User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 56

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. I did this on a mobile device and references there are tricky for me. I'll try to add some later on the computer.

That said, I think notability is established by means of the role (vice Chancellor), which is the highest office in a UK University (see criterion 6 for notability for academics) . I know little to none on computer science to judge her academic contributions otherwise and my only reason to create the stub was noticing WP is 2 VCs away from the current one for this university. So, if I add references to her (former) VC job, will that be enough?

Askateth (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Askateth: the article states that she is pro-VC and previously acting VC; I don't think either of those is quite the same as VC proper. And since there is very little information in this short stub, I couldn't determine notability via another aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Acting VC is VC for a fixed term (in this case, and often, a full year) rather than an open term position. They're the same role and have the same responsibilities. There isn't another VC while an acting VC is in the post. Perhaps if I add the specific dates of tenure this would clear the notability issue? Otherwise when the next VC is added it will look as if there was a full year of anarchy at this university ;-) Askateth (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Askateth: yes, I did think that the acting position might just about qualify, but decided to draftify all other things considered. If you can add more sources, and generally develop the content a bit more, that would be great. BTW, on second reading of the source, it mentions that Fasli has held the "UNESCO Chair in Analytics and Data Science". If that turns out to be a named chair (in the normal meaning of the term), then that could qualify her under NACADEMIC #5. Do you know anything more about this position?

A year of anarchy at a university sounds highly appropriate to me! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So as far as I understand, a named chair is normally a position, funded externally to fund a particular person and the Chair dies when they leave. AFAI can tell from info online, UNESCO Chairs (note the list there is out of date, since at least Fasli herself is missing) are purely honorific and have no funding attached to them. That does not mean that they are not highly prestigious though, and I would think it should qualify notoriety under criterion 2. It is unclear to me if she keeps the position once she has moved to Sussex, or if she moved with it. It seems to me from Essex's website that Fasli is still partially formally associated to Essex, since they did not take her off their website, which would explain why UNESCO hasn't changed the website. In any case, for notoriety purposes, it probably does not matter, but it means I need to be a bit more careful when phrasing. Askateth (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on publicly available information I think I've added as much as I possibly can. Let me know what you think and whether it can be published. Askateth (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Askateth: okay, thanks. That UNESCO chair might be okay, but (like the acting VC-ship) it's probably a bit borderline. Meanwhile, it seems her h-index is only 22, which in a buzzy field like big data and AI/ML isn't terribly high; not a deal-breaker, but another 'borderline' factor, I'd say.

Based on all of that, I'm happy enough to move this back into the main article space, but I wouldn't want to patrol it myself, so that it at least gets another pair of eyes. How does that sound? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I am not sure how high h-index 22 is in Computer Science and I suppose it would depend on the specific subfield within CS she is in. In maths, an h-index 22 would be pretty amazing (most Whitehead Prize awardees in recent years have half of that or less). My reason to create the article is that I think we should have continuity of VC roles for, at least, all UK pre-92 universities and in this case I felt confident enough to create a stub without too much effort (and, generally, I am OK with some articles being a forever stub). So I was writing it based on her leadership, not her scientific contributions, which is why I added the most relevant bit of her tenure (the unprecedented redundancies). For the same reason, I would like to see her successor also listed but I don't feel confident enough to create her stub. Perhaps once she's been in the role for long enough to have a couple of articles mentioning her in the news I can give it a try.

As for patrolling, sure. Happy to add her to my watchlist once you move it to the main space.

