This is an archive of past discussions with User:Garuda3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sahaib3005 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KC Lights and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:KC Lights, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Iamfarzan were:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:McGinty’s Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:McGinty’s Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Palmer (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tom Palmer (author), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hi! I see you've reverted the redirect of the 2019 Q School - event 2. Please see the talk at WT:SNOOKER, where there was some consensus that these events weren't independently notable, and that they would be better suited covered by an article covering all three events (see 2019 Q School (snooker)). Happy to take to AfD, but a merge for all three events, but I think it's unlikely they meet GNG on their own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)21:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I came here to advise that notable people taking part in an event doesn't make the event notable. However, seeing a conversation has started... Merging all three event articles into 2019 Q School (snooker) would lead to either an unwieldly article or a lot of information being lost to keep the article manageable. Looking at it another way, if the sub-pages didn't exist and all the information was contained in 2019 Q School (snooker), then there would probably be calls for the article to be split.
This does actually raise a bigger question about coverage of sports. How much depth should we be giving to tournaments? Do we give in-depth coverage, which means sub-pages to keep the main page from being unwieldy, or do we just summarise on a single page? Looking at tennis, we have multiple sub-pages for each tournament, men's singles, ladies' singles etc. Virtually all of these pages fail the requirement should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats of WP:SPORTSEVENT. A lot have a simple XXXX is the defending champion for the lead, not even mentioning tennis on the page. I think this needs a bigger conversation than the notability of individual sub-pages of a single event. We need to be establishing a consistent approach for events in all sports. This also needs to be a community wide discussions, leaving it solely to individual projects would probably end up in wild inconsistencies such as we have with the SNGs for sportspeople. --John B123 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
These pages have been merged. The draws to the individual events, which are the only thing that are on each subpage, aren't exactly important. It's pretty simple for how we should treat this - does the event have enough coverage to meet GNG? If not, the info on who won etc should be merged across. See 2019 Challenge Tour where I've done the same thing. We should totally not just be a place to replicate brackets from other events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)06:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me know if you would rather I took them to AFD, but I think redirecting is a much better use, and likely the outcome of any discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)06:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your message. I'm not familiar with snooker myself but I feel it would be a shame to lose the information on the individual event pages. I see 2019 Q School (snooker) has some prose, could the diagrams be copied into that page as well? My reversion of redirects was not a personal thing at all, I have just realised a lot of content is being redirected without any wider discussion. As it appears this has been discussed in this case (and in your message here), I'm not too fussed whether the pages are merged or kept separate. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The draw, (or brackets), are simply copied from [2]. For events where the individual tournaments don't meet GNG, we generally merge them into one article, covering who won, and any other info. I've done my best to make the 2019 Q School article as a point to merge these, similarly as to how I handled the 2019–20 Challenge Tour. Whilst we could have a long list of the results, these aren't professional tournaments, so aren't particularly important. I'm going to revert back to these being a redirect for now, as we did have a conversation at WT:SNOOKER. Feel free to comment there if there's anything further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you reverted the PROD tag on Hold Your Horse Is (band), saying "Decline PROD, somethign [sic] else having the same name isn't grounds for deletion". For reference, here is what I wrote originally: "This band doesn't meet notability guidelines for music. The article was started and largely written by the band itself. Anybody searching Wikipedia for "Hold Your Horse Is" would most likely be looking for the Hella album."
It is possible the band does meet notability guidelines. But a good faith response would've still been preferable. Violarulez (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't write a full enough response. I didnt think the nomination was in bad faith, I just thought it was an odd rationale for deletion. I generally decline PRODs if there is any chance a subject may be notable, so please don't take it personally. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no past experience nominating articles for deletion, but I have a hard time believing that lack of notability and largely being written by the subject itself is an odd rationale. so... I don't take it personally, but I think there is a misreading or miscommunication going on. I will try renominating at some point, and remove the third sentence to avoid confusion. As well as spelling out why I don't think they are notable. Violarulez (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilhar railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PROIV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note this regarding an XfD that was raised almost immediately the one you participated in for the same article) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Salimfadhley was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
The draft has not been significantly approved since it was last declined. Please attempt to fix the problems before resubmitting it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Palmer (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tom Palmer (author), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Please never undo my edit when I prod something. I improved the article in the same edit as the prod. You remove the prod manually. Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I missed your changes. I've had a different user complain because I undid their prods manually and didn't use the undo button. NemesisAT (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BOYZ (Jesy Nelson song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:BOYZ (Jesy Nelson song), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Occasionally life gets in the way... I have to be careful sometimes not to let Wikipedia get in the way of everything else! NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
* This article does not have sufficient references.
References about the this railway station and district served are necessary. Timetables of individual rail services are insufficient and do not confer notability. Kindly do the needful.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
* This article does not have sufficient references.
