• Nfutvol (talk · contribs)
  • Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is sourced with in such a manner that includes significant coverage by multiple, independent sources including major media outlets, government records and documents, published books, et cetera. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

The organization and individuals associated with it have participated in government-led efforts to include participation in foreign aid programs, as well as lobbying and as witnesses before the US Congress. This is in addition to its notable role in rural electrification in the United States. As far as coverage, it has been the subject of reports in both the New York Times and the Tennessean, two major newspapers, as well as smaller newspapers across the United States, thereby fulfilling the second standard. Based on all of this, which is well beyond the guidelines in WP:N, I am unsure why this is being denied on the grounds of notability. nf utvol (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfutvol: firstly, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered; if you wish to appeal that, you need to take the matter up with the rejecting reviewer.

That said, the sources cited are mostly primary, with some close to the subject, and therefore do not contribute to notability. The few secondary sources, including the NYT piece, make only passing mentions of Meriwether. (Also just to point out that "having participated in government-led efforts", etc., is not how notability in the Wikipedia context is defined.)

For clarity, I am not arguing that the draft should have been rejected as opposed to merely declined, but I am saying that notability has not been established, in the way that you seem to believe. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the wording I used there was...poor, to say the least. Never write while tired! I'm currently working with the individual who rejected it, hashing out whether or not this actually is notable. I'm trying to step back and take a more objective look, I've gotten a little overly involved since this is the I've had rejected or substantially challenged in 15 years of on-and-off editing. nf utvol (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 007Ranjeet (talk · contribs)
  • User:007Ranjeet/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

007Ranjeet (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @007Ranjeet? Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what are mistake in that article correct those 007Ranjeet (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@007Ranjeet: the draft has various problems, but the biggest one, and the reason why it was declined each time and eventually rejected, is complete lack of notability. To resolve this, you need to cite multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the college, per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwokng (talk · contribs)
  • Adapted Physical Activity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Adapted Physical Activity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, we (two contributors) got a message that the page we submitted should be merged as a section into another page. However, we are not sure this would be a correct thing to do as, as the page that was suggested is only one part of what this page is trying to explain. In other words, a part of 'Kinesiology' is 'Adapted Physical Activity', but not all of 'Adapted Physical Activity' is kinesiology. For example, Parasport is not part of kinesiology. Rehabilitation is not part of kinesiology, and Parasport/Disability sport and rehabilitation are integral parts of Adapted Physical Activity, in addition to the sport science/kinesiology aspect of the term/field. Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer - Fakescientist8000. In the previous round, we included substantial references (from academic sources, that are reliable, and secondary sources that are independent of the subject) to demonstrate the need for the page and its uniqueness. We have not received feedback concerning this. We plan to add more references such editing content from books such as "Sports Science Handbook", "Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine", and the "Dictionary of the Sport and Exercise Sciences", all of which of specific entries to Adapted Physical Activity. See image of cover of the Sport Science Handbook

As such, we would like help to move this forward in preparation to make the page go live.

Kwokng (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify how many people are using the account Kwokng. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckifyPro (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Checkify.pro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article provide only for information not promotion CheckifyPro (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckifyPro This article is pure promo, was correctly rejected, and should be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we don't need promo. This article was created only for approve our twitter account CheckifyPro (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in your Twitter account. This is an encyclopaedia, not your marketing platform.

And please don't start a new thread every time you post a comment; you can just reply to the existing thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckifyPro (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Checkify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because we can't and we don't promotional CheckifyPro (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked and draft deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bobsyruncle (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marie Herwald Hermann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there. Thank you for the comments. I am not sure I fully understand what is wrong with the sources for this article. Am I using the wrong way of referencing, or is it the actual sources that you consider too weak. Bobsyruncle (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobsyruncle: you may need to ask the declining reviewer directly. I didn't find anything obviously wrong with the sources, and it seems to me the content is pretty well supported, but perhaps I'm missing something. (Some of the sources aren't suitable for establishing notability, but that's not why this was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JustTheFacts815 (talk · contribs)
  • Rashid Shabazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rashid Shabazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone please help clarify what exactly needs to be adjusted for my article? It was declined, which is fine, but the it was declined for two reasons:

1. That it was not adequately sourced. 2. The submission was not formal enough.

But there were no specific mentions on what that was referring to within the article. I provided over 60 reliable, independent, verifiable sources, so I'm unsure how that makes it not adequately sourced? As far as the writing of the submission, I believe it was as formal and fact-based as could be, as nothing was written, stated, or quoted that couldn't be backed up with the sources.

I'm more than happy to make adjustments, but am honestly kind of lost as to what that might be without specifics being pointed out? Can someone (or many someones) take a look and give me some specific feedback?

JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JustTheFacts815: The "Notable Clients" section should be 86'd as promotion=by-overdetail. You also have several unsourced biographical claims which I will remove from the article in short order; do not restore them without providing an adequate source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JustTheFacts815: Another thing I notice is that the draft is over-cited in some spots. You don't need more than two sources to verify a particular claim. You also cite some sources we don't accept, such as YouTube (only verified news outlets' videos should be cited) and Daily Mail (deprecated). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THIS makes more sense -- thank you for your specificity on all you mentioned! I will go back and remove the Notable Clients section, as well as the Youtube and Daily Mail sources. I also didn't know you "over-source" on Wikipedia, so thanks for the heads up!

As far as the unsourced biographical claims, can I which ones you're referring to? I thought all were verifiable via the links, but would like to hear your thoughts! JustTheFacts815 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed the clients list and the unsourced claims (see this for a summary of what I removed). For biographical claims, you need a cite at literally every single claim the article makes that could be challenged, even if that claim is in the middle of a sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]