User talk:CanonNi/Archives/AII

Help for article

I have added more detail to the page. Any help editing, reviewing or getting it published would be greatly appreciated Countystat (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Countystat looks like you already got help on your talk page. I don't have much different advice than SafariScribe or Qcne, but feel free to ask if you have any more questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:UniversityCube

G11’d it. Shoulda done that, did it for you. and declined lol. Some serious COI. xq 01:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL thanks! I don't know how I forgot... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah lmao. Article even criticizes wikipedia 🤣 xq 01:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Hotdesk

Hello,

I'm the writer of the Hotdesk draft. This is my 1st ever article and I wanted to know if you could give me a bit more insight on how I can get it approved.

Thank you for your assistance!

Best regards, Gerard Gerardch12 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gerardch12 there are several issues, but firstly, what is your relationship with the company? If you are an employee, you are required by the terms of use to disclose it by placing the {{paid}} template on your user page. The main issues are:

1. The draft is promotional in tone with many peacock words. Everything should be written neutrally.
2. The draft lacks inline citations, which are needed so that information can be verified. See H:Referencing for beginners for more information.
3. The sources aren't reliable. 2 of the 6 sources are the company's website (and are therefore not independent nor reliable), and the other 4 are about the founder, not the company (and are therefore not significant coverage).

For the draft to be accepted, it needs to meet the general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for companies. HTH, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Establishing Notability RE:Andy Hopper (Declined Draft)

Hi CanonNi,

I was reaching out for some guidance after you recently declined my draft for an article about Andy Hopper (Draft:Andy Hopper). I'm hoping you might be able to provide some guidance for better establishing notability. I have a number of other sources discussing Hopper and his election campaigns, but I want to make sure I'm providing sources that add to notability.

From the general notability guidelines, I feel with additional sources, I can establish all five components of notability, but I just want to make sure that it's not an issue of source quality versus number of sources. He has been covered by many professional media outlets in North Texas, including radio and television interviews. Also, I'm wondering what weight, if any campaign endorsements by other already established notable people might have? He has been endorsed by a number of people with national fame in the USA.

Thanks in advance for any feedback or advice you might be able to provide,

TC Texasconservative24 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Texasconservative24 if you have multiple reliable independent sources that discuss him with significant coverage (such as the professional media outlets), feel free to add them. Regarding campaign endorsements: news coverage on said endorsements may contribute towards notability. Feel free to ask here or at the help desk if you have any further questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about article decline

Hi!

You recently declined my submission titled Draft:James Miller (professor), however, I find your response a little confusing. From what I gather, you declined my submission on account of subject Notability. After reviewing the relevant pages, I would like to offer a response. I believe that the subject in question here, can be easily connected to points 3, 5, and 8. Allow me to elaborate.

Point 3: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. The subject in question has been selected as a fellow of the United States Library of the Congress, which only selects a limited number of academics globally annually. This has been referenced by the Library's own website.

Point 5: The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. The subject had been appointed Chair of the Faculty Assembly of the University, selection amounting to leading the whole faculty of a major academic institution, as credited by the Duke University website.

Point 8: The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. The subject in question is editor-in-chief of a Brill journal titled Worldviews: Global Religions, Cultures, and Ecology, the first journal to focus on the relationships between religion, culture, and ecology worldwide, established in 1997. This has been sourced by the journal's page on Brill.

Because of all the reasons above, I believe that the subject in question for this article qualifies easily on the Notability criterion, as well as using proper sources. Thus, I would like to hear your thoughts on this, and advice on how to improve the article, in order to better satisfy Wikipedia's needs in demonstrating these points even more clearly.

Take care,

Mateja Bokan MatejaWateja (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@MatejaWateja regarding the points you made above:

1. Yes, that may potentially make him notable, but that information is not included anywhere in the draft.
2. Again, yes, that may make him notable, but that information isn't in the article either
3. A rule of thumb is that if the journal doesn't have an article, it's not well-established.

So, Miller potentially meets 2 of the 8 criteria for academics, but the information needs to be included in the article. HTH, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Nangalam

Cltr (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Preliminary Review of Revised "Cyber Privacy" Draft

Hello User:CanonNi I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a preliminary review of my draft article Draft:Cyber_privacy before resubmitting it for approval.

In response to the feedback provided, I have thoroughly revised the content to ensure that the sources cited are robust, reliable, and offer perspectives from various aspects of the topic. These revisions aim to create a balanced and neutral perspective, incorporating sources that are either directly relevant to the term 'cyber privacy'—explicitly mentioned in the text—or that contribute to the topic's understanding within the context of its provided definition. My goal is to ensure that the draft meets Wikipedia’s requirements for notability and verifiability. I would greatly appreciate your expert opinion on whether this iteration sufficiently addresses the concerns raised, particularly regarding the coverage and independent verification of the term "cyber privacy." Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to any guidance you can offer for further improvements.

Best regards, Professorincryptography (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)