References about the this railway station and district served are necessary. Timetables of individual rail services are insufficient and do not confer notability. Kindly do the needful.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Sarah Story, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk11:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I'll be on the look out. I caught both Troopers and Pac Crest because I had started them, but I'll go check out the others. Littledrummrboy (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Article: Atul Raghav
Hi, Thanks for voting and participating in the discussion. I wanted to tell you that I believe Cassiopeia has a personal dispute with the subject that's why he is voting many times and commenting like that. Also, I feel that sources like Dainik Jagran, Navbharat Times, Apn News and English Newstrack are reliable sources along with match results according to Wikipedia guidelines and the subject passes the WP:GNG. Kindly save the article because he is notable. India have a limited athletes in taekwondo and we all know them Grade Ranking Championship are not a small event. They are notable enough and he has won bronze medal which is sufficient to be notable. Divineplus (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
Hello, unfortunately I do not have the power to save the article, in fact I have the same power as you: to vote in the discussion. I was actually replying to a different user, not Cassiopeia (who has only made two comments). I doubt they have a personal dispute with the subject, though I do disagree with them as I feel the subject does pass WP:GNG which is sufficient for an article to be kept. I think the best thing to do if you're able to is to expand on why you think the sources are reliable, and also work on expanding the article itself if possible. NemesisAT (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I texted Nomadicghumakad on his talk page regarding the sources that they are reliable enough but he didn't replied to me. Even I made Cassiopeia understand about this but he also did the same. They are not ready to listen. Now, I myself feel that they have a personal dispute because as an administrator or an experienced editor, they would have tagged the article for adding sources or would have replied to me but they are biting me as a new editor or like they have a personal issues with the subject. If you find more about the subject (i.e) is reliable which i believe you will find easily,you can help me to improve the article. Divineplus (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
An article you recently created, Songting railway station, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk21:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Script
@NemesisAT: There is a script available that enables you do a Google CSE search. CSE means custom search engine. It searches a particular group of entities. I will try and find for you. scope_creepTalk12:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
NemesisAT glad to meet you. I have seen you on the project! I like to research, and I like the challenge of looking at an article about Big John. I love to build it out and research it. What a great project this is! I love the ARS and what it does, - detractors say it is for canvassing but it is not. Look up Mac Ross and you will see a recent example of ARS work. If an article can be saved by RS, we save it. Go look at Big John, I only worked on it for a half hour - imagine a few more hours? Someone who ivoted delete started reverting me so I left the article for a bit. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Lightburst, thanks for your message! I have followed the project page now. The Big John AfD is puzzling because we have several references in the highest quality publications, and we have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over several months, yet some editors seem to be jumping through hoops to try and get this article deleted. It really puzzles me because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and doesn't even try to limit itself to topics a real encyclopedia would cover (as anyone who has tried to delete a railway station article would know). So why are some people so fussed about whether something is encyclopedic or not? Anyway, the ironic thing is, I only found out about the Article Rescue Squad thanks to Avilich's comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 22! NemesisAT (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Right, I am not sure why some editors marry themselves to the first notion they have. In other words, I have been a part of AfDs where smart editors withdraw their nomination after we improve an article. Sadly, the majority of noms appear to dig in and some even start reverting the improvements. They actually get angry that someone thinks the article they nominated is a keep. My only goal right now is to edit and improve the project. I do not care what happens in the backrooms of the project. The reality is, if we want to improve articles, we can post on our own talk pages, or collegially WP:FOLLOWING editors we admire or those with common interests. I found my way to the ARS when I started an article Jean Mill. I had no idea what I was doing when the article was AfD'd. And the nominator mocked me with acronyms. The ARS then listed and improved the article, and argued in the correct vernacular. It took me a very long time to learn my way around. Some editors harassed me just for participating in the ARS. I even caught a block when two editors repeatedly erased my contributions. The project is not kind to newcomers. The learning curve is steep. Ever since my experiences with the ARS I have been sold. I believe Jimmy Wales had the ARS in mind when he began the project. Probably why we have policy like preserve and ATD. With that said, I am not allergic to ivoting delete. Plug your own name in and see what it says. Glad to meet you! Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
PROD removal
FYI, this PROD you removed has perfectly acceptable grounds - not playing professionally means a player fails NFOOTBALL and is non-notable. Now we'll have to take to AFD where deletion is inevitable. GiantSnowman19:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. The reason I ask is that you sometimes use the word "declining" when removing a PROD. As I understand it, declining it would be the action that an administrator takes, whereas a normal user would "contest" the PROD instead. Thanks for your attention. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle22:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, to be honest it's not something I've heard of before and I don't really see the difference given it's the same action being taken at the end of the day. But I don't mind, I can change the wording. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Jiaxing Tram, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk18:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I think the result was an overreaction and largely based general dislike for the ARS project, but there you go. Don't be disheartened! NemesisAT (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Most features we have been working on are currently available on a handful of wikis; our plan is to keep collecting input from those wikis for a little longer, improve the features some more, and then deploy them on the remaining wikis. The mentioned changes in the VE template dialog can probably be expected in the first months of 2022. I hope that they'll then will make your life in the wikis easier! -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johanna, thanks for this. I'll keep a look out and look forward to any improvements. I also use VisualEditor on my own wiki and we are always happy to see improvements to the editor. I think some unnecessary templates on Wikipedia give you developers a hard time but from the various discussions I've started on this issue few people here want to change that sadly. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 718 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Yeah, Olos88 deserves some props; he was legitimately trying to improve the article, rather than Ludost Mlacani's knee-jerk obstructionism. (For all that guy's whining about what a football maven he is, he's made five substantive edits in article space to football articles in the last calendar year.) Ravenswing 15:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
Please indicate how this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any charting or critical reception.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alewya Demmisse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alewya Demmisse, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, NemesisAT!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Page needs more references to satisfy general notability. It should comply with WP:STATION.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
This article needs more references. It should comply with WP:STATION. Sina (in Chinese) is not admitted; it is a user generated source.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Bazhong–Dazhou railway, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk14:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
Resubmitted without improvement. Still don't see how the person meets WP:MUSICBIO
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alewya Demmisse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alewya Demmisse, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
File:Interlake Maritime Services logo.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Interlake Maritime Services logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:Interlake Maritime Services logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello @Dormskirk:, I am familiar with citing sources (as you would see at X7 Coastrider) and as that article had plenty of sources I dind't deem it necessary to duplicate those on the PRI article. Regardless, I've added a source to the PRI page now. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
.jpg)
