Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 3

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 3

00:06:17, 3 November 2019 review of submission by 172.58.222.165

• 172.58.222.165 (talk · contribs)

I went to a fascinating exhibit yesterday at the well-regarded Maine College of Art (MECA) in Portland, Maine that was put on by DesignInquiry. One aspect of the exhibit included a wall with a design-related timeline, which included many whimsical and thoughtful frames (e.g. "1952: Chemist Julius Samann patents a pine-scented air freshener in the shape of a little tree" -- but one in particular that to me was perhaps the most thought-provoking of all, "2016: Wikipedia deletes DesignInquiry for lack of notability".

Now, this sharp, entertaining exhibit combining DIY with philosophy and aesthetics -- with demonstrations of printing, a deconstructed film projector, and even on-site bread-baking (with excellent bread) -- most reminded me of a small-scale exhibit from the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum in New York. There is not a lot of this sort of integration of engineering, art, and social consciousness, which makes any prime example of it noteworthy. But the little unassuming frame in the design timeline in this exhibit referring to Wikipedia reminded me that Wikipedia is not just a source of information, but also a subjective kingmaker and arbiter that chooses between who is deserving (according to it) and who is not.

Why is this innovative design collective featuring talented designers, which according its website "brings together practitioners from disparate fields to generate new work and ideas around a single topic" considered to be less noteworthy for humanity (at least according to Wikipedia) than, for instance, the Portland-based Allagash Brewing Company or, let's say, the Bullzip PDF Printer, the latter of which is basically just a simple layer on top of Ghostscript, like about two dozen other PDF utilities almost exactly like it. Indeed, there are countless pages on Wikipedia about people, places, and things unlikely to ever have much of an impact on humanity. And to some degree, that's OK. What is it exactly that made DesignInquiry so unnoteworthy, exactly?

From the MECA website about the current exhibition, "We are a collective of thinkers and makers devoted to extra-disciplinary exchange. For more than a decade DesignInquiry has spearheaded intensive team-based gatherings and shared the diverse outcomes and publications, influenced design research and teaching methods, and has inspired professional designers to rethink what design can be and can do."

I didn't really document this exhibit, unfortunately, but I have a couple of quick example pics which do not do it justice.

I have no connection to this group other than having just looked at what it displayed. So here I am just asking why it is not noteworthy.

One of the speakers for example this time is an artist from British Columbia, one of the many artists and designers from around the world to participate with DI since 2004, I just learned (but unfortunately of course not from Wikipedia). The board of directors for DesignInquiry has included Gail Swanlund, whose art is part of the permanent collection at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Fulbright recipient Benjamin Van Dyke, and Denise Gonzales Crisp, the author of the textbook Typography, from the Graphic Design in Context series. A reviewer said of that book, "I liked it so much that I taught a class with this text." Indeed, just picking names almost at random who have participated with DesignInquiry, Kimberly Long Loken helped to create an exhibit for the Northern Spark climate-change-themed arts festival in Minneapolis in 2017: "an illuminated, polymorphic installation which visually represents the way in which plants transmit chemical messages to one another – an ecosystem our society should heed."

In other words DesignInquiry may not have the prestige of the Cooper Hewitt in New York City, but it does have influence and it does attract those with influence in our society. Creative and society-directed design should count as influence, not just corporate, influence, political influence, or software-world influence. There is a bias in society in general against this sort of soft influence, but Wikipedia of all places should not be participating in that trend.

If Wikipedia had not simply deleted the page, then perhaps people could have contributed to that page to help us to better understand what this organization is doing and why. I think organizations like this are more important than companies that brew beer or software authors that add a trivial layer to an existing open source project. And I sure would like to know, and I know that many others would like to know, more about this type of organization than about some of the superficial detritus littering Wikipedia's pages that frankly is not very noteworthy, and will wind up in the dustbin of history.

But I am not arguing for other pages to be deleted. Although the deletion in this case provides a little bit of thought-provoking fodder for this exhibit, I am just asking Wikipedia to give compelling organizations like this one the benefit of the doubt and try if possible to let us decide what is "noteworthy." Maybe the Wikipedia editor who nixed it doesn't understand art, or doesn't think design is important. But that doesn't mean that others share his view. To me, DesignInquiry is noteworthy, interesting, and relevant, and Wikipedia is exactly the sort of place that I'd like to be able to go to find more information about it, contributed by casual editors like me who can chip in what they know. But there is no such page, because to Wikipedia this organization is not as noteworthy as a beer-brewing company or a low-common-denominator PDF printer utility.