Thanks for the help and constructive criticism! Askateth (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Askateth: I moved it back into the main article space. Because I'm autopatrolled, that means it gets patrolled automatically, and I didn't then want to unpatrol it because that sometimes causes problems with search engine indexing etc. So I'll leave it like that, and if someone takes issue with this, they can come and slap my wrist if they wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I just proceed to speedy tags. Thanks for the trust. BusterD (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I must say, this one is testing the limits of my trust, and it was never my strong suit to begin with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi recently active admin,

Just wanted to notify someone about a recent WP:legal threat posted at WP:BLPN.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#c-FinnDirector-20250915224100-Amanda Eliasch

This content, added without her approval, misrepresents her apolitical identity and causes reputational harm. Legal action is being pursued against those responsible. Wikipedia must remove this section to prevent further defamation and ensure no similar content is reinstated. Thank you for your immediate action.
— — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnDirector (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Blepbob (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Blepbob. The user is already blocked for edit warring, but I will post on their talk to clarify the legal threat issue (it isn't entirely clear whether "those responsible" refers to whoever hacked Eliasch's blog, or the Wikipedia editor(s) who added the offending passage to her article). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Looking at Niharika Chouksey's deletion record, I am reminded of this banned sock master. The edits by YAKSH75 have made me think of it. Yet I have no concrete evidence yet to support an SPI. It woudl be a fishing expedition, which is deprecated, quite rightly. I have, however, given them the start of a Paid series of warnings. This also appears to be a CIR editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Timtrent: I agree, there is something not quite right with that one. I spent a fair bit of time earlier trying to dig into it, but couldn't find anything concrete, so far at least, although I didn't try particularly to match it with Arshifakhan61. All the socks in the Arshifakhan61 drawer are long since stale, the last confirmed CU match was over a year ago, so it would need solid enough behavioural evidence to justify a block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts. The paid warning route may be a solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I was told to repost the article but the COI template is still there do I have permission to remove it? The original accuser Onel5969 said "Okay then, simply move it back. Makes sense." After I explained that it was not COI. Im sorry, I take wikipedia very seriously. Tzim78 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tzim78: looks like it's been moved already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Drex Lee

• CoolEditer25 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Image in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have carefully checked the references again. The current citations include published works (e.g., Mufti Muhammad Shafi’s *Ma'ariful Qur'an*), official fatwa institutions such as Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, and scholarly resources (e.g., Ibn Baz’s rulings). These are considered reliable and verifiable within the context of Islamic jurisprudence.

At present, these are the strongest available sources on the subject. If you are aware of additional high-quality academic or secondary sources, I would be glad to review and add them. However, the article is already based on the most authoritative references accessible for this topic. CoolEditer25 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article Joannie Bewa that was recently deleted. Could I please get a copy of the content in my user sandbox for future revision?

Appreciate it. Joannie Bewa (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joannie Bewa: sorry, but I won't do that. Your draft was totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not like LinkedIn etc., where you can write your own 'profile' to tell the world about yourself, and say pretty much whatever you want; here that is considered pure promotion. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic value and which are considered notable. While writing about yourself is not strictly speaking forbidden, it is very strongly discouraged. It may be that if you are genuinely notable, someone will one day write an article about you, but that someone should ideally not be you or anyone associated with you.

Another thing: Wikipedia articles are composed by summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft was completely unreferenced, except for the single citation to the TechChange article about your award, and therefore it self-evidently wasn't based on any published sources at all. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with basically every material statement, as well as anything potentially contentious and all private personal details needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Even if you know, say, your date of birth (which I hope you do!), you cannot include it in the article unless it has been previously published in a reliable source.

For these reasons, your draft content is unusable, even with heavy editing; it would need to be completely rewritten. The best I can do is, I can restore it to your sandbox for a brief time, so that you can copy the contents into a local file (such as Word document) on your system, for use outside of Wikipedia, but I will then have to re-delete it. If you want me to do this, let me know, and then also let me know once you have captured the content so I can delete it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your response, DoubleGrazing. I appreciate your explanation about reliable and independent sources. I am reviewing my draft and searching for better quality, in-depth references from independent and secondary sources, as you outlined. If you could, suggest what kind of sources would be specifically acceptable for a regional engineering college like mine? Would coverage in major newspapers, education-related magazines, or government accreditation reports be enough if they contain clear, in-depth discussion about the institution, not just listings? Also, if there are common mistakes people make with sources for college articles, could you share what to avoid? If you know of examples of accepted articles in similar institutions that got it right, a pointer would be extremely helpful. Thank you again for your guidance. I want to make sure my next submission meets Wikipedia’s standards, and your advice will be invaluable. Charan023 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Charan023: yes, major newspapers and magazines, and print and broadcast media more generally, can be good sources. I say "can be", because it depends on what sort of content it is, and who produced it. A lot of media outlets publish articles based on interviews, press releases, etc., which are primary sources (they are the subject talking) and therefore not independent. In online outlets, where 'print costs' are nil or negligible, and also in trade publications, which have low news thresholds for events in their sector, there are also a lot of routine business news being reported, such as appointments, financial results, minor awards, etc., which are not significant coverage of the subject, and are also usually based on press releases.

