pointless Commonsnis useful and fast, but I am not sure the dynamic. duo are approaching Global Lock thresholds 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Urgh. I've had another look, but I still can't suss them out. There's coordination, and there may be more than what's apparent, but whether it's enough to be sanctionable I don't know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Nor can I. Perhaps I will consider them to be sage and acolyte! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Now globally Blocked. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Strange case, that was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was very disappointed that my article was rejected, but the person I wrote about is known as a highly respected academic. This is all the information we have for now, because we know very little about this person. They are generally known in social media and academic circles. That's why I wanted to add it to Wikipedia. I wanted people with more concrete information to contribute to this section. If you publish the article in this form, we can continue to contribute by editing it as we acquire more permanent and academic information. Until next time, I wish you good work. All documents and information related to his/her resume will be added as sources become available. This is all we have been able to find so far. Beyazfilozof (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Beyazfilozof: I assume you're referring to Draft:Resul Genç? When I reviewed it, it was very insufficiently referenced, and provided no evidence that this person is notable enough to justify an article. I can see that you've since edited and resubmitted it, so you will get feedback in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning up the wiki page - would you be able to delete the maintenance tags ? Davidt47 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt review of my article submission for the "David C. Frederick Honors College" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_C._Frederick_Honors_College). I have updated the references to now comply as strictly independent of the University of Pittsburgh, which is what I inferred to be the primary issue, and I also removed some text that I was unable to properly attribute. If you'd be so kind, I would appreciate if you'd be able to provide me any further instruction if the page is still in need of revisions before approval. Given the two gifts to the Frederick Honors College of late, ($65 mil and $30 mil) it feels apt that we gain a Wiki page. This is my first attempt of creating one, and it's a fun challenge but also a bit ambiguous to navigate! Much respect for your work and thank you! ~2026-14430-76 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you moved the article Draft:Hockey Association of Bihar, Draft:Bihar State Sports Authority, Draft:Karate1 Youth League to draft space due to insufficient references and notability concerns.

Thank you for reviewing the pages. I would appreciate it if you could guide me on what specific improvements are needed so the article can meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements. I am willing to add reliable sources and improve the references.

If possible, please let me know what kind of sources would be considered acceptable for the topic.

Thank you for your time and help. Yogiin (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yogiin: the general notability guideline WP:GNG applies to most things. It requires significant coverage, directly of the subject in question, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. For organisations there is the WP:ORG guideline, but that is essentially the same as GNG, only interpreted slightly more strictly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to you regarding your response to my inquiry about an article I created and submitted for publication, which was unfortunately declined after it had undergone a review. The article in question is titled "Eyjólfur Guðmundsson," and it is a biographical article that describes an Icelandic economist and academic administrator with that same name.

When asking for some assistance at the Help Desk, you responded to me by inquiring whether I used any AI to create the article's draft. I can confirm that I wrote the draft article single-handedly, just as I have always been doing ever since becoming active on Wikipedia as an editor. Furthermore, I also wrote the inquiry for help with correcting that article myself (single-handedly), but, for some unspecified reason, it was labeled as being written by an unspecified AI program/tool.

Even though I have stated on numerous occasions (in discussions with several other Wikipedia users) that I have been editing/writing Wikipedia articles by myself (single-handedly), I have nevertheless been requested not to utilize any AI program/tool for editing or writing Wikipedia articles or for any other purposes whenever writing something on Wikipedia. Just like in all the previous cases, I can confirm that I did not use any AI program/tool for writing my inquiry for assistance regarding the article about Mr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson.

The only tool that I have ever used to help myself when writing or editing Wikipedia articles (or responding to inquiries or asking other editors for some assistance) is Grammarly, a web extension, whose primary task is to correct spelling and grammatical errors. Moreover, I have used Grammarly occasionally and not on a regular basis (whenever editing or writing Wikipedia articles); up until a few months ago, I was not even aware that Grammarly has been (as a result of recent years' improvements, modifications, and upgrades) also regarded as an AI tool by some individuals; however, as I stated on multiple previous occasions, I have used it only occasionally and always only and exclusively with the purpose of correcting spelling and grammatical errors. I don't have any upgraded version of Grammarly that would automatically write text instead of me, nor have I ever used any AI program/tool.

With deep appreciation,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@LaMarmora1854: okay, thank you for explaining.

Whether or not you used AI to generate your message at the help desk is by far the lesser of the issues; if you say you didn't, then I accept that.

The bigger problem is the references in the Draft:Eyjólfur Guðmundsson draft. Of the five sources cited, the first doesn't work (returns 'Síðan fannst ekki'); the second does work, but doesn't seem to have any (obvious) connection to the draft subject; the third returns a different page from the one cited; ditto, the fourth (points to a sub-page at greenlandtoday.com, but ends up at guidetogreenland.com's home page); ditto also the fifth (points to gamasutra.com, but ends up at gamedeveloper.com). As AI has a bad habit of hallucinating sources, I thought that might be the culprit here, hence my comment.