To be clear, I don't want to create the page by myself. I would have chipped in, however, if it had not unceremoniously been deleted, who knows why.

172.58.222.165 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's processes can seem opaque to people who haven't contributed to building the encyclopedia, but almost all actions are taken in the open and recorded for all to see. So the answer to "Who knows why?" is, anyone who cares to read a little. The governing policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The first deletion discussion can be read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry, the second at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry (2nd nomination). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to here. I have both followed Wikipedia and contributed to building pages. But in this case, instead of encouraging a better article, Wikipedia as it frequently does just nixes the article altogether. For reasons that, as I said and will say again, fall under the category of who-knows-why. This is what the second link there says, for instance: "Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod."

Those who created the page should have done more to protest. But Wikipedia should go easier on those who are not Wikipedia pros and may be intimidated by the overbearing and often highly-critical moderators.

The reason given there for the deletion is sloppy and careless, and only semi-rational, and it demonstrates that the Wikipedia parties involved did not take the time to understand what it was they were even removing. Sometimes Wikipedia seems to be confused about the difference between whether the organization or idea deserves a page, and whether the specific page that some rookie attempted to create is a quality page. OK, so the page there may not have been a great one. I don't know. Where is the page? "There is no revision history for this page."

I never saw the initial page. Had I seen it, I might have been able to contribute to it, and better explain why DI deserves a page in the first place. But the page was expediently obliterated.

Even as a flawed stub, a page was much more likely to turn into a useful page than it is when you delete the page altogether, deeming it would seem the entire organization to be non-notable, which I think is a rather rude and dismissive way of describing a group that has attracted some compelling talents and pushed the envelope on some innovative collaborative thinking. I wonder whether sometimes Wikipedia editors may be trying to make themselves feel better by being dismissive of others, or perhaps they are just human like the rest of us, and sometimes do not fully follow through and do their homework.

DesignInquiry may not be a household name, but that doesn't mean that it is not "notable." This is precisely what Wikipedia should be here for, to help us understand groups, people, and ideas that we see referenced and which sound compelling and that we would like to learn more about. Contrary to what the Wikipedia page-nixer here implied from his quick dismissal, this is a collaborative group that brings people together to discuss and practice design from multiple angles, not a "movement" per se that is promoting a specific agenda. It tries to bring people in from various perspectives and disciplines; there will be some overlap of course, but the goal here is design and problem-solving. They initiate a "collaborative production where we both learn and teach the aesthetics and ethics that are central to Design (and life)."

In a world in which design and technological progress can at times be best-described as shoot-first-ask-questions-later, or leap-before-you-look, this thoughtful approach is not in oversupply, and is probably a lot rarer than many may realize.

Again I ask: how is a throwaway PDF printer utility more "notable"? And there are hundreds of pages for software that is equally as "notable" or otherwise. Although Wikipedia claims to be objective, and certainly has created an impressive database of knowledge that is rather unique through all of human history, even so, when it comes to making or breaking a page often there is little more going on here than pure human subjectivity from one or two people over there who seem to have only the most cursory understanding at best of what they are even approving or vetoing.

"Non-notable" itself is a very subjective concept, and I gave several examples of why many of DI's participants might be properly described as talented, notable, and relevant. I don't see a reference to the PDF printer utility in the New York Times, either, you know, so why the very clear double standard here? If you are in one category, you get a pass, but in another, the bar is a whole lot higher. And why are little software utilities really so much more important than broad discussions about our future? You say that anyone can read why this page was not approved, but on the contrary I still am completely in the dark about that. You brushed me off here even though I raised what I think are some legitimate and important points about the process here.

DesignInquiry's current exhibit Futurespective exhibit at MECA may not have been mentioned in the New York Times, but it was mentioned in Design Observer, which Wikipedia says was founded by "four prominent design writers." (Design Observer is also mentioned in DI's Futurespective timeline of design history: "2002: Design Observer blogs for the first time.")

Surely a page on DesignInquiry would be more relevant to humanity than myriad of the pages scattered throughout Wikipedia that refer to superficial topics, and my goal here is not to single out the various topics that have limited relevance or "notability." The fact is that DI, a group whose participants discuss meaningful topics related to progress, design, and ethics, to Wikipedia is less compelling than say a rambling page about a C-tier actor (of which there are many). And as the DesignInquiry exhibit and I have casually alluded to, the deletion in this case may say more about Wikipedia than it does about DesignInquiry. I find it frustrating, at the very least, when a page references a topic like DI that seems perfectly suited to a Wikipedia page, but then there is no page. And not because someone didn't try to create one, but because some overzealous Wikipedia editor vanished it.