We want to see multiple secondary sources that have provided, on their own initiative, significant coverage of the subject, without any inducement or prompting by the subject. In other words, some journalist or news producer etc. basically must have said "this organisation is doing some really interesting things, let me research it and write an article about why their work is important". Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your detailed guidance on independent and secondary sources. Following your advice, I have recently added several citations to my draft, including:

Anna University affiliation: https://www.annauniv.edu/cai/District%20wise/district/Chennai.php

AICTE approval: https://www.aicte.gov.in/downloads/approved_institut_websites/tn.pdf

AICTE approval letter: https://mce.edu.in/uploads/certificate/aicte/letter-of-approval.pdf

IRINS research repository: https://mce.irins.org/

TNLEA counseling code listing: https://www.tnlea.com/QuickLinks/LEA-2025/listofcollegs.pdf

Daily Thanthi student admissions coverage: https://www.dailythanthi.com/news/tamilnadu/welcome-to-first-year-students-at-meenakshi-engineering-college-1177199

The Times of India on public engagement: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/over-4-lakh-people-take-voting-pledge-set-world-record/articleshow/108907930.cms

May I please ask whether these sources move my article closer to the required standard for in-depth, independent coverage? If not, could you suggest what type or examples of press, magazine, or academic coverage would be considered significant enough for acceptance? Any further tips would help greatly.

Thank you again for your time and support!

Charan023 Charan023 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Charan023: no, the first five are primary sources, and the last two don't provide significant coverage of the institution. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for clarifying, I now understand that most of my existing sources are either primary or do not count as significant independent coverage.

Would you be able to suggest strategies or specific places to look for acceptable secondary sources? For example, would education-focused news platforms, feature stories in The Hindu, The Times of India, or major Indian education magazines be suitable if they provide in-depth reporting about the college’s achievements or history?

If you know of any reference databases, archives, or ways to identify in-depth journalistic coverage about regional colleges, your guidance would be very helpful. Any tips or links on how other successful articles have found such sources would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for your advice and support!

Charan023 Charan023 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What can i do to get the page published? This is our 2nd attempt. Azim Premji Foundation is one of the biggest Not for profit organization in India, with reorganization from various global forums, it deserves to have a Wikipedia page. Azim Premji, founder of the foundation has a page. Azim Premji University, one of the wings of the foundation has a page, so I think there is no reason to decline Azim Premji Foundation page repeatedly. Please look into this and help in get published. TIA Sambitapf2024 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sambitapf2024: what you have to do is to demonstrate that this organisation is notable according to the WP:ORG guidelines. Your draft currently does not do that. Just because there exists a Wikipedia article on some other, related subject, has no bearing on this; each subject has to demonstrate notability in its own right, as notability is not inherited by association.

Another thing you have to do is to read and respond to the conflict of interest (COI) query I posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, will work on this and resubmit.

Already replied on talk Sambitapf2024 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Don’t need to make up anything. You can do anything you want on that sandbox. I just so happened to edit it 200 times. Astrawiki3203 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This user is an LTA, can you revoke their TPA? I've reported them to SRG for locking. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aydoh8: yeah, done that.

Please don't get into edit wars with vandals, it's not worth it. On a bad day, might even get you blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

I noticed that my account was blocked and my draft "SIP Academy India" was deleted, citing promotion and repetition. I understand that previous versions may have contained issues with promotional tone or insufficient independent sourcing, and I apologize for that.