Having said that, I only now realise that you didn't actually write this draft, as it stands, or cite those sources. You seem to have written an earlier version back in July last year, but a month later a different user rewrote it and replaced the sources with the current five. My apologies, I was clearly barking up the wrong proverbial tree, and will now go bark up the right one! (Granted, you could have, and arguably should have, checked the sources before submitting the draft, but perhaps you didn't even realise that everything had been changed after your previous edit.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:DoubleGrazing and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Thank you for reviewing the page is created. I find that he subject does have notable media coverage which I stated in the cites. What can I do to improve the article of the artist for it to be published and for Google to find it when someone searches for him? Heyhas (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Heyhas: the draft Draft:Hasan Gök contains a single sentence ("Hasan Gök is a poet, spoken word artist and host from The Netherlands."), nothing else – where are these "cites" you refer to, and where the "notable media coverage"? What makes this person in any way worthy of an article in a global encyclopaedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

That is strange.. i added 5 cites referring to media/radio coverage as well as notable literature festival pages that confirm the notable identity of the subject. I cannot see it now either, however i did create the page on the Global Wikipedia while this person is only more notable in The Netherlands. Would it be better to create a Dutch page? The cites i used were also mostly in Dutch. Heyhas (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Heyhas: you do also have a draft on this person in your sandbox User:Heyhas/sandbox (in Dutch), and another at User:Heyhas/Sample page (in English). Perhaps you mean one of those?

There is no 'Global Wikipedia'. There are 300+ different language versions of Wikipedia, but they are all separate projects.

I'm not familiar with the Dutch Wikipedia, so can't say whether an article on this person would be accepted there or not.

Here on the English Wikipedia, sources can be in any language; obviously we would prefer them in English, if available, but that's not a hard requirement.

Lastly, please have a look at WP:AUTOBIO and WP:ABOUTME, just in case those apply. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes i mean the one in the Sandbox. Would you recommend me moving that one to be reviewed? Would that be a more eligible version? I have more notable sources of national Dutch media mentioning him if needed. Heyhas (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Heyhas: of those three, the sandbox one is certainly the most complete, and has sources. But it's in Dutch, so you would need to either translate it into English, or submit it to the Dutch Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing, I hope you don't mind me asking.

I have a draft article in my sandbox about Maltese philosopher and novelist Anton Sammut and would really appreciate any guidance in preparing it for Articles for Creation.

Another editor previously reviewed it but unfortunately has been unavailable for some time, and the author is hoping to move the draft forward.

For transparency, I know the author personally, so I would prefer another editor to review and submit it.

Here is the draft: User:Stephen_John_Cremona/sandbox

Many thanks for any advice or assistance.

— Stephen Cremona Stephen John Cremona (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In your role as an administrator for AfC you rejected the draft article: Tiffany Sparks (bishop) created by CapHammer.

Draft:Tiffany Sparks

I would like you to allow that article to be published so I can add additional references as it seems you are concerned about it needing secondary sources? I could also publish the article myself, but I want to discuss it with you first so that it is not deleted and we are in agreement.

My two reasons for allowing the article to be published are that bishops are notable and the references are already reliable, secondary sources, but we could add more if need be or explain why they are reliable and secondary.

Anglican Bishops are regarded as notable on Wikipedia by virtue of their office so this article should be accepted. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES and WP:BISHOPS. In particular, women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia as a group, are notable because of the rejection of women as priests or bishops by one diocese, so when a woman bishop is consecrated there is often media comment. That is why the List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia was kept, because independent commentary showed they were notable as a group. See List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

Your comment under the rejection of the draft because of sources was Comment: Primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC). Which sources do you regard as primary? What would you accept as a secondary source? The sources referenced to Anglican media outlets are used to support the factual statements of date and location of her consecration as a bishop. Some secondary sources with significant coverage of her as an ordained priest are the SBS program "Christians like us" (SBS is one of Australia's independent public broadcasters); her appearance on Q&A on the ABC which is also one of Australia's independent public broadcasters and a Guardian article about her, which is an independent newspaper.

So I think the draft should be published because of notability of Anglican bishops (especially female ones in Australia) and you can request additional secondary sources.LPascal (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LPascal: just for the record, I declined this draft, not rejected it (rejection means the end of the road, decline means you need to do some more work but can then resubmit), and also I didn't do it in any administrative capacity.

CLERGYOUTCOMES doesn't say that bishops are inherently notable. It says that in past AfD discussions bishops were "typically found to be notable". In other words, it often happens that people who are bishops are also notable, not that being a bishop is a free pass to notability.

Of the sources cited, #1, #2 and #5 are obviously close primary ones; #4, #6 and #8 are the subject talking (#8 is also close primary source); and #7 is only a passing mention. I couldn't quite make up my mind about #3 (Anglican Focus), it does read like secondary reporting, but the publication/outlet describes itself as "the official news site of the Anglican Church Southern Queensland" so is clearly at least indirectly associated with the subject. In any case, that one source alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.

That all said, if you wish to disregard my assessment and move this into the main space, that is entirely your call; you have the necessary permissions to do so, and I won't stand in your way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both @DoubleGrazing: and @LPascal: for taking the time to discuss this draft and for the constructive feedback. I have revised Draft:Tiffany Sparks in response to the concerns raised. Specifically, I have added an independent newspaper feature (The Sunday Mail, 12 January 2014, pp. 8–9) as a new secondary source, and ensured that the primary diocesan sources are used only for routine facts such as appointment dates and consecration details. I believe the draft now has a clearer balance of independent secondary sourcing alongside the existing Guardian, ABC, and SBS coverage, and I hope this addresses the WP:GNG concern. I will resubmit the draft shortly. Thank you again for your guidance — it has genuinely helped improve the article. CapHammer (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)