I have noticed in other cases subjectivity and even questionable and opaque processes in how Wikipedia approves or does not approve topics. Yes, culturally-and-technologically-irrelevant shareware software can easily make the cut while while a topic of deep relevance to say Native American culture is often nowhere to be seen. Unless, again, it makes the New York Times. But whether it makes the Times tends to have very little to do with whether it is actually relevant to Native Americans. The Times tends to be biased toward money-related enterprises such as casinos and pipelines. And the lack of present on Wikipedia is only partly related to the effort or lack thereof from the outside to contribute. Because attempts to create early, very rough pages that could eventually sprout into pages that are nuanced and truly informative are often simply snuffed out aggressively by Wikipedia moderators who act out of expedience or impatience, or perhaps even an overabundance of tried-and-true bossiness. This happens frequently at Wikipedia, but it's just the way it is, and Wikipedia is likely to remain largely as it is for the foreseeable future, which is to say very useful and informative but also deeply and possibly even fatally flawed, in that it unfortunately comes up far short of its potential to provide the most useful and relevant and most truly objective information to the world.

I do want try to be fair here. It may not be apparent to the casual observer, but organizations that focus on current and past design are not as easy to come by as you might expect given that design is intrinsically interwoven into nearly all facets of the modern world. I mentioned the Cooper Hewitt in New York. Its full name is the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum. Wikipedia describes it as "the only museum in the United States devoted to historical and contemporary design." How can that be? But it is. And as far as museums go, it is not even particularly sprawling, household-name-famous, or comprehensive. But it is highly noteworthy, and it is highly impactful within its own niche. Like DesignInquiry, or perhaps I should say that DesignInquiry, like the Cooper Hewitt, explores the intersection of innovation, aesthetics, and ethics, and what could be more critical to do in the modern world than that? They are not taking an existing project and just slapping on a little code, like many of the projects referenced in Wikipedia; they are trying to deconstruct and explore our very future.

It is surprisingly rare to find such dynamic explorations compared to the slew of narrowly-profit-focused projects. And even most museums and exhibits focus on straightforward art, or even on one particular artist, author, or actor. In other words, while DesignInquiry may not be completely unique, it does occupy a niche that is noteworthy, necessary, and less-than-fully explored. And differentiation in the world ought to count for something, just as it does in a business: what an entrepreneur would call a "moat". So what to Wikipedia is not noteworthy, to me is not only noteworthy, but timely and distinctive as well.

If DesignInquiry was actually an agenda-driven "movement" as the Wikipedia editor seemed to think it is (for unknown and unstated reasons), then it would probably be much more likely to be referenced in the various ways that Wikipedia seems to want it to be, like in the Times: because those with a motivation to promote an agenda tend to be far more aggressive in getting the word out there than those who are devoted to truthful exploring. Where did Wikipedia even get the word "movement" in this case? It is certainly not mentioned in DesignInquiry's own "About Us" page, although I have my doubts that Wikipedia actually read blurbs like that prior to deleting the page, because the reasons stated for the deletion come across as scatterbrained and rather inscrutable to me to say the least. Remember, Wikipedia, even if you delete a page, your reasons for doing so, unclear as they may be, are still stored in the archive for some of us to wonder about.

--172.58.222.165 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Your reply is a WP:WALL of text. Most folks would not read even part of such a long statement. If you could perhaps provide an abridged version, and keep future replies concise, you will get faster and better feedback. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IP, my response to you is WP:SOFIXIT. If you think there is an article there to write, then write it so we can determine if it is notable or not. shoy (reactions) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the short version for all the Twitter-era denizens out there who lack an attention span. The DesignInquiry page should not have been deleted, and the process for doing so was shoddy: it was fast, sloppy, opaque, and more or less incoherent. Which unfortunately is a lot more common over there than many Wikipedia editors may like to admit.

Wikipedia is great, but some of the loyalists are so fond of their baby that they lash out at people like me while defending their beloved site to the end, even while providing somewhat questionable and patronizing lectures and not a lot in the way of practical assistance. The fact is, the quality of the initial (stub-esque) article should not be so tied to whether the topic itself is "notable" and should or should not be present in Wikipedia. That is just silly. I have expressed why the topic itself is notable, so bring the topic back so that we can all chip in on it. It should not be my responsibility to create the perfect article from top-to-bottom and then present it to you guys like I've written a dissertation. Especially when I risk running into yet another overzealous, overaggressive, article-chopper over there who deems the entire topic non-notable while providing no coherent reason for that.