I have since learned more about Wikipedia’s policies and have rewritten my draft to strictly follow the guidelines for notability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. The new version cites only independent, major news articles (not company websites) such as The Hindu and The Times of India, clearly establishing significance and complying with neutral point of view.

I did not intend to violate any rules, and my motivation was to create an informative entry supported by independent sources. If any of my actions seemed to evade policy, it was not deliberate, and I am committed to fully respecting Wikipedia’s standards.

I kindly request that my account block be reviewed and reconsidered, and I am open to further guidance or mentorship from experienced editors. My intention is to contribute constructively, not to promote or disrupt.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Vikram023 136.185.17.142 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't deal with block-evading sockpuppets. If you wish to appeal your block, do so on your talk page, which you can still edit. Do not go around making edits under IP; you personally are blocked, not just your registered account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I do believe they are back: Thangaraj0220 recreating Draft:SIP Academy. Will you whack this mole or shall I thake it to SPI? insert joke about SPI Academy --bonadea contributions talk 09:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Bonadea, I'll go whack it. The will sure is strong in this one... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing! You left a note on my draft "Maestro college", saying it was created with chatGPT. It's important to note I created the entire article myself, and only used ChatGPT to make the citations adaptable to Wikipedia, is this also prohibited? Sharonb1994 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sharonb1994: my advice would be not to use AI at all; it doesn't know what it's doing, and is causing more problems than it's solving. Case in point: your citations were completely useless, because they didn't actually cite any sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thank you! I'll recreate it and submit for review again. Sharonb1994 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I created the page "Joannie Bewa" that was recently deleted. Could I please get a copy of the content restored to my user sandbox for revision? I would like to work on improving it to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I will appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Joannie Bewa (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joannie Bewa: as I said last week, I'm prepared to restore this for a brief time, on the understanding that you capture the content to a local file, and let me know once that's done so that I can delete it again. Please do not attempt to submit this for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, it is now available at User:Joannie Bewa/sandbox. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Joannie Bewa (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Okay. I was trying to figure out what that was, to determine how I should decline or reject it, and then I saw that, whatever it had been, it wasn't anything any more. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: yeah, it was a weird one. Luckily the author included a link to the Amazon page where the content was copied from. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure what my next steps should be, but Wikipedia said I needed to contact DoubleGrazing if I want to recreate a page similar to the one previously deleted. I would like to recreate the page I wrote about The Reporters Inc. to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. When I was originally creating the page, I was totally unaware I was violating copyright law. I thought by attributing any text I copied from the website that I would avoid any issues, especially for the organization's mission statement and documentary summaries.

I already have the content saved on a local file, so I don't need it to be restored. I just would like to the opportunity to fix my mistakes.

Thank you Viaannrad (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Viaannrad: you're not allowed to copypaste or even closely paraphrase third-party content, unless it is demonstrably out of copyright or licensed under terms compatible with Wikipedia (meaning, Creative Commons licence or similar). The source which the contents of your sandbox draft were taken from, TheReporters.org website, clearly claims copyright. Please do not attempt to recreate the draft with the same content.

In any case, we have no interest in what a subject has to say about itself, so in that sense taking content like this from the subject's website is completely pointless. We want to see what others, specifically reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about the subject and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Thus, the need shouldn't really arise to copy content from their website in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I could do with some assistance at User talk:Timtrent#Draft:Niharika Chouksey. I see CIR issues 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. My thoughts about CIR remain. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, reaching out because you commented on the AfCHD discussion relating to this draft. The reviewer is convinced that there is a BLP concern: please read WP:BLP carefully. It explains about verifiability, writing style, and reliable sources. You have raised a concern only regarding the statement that “he died some years ago.” However, whether the person is deceased or still living does not affect this policy.

Am I completely misinterpreting the BLP policy? I understand it to only apply to living persons, or very recently deceased persons. There are unsourced statements in the draft, but none seem to engage BLP (except perhaps for the names of the subject's children). If you can offer any guidance about what I may have missed I would really appreciate it. Meadowlark (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Hi I saw your multiple rejections but I think you did not see I submitted the company page as to reference the products and company as a whole. I have also provided all of the neccessary citations and not sure why rejection continue? Seharuddin1 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Seharuddin1: because your drafts provide no evidence that this business is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline for companies.

