User talk:CSMention269

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

Draft:Timo_Novotny

Hi there, Thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I understand your concerns regarding the guidelines, but I’m also feeling a bit frustraded now as the entry seems to be fine in the german version and gets declined here. How might I improve the draft further? Would you have any concrete ideas of how to get this approved as the article is fine for Wikipedia in german? The subject of the article — a filmmaker and visual artist — has been covered in international media outlets such as Variety and Indiewire and won several prizes, his latest docu series has aired on multiple stations in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Czech Republic and Slovakia.There are numerous articles about him in other languages (including German, French, and Spanish). So it seems that i am doing something wrong here? What would that be? Please also consider that while he may not be widely known in English-speaking countries, English often serves as a bridge language in Central Europe — enabling dialogue between, for example, Austrians and Hungarians or Germans and Slovaks. So having this entry in English could help make his work more accessible and visible to a broader audience. Do you have any recommendations on how I might present this information more effectively to meet notability guidelines? I’d be truly grateful for any tips or feedback that could help improve the draft and make the entry available to the public. All the best,

Michael MLachsteiner (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First improve the draft by fixing the citations. Read WP:REFBEGIN for that. Also you need to remove the red links in the topic. Read WP:MOS. Once you fix these issues you can resubmit the draft and others can review your page. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thx, will do! MLachsteiner (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Articles for Creation review on 2025–26 Liga I

Hello CSMention269. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on 2025–26 Liga I is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, 2025–26 Liga I will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld, thank you for the invitation. But I might be engaged with the AFC Backlog and my personal stuff, so I can not join there. However I will get my time to eliminate the stubs of the article by expansion if I focus on improving certain pages. Again thanks for the invitation. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft : Timothy Hannem

I see this draft was declined : Draft:Timothy Hannem

But I don't understand, it says it needs :

"in-depth sources" "reliable sources" "secondary sources" "independent sources"

The majority of references at the end of the page link to french newspapers who are reliable, secondary and independant sources. Why are these references considered "not reliable", "not secondary" and "not independant" ?

The newspapers mentionned in the references are very well known in France, just take a look : Le Parisien, L'Express, Le Monde, Libération, 20 Minutes (France).

Thank you for your help. 147.161.152.126 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, some of the sources are his interviews on different topics, and the sites you mention passes WP:RS but in case of in-depth coverage about him, no. Read WP:SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm french and I'm having a hard time understanding what I need to do.

Are articles, reviews and interviews (from famous newspapers) not enough ? Can you tell what to do ?

Whats is "in-depth coverage" ? Can you give an example ? Thank you. 147.161.152.126 (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. In-depth means, the sources which has more details or information covered about the subject, such as his biography or rise in career, etc. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It helps use to verify or confirm that the content put in Wikipedia with reliable sources with in-depth coverage (detailed information on it). Read WP:THREE for more. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! The subject has pictures on his blog of articles depicting his biography, career etc, but can I use newspapers scans as a source ? Will they be considered legit ? Do I just have to write"Panorama Fresnois #174 - February 2019" ?

I'm refering to this article : https://www.glauqueland.com/presse/2019-panorama-fresnois-big.jpg 147.161.152.126 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to Wikipedia:Teahouse to know more questions. I am not French so I cannot understand anything but it may work as a reference if it is part of the webpage and not picture itself. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it may work as a reference if it is part of the webpage and not picture itself"

Well, the majority of the sources I've painstakingly put on the draft are online version of articles published on real paper by these newspapers, so I'm a bt confused as what I have to do so that the sources can be considered "legit". *sobbing* 147.161.152.126 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added 2 sources (#5 and #8) taken from a book written by an historian. In his book he references the subject, but it's not an interview. I hope everything will be allright this time ? Thank you. Link: Draft:Timothy Hannem. 2A01:E34:EC77:6DE0:4432:541B:58A7:359E (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source; not two. And seem to include passing mentions rather than significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nasha jurm aur gangster

Hi, bro. Pls checked out this article is 2 years old, please see- Draft:Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters i checked its a very popular film in india, it was in wikipedia from 2 years, please see the history of the film, i have check bro you also edit this film in past. after the film release was redirect by @user:Grabup Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters where he stated no reliable critical reviews available. I also searched in Hindi using 'नशा जुर्म और गैंगस्टर्स' but found nothing. But i have found this critic review of abp here by amit bhatia- the film https://www.abplive.com/movie-review/entertainment/movie-review-nasha-jurm-aur-gangsters-review-rajkumar-patra-pan-india-movie-review-in-hindi-2942967 thats it! issue solved. this is a pan india movie & its have enough source to show notability. 2 times of india, one ndtv, one zee news as secondary sources and others sources. See Their are some articles which has reliable source regarding the article which address you well. This one times of india source about the film- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bengali/movies/action-thriller-nasha-jurm-aur-gangsters-gearing-up-for-release/articleshow/99174921.cms

Another Times of india source about the director who playing the lead role in the film. source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bengali/movies/rupkumar-finally-fulfills-his-dream-of-playing-a-gangster/articleshow/100098330.cms

Another times of india movie releasing date proof: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/movie-details/nasha-jurm-aur-gangsters/movieshow/113492052.cms

This one abp news critic review by famous bollywood film reviewer Amit bhatia. https://www.abplive.com/movie-review/entertainment/movie-review-nasha-jurm-aur-gangsters-review-rajkumar-patra-pan-india-movie-review-in-hindi-2942967

Those source are enough for an article general notability in wikipedia, although it was in wikipedia from 2 years as i mentioned previously I belive its have enough notability for a film. Thanks. DivitNation (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NFILM, just critical reception is not enough to qualify for notability. The decision is upheld. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read. It's not have only one notability. It's have times of india sources with others sources which it's was from 2 years in wikipedia. It's have others sources too which you have ignored. Their is many articles are in wikipedia with weak sources. DivitNation (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention that it does not have only one notability? Those are critical receptions you mention, though not having significant coverage to prove WP:NFILM. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please check the times of india articles. It has all mention in those articles also NDTV and ZEE news as secondary source. DivitNation (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, you can use it, but you film may not pass the WP:NFILM. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So why this articles is pass? Rahul_Mazumdar this page have all times of Indian none notable article. My draft has two times of Indian article with one abp news, ndtv, zee news, TV 9. So why this one pass and my one not. DivitNation (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an actor and a film. The actor has four lead roles in four serials, passing WP:NACTOR. This is a film. Your logic seems to be irrational. Talk to WP:Teahouse ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Barry Pittendrigh

Hi. Thank you for reviewing Draft:Barry Pittendrigh. He meets criteria 5 of WP:NACADEMIC for holding a named chair at Purdue University. Right now, in the draft you have declined I have cited this as a reference for the chair. I was doubtful of the authenticity of the publication, but then I thought maybe a non-connected source would be better than a connected source. Specific criteria notes say that "for documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." So a link from Purdue would be better reference for this. This news from Purdue confirms that he was endowed the John V. Osmun Endowed Chair at Purdue. I have added this to the article. Does it fix the issue? HRShami (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to inform but the institution you referred is not notable, therefore, not considered. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue University suggests otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, thanks for informing. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Andy Mabbett mentioned Purdue University is one of the most notable institutes in the US, if not the world. It's an R1 university. Given this, does the link and the named chair fix the issue of notability? HRShami (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]