The topic is notable, relevant, and distinctive. So stop deleting the darn thing, and let the Wikipedia editors just do their job. Stop making it so difficult for us to add useful content to Wikipedia. You're only sabotaging your own cherished little baby.

There is no great way to express a concern about this, because what I tend to get is this rotating set of Wikipedia-loyalists (yes, often with limited attention spans) who are intent on criticizing me while defending their beloved Wikipedia. I was first condescendingly told that "Wikipedia's processes can seem opaque to people who haven't contributed," and that answers to my questions were there for "anyone who cares to read a little." Of course, said answers were not in fact available. It turns out that he had not actually bothered to explore that. And now I am told by someone else that you guys don't really like to read very much anyway (TMI / TLDR!), after all. So first I was too lazy and now I'm too ambitious.

But I have experienced this before: it can be one excuse after another, and no genuine attempt to look into the concern. The collective nature of this site has advantages, but it also means that at the end of the day no one is really responsible, and passing the buck can be practically a religion over there. Yes, I wonder what variety of lecture I should be looking forward to next!

I am more than happy to contribute to Wikipedia, but sometimes you guys make doing so like pulling teeth. I have not gotten the sense so far that anyone over there is interested in what I am expressing here. I have tried to voice my concerns here about one specific topic, but also voice concerns about a basic process here that Wikipedia uses for approving pages, a process that all too often is overly subjective, sloppy, casual, and even rather ruthless. You tell me to go create the perfect page, even though you have been deleting the entire topic because you have deemed the entire topic not to be worthy. What sense does it make to waste my time on a topic that you deem worthless in the first place (even if for reasons that are incoherent at best)?

Wikipedia has said that this topic is non-notable even while gladly approving of topic after topic that is superficial through and through and all-but-irrelevant to society. And some of you over there have few qualms about putting us in this position: encouraging editors to spend hours and hours of our time before just unceremoniously scrapping the entire topic or page for poorly-outlined or even disingenuous reasons. In reality, the reason that you may not want to admit to is that the topic may just not catch the fancy of some noted Wikipedia guru over there who received the honor of spending about five minutes looking at the thing before casually throwing it onto the scrapheap. I don't know whether some of you are trying to out-ADHD an overcaffeinated Pomeranian or what the deal is, but come on, just take an hour or two and really look into a topic before you go and trash it! Why not consider exploring a more thoughtful process for approving or denying topics? The five minutes that you spend nixing content can mean hours of extra time on someone else's end, time that is sometimes wasted anyway. Even a great Wikipedia page begins with a single sentence, and sometimes even the greatest page has to begin as little more than a stub -- and maybe not even a good stub at that. If this is a valid topic, and this one is, then just let the page live so that we can all chip in and edit it, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

You have demonstrated my point here about the general apathy that is sometimes displayed in this process. For one thing, your WP:WALL link goes to a page about a "walled garden," "a set of pages or articles that link to each other." A wall of text is an esoteric Wikipedia geek term for when an editor "attempts to overwhelm a discussion with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes" or "tries to cram every one of their cogent points into a single comprehensive response that is roughly the length of a short novel."

I don't know whether that is supposed to be sarcastic or what, but each point I have included here I have included for a reason, and we're talking pages at most in a novel, and not even a full chapter. Surely at least one of the restless Millennials over there can suck it up for a few minutes for the good of the greater site and read an entire page: but then again, if all you plan to do is to condescend and then ignore the concern anyway, then I suppose why bother to read more than a few sentences? I like Wikipedia, but it has room for improvement. I am happy to contribute and try to help you work on it, but sometimes you are unnecessarily fighting with the content-generators. But hey, if you care, you care, and if you don't, you don't. All I can do is provide my humble wall of text, and all you can do is what you do and ignore it.

I don't know where or how to express these concerns. But when you go and make our lives so difficult, there is only so much that we can do to battle against you and your formidable inertia. I find that very rarely is there an acknowledgement over there of any shortcoming, glitch, or potential error. Almost every time, it's our fault, and you may even as in this case encourage one person to try to single-handedly correct the entire issue even though this is supposed to be collaborative, to say nothing of the fact that an overly-trigger-happy moderator may be waiting in the wings anyway just to shoot the content down, for reasons that can be hazy at best.