Also, given that Draft:AMKUS Rescue Systems had already been rejected, changing the capitalisation and submitting instead Draft:Amkus Rescue Systems is gaming the system. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you check the category I submitted this for? Not sure where so much hostility is coming from? 2601:246:5180:2A90:7487:728:DF1F:A6E7 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

(I don't know who you are, since you're not logged into any user account, but I'll assume you're Seharuddin1.)

There's no hostility, since there's no need for hostility. All there is, is me telling you that your drafts contain no evidence of notability, and also that you're attempting to game the system, which is not particularly appreciated. (Oh, and you're going around inserting promo content to existing articles also, but we'll leave that to one side for now.) Not much more I can add to that, I don't think. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup hostility at it it’s finest right there^ as apart of the organizations customer service I hope they see this thread and provide proper training on what should be said to people 2601:246:5180:2A90:7487:728:DF1F:A6E7 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to help "them" see this, you're always free to report me to WP:AN. Just be sure to log into your account first, or at least mention that you're here to promote your business. For context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am absolutely here to promote a business that helps provide tools to firefighters to save people’s lives! Hats off to you 2601:246:5180:2A90:7487:728:DF1F:A6E7 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Seharuddin1, please log in before your next edit, and read all of WP:WPNOT, especially WP:NOTPROMO. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

apologies I have it on my phone and I thought it auto logged me in. This is honestly my absolute first time submitting something to Wikipedia. I am honestly lost and just need some guidance on how for it to be approved. I tried multiple times but I am not sure where the issue is. I included all the resources that were asked. I sincerely would appreciate your help. Seharuddin1 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, it now looks as if Seharuddin1 has:

• edited while logged out from IP addresses including 207.237.200.120 and 2601:246:5180:2A90:0:0:0:0/64
• recreated this draft at Draft:Battery Powered Rescue Tool
• spammed this company's website in various articles including Hydraulic rescue tool, Vehicle extrication, and NASCAR Xfinity Series at Daytona

I'll let you or another admin take further action if appropriate. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I resubmitted the topic for it to get submitted. Please read the article and advise what is advertised in this? I included all the verified sources required including the one from the aerospace. 2601:246:5180:2A90:65DE:97CE:FA6B:C98C (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

"AMKUS Rescue Systems to continue as Official Rescue Tools of NHRA". NHRA. April 24, 2024. Retrieved 9 October 2025. 2601:246:5180:2A90:65DE:97CE:FA6B:C98C (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this, @ClaudineChionh. I've blocked the user account and the IPs for spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi.
Thank you for rewing my article.
It has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by you were: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
Please let me know how to improve the sources I left. These are non-internet, because they are on books and magazines, when Internet was not widespread yet.
Torto subito (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Torto subito: sources don't need to be online (or in English), offline sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they otherwise meet our reliability etc. standards. When citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographic details to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification, see WP:OFFLINE.

In any case, we do need to know where the information in the draft is coming from. It currently has only two citations, one at the very beginning, and the other at the very end. Judging by the limited information about the sources, neither seems likely to have provided all the information in the draft. So if the information didn't come from those two sources, where did it come from?

Also, sports clubs are not inherently notable, they need to establish notability via the WP:GNG notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. 'Multiple' is usually interpreted as 'three or more', so even if the sources currently cited both satisfied the GNG standard, which I don't think they do, two sources wouldn't be enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, regarding Draft:Ronita Bardhan, I’ve cited what I believed were reputable sources (e.g., BBC, Nature/Nature Portfolio pieces, World Economic Forum coverage, and the University of Cambridge site for facts). I don’t fully understand the AfC comment “This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.” Could someone please point out which statements need stronger independent secondary sources, or what types of sources are required? I have provided authentic links of all the mentions. RupsaC (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)