So far I am not getting that anyone is interested in a real discussion here about the process, which in my view has been rather abysmal in this case. I discussed a few of the key points, not all of them, but as of now I'm guessing that all I will get is an ongoing, rotating set of Wikipedia editors-du-jour who are mainly interested in criticizing me or asking unreasonable things of me, while generically defending the process. All you have really needed to do is to undelete that which never should have been deleted in the first place! I am volunteering to contribute to this page and others, but not to sit down and create each page top-to-bottom almost from scratch (even though I have done that before).

Yes, it looks like Wikipedia has rather arbitrarily banished poor DesignInquiry into the ether, and that may be where it is going to stay. Perhaps there is some sort of symbolic honor or meaning that can be found in that. Too cool for Wikipedia: I kind of like it.

So, to sum up, the page should be there. If it were there, then I would be happy to chip in, and while it ought to exist, I am not about to go on some lengthy crusade against the prickliest among you in order to make it happen, not going to devote days of my life to writing a page that you have been intent on deleting for anyway for nonsensical reasons, not going to indulge a series of sometimes-bossy moderators over there who would have me jump through unreasonable hoop after unreasonable hoop while receiving a series of patronizing lectures, just to try to get a page going that should never have been deleted in the first place.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my wall of text. Don't forget to tip your waiters.

--172.58.223.63 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And just for completeness, Emily at DI said that the Wikipedia mention in their timeline is in part to show how "design practice doesn't exist in the 'future perfect' tense." Some matters are simply beyond our control: "Things are messy, they don't always make sense..."

I don't think anyone can take this all too seriously, even though a Wikipedia page can be useful and informative. Wikipedia is what it is.

I wrote:

There is something almost endearing about the reason given...for the deletion. Like a friendly-and-well-intentioned-but-faultily-programmed robot in a dystopian world:

"Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod."

Like, the human has been targeted by the robot overseers for some kind of malfeasance, and even if it's an error, there is probably no arguing with this thing. ...The analysis there is so beautifully messy and confusing it is almost pristine.

The robot was programmed not to harm humans or delete pages, but sometimes water leaks into the circuitry and it goes a little haywire.

The first portion there is practically a haiku that could be used verbatim:

Promotional

non-notable

(and almost indecipherable)

Or maybe the beginning of some slightly-confused I'm-the-greatest rap lyrics. They say I'm promotional, non-notable, and almost indecipherable.

I love how "(and almost indecipherable)" is in parentheses, like you see in a transcript where an interviewer cannot understand a phrase: "My favorite color is (unintelligible) and I have been wearing that color of socks ever since (indecipherable)." And the no spaces for "limitedparticipationand" is perhaps the icing, sort of a final whatever-FU to demonstrate that this person has much more important matters to get to, and cannot be troubled with the wasteful inefficiency of reaching to the space bar for a matter so totally inconsequential. Like a doctor scribbling a quick prescription on his way out the door to the Bahamas.

The analysis there is impressive for just how much it gets wrong. If you just take the opposite of everything that is written there, then you can get a rough idea of what DesignInquiry is about.

The irony is not lost on me that what Wikipedia could really use when it comes to its page approval process is a thoughtful investigation of that design and implementation. But [DI] probably shouldn't be watching [its] mailbox too closely for a request for help from Jimmy Wales (or from one of his well-intentioned-but-absentmindedly-programmed helper-bots).

--172.58.223.63 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This will probably be my final contribution to Wikipedia of any kind. As a final epilogue, and this proves my point, no one engaged me in this discussion, but an overzealous editor blocked me altogether from Wikipedia. I clearly from the beginning was interested in improving Wikipedia. And my main critique was about an editor there who deleted a legitimate page in such an incoherent way that had he expressed himself in that way directly to me I would have worried that he might have recently suffered a stroke. I sent some of this discussion to both DesignInquiry and the Cooper Hewitt, who both appreciated it more than Wikipedia does.

I was told, "Editing from 172.58.128.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Drmies‬ for the following reason(s): ongoing disruption, shitposting, forumposting, conspiracyposting, jeremiadposting". So my comments were "shitposting" I guess (classy term, by the way), while the sloppy deletion process itself which included this mangling of the English language by DGG is not? "Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod." That analysis was inscrutable, thoughtless, and just plain wrong, while no one refuted or addressed any of my own points.

I have spent hours editing Wikipedia pages in the past month alone, but I have lost patience with the insular, elitist approach that is often found here, which is dismissive of legitimate critique at best, and autocratic at worst, when Wikipedia was started to be the ultimate democratic encyclopedia. This is not the free and open source of information that it was originally intended to be. Your blocking me demonstrates my point that Wikipedia is more interested in defending itself and mutual-back-patting among the inner circle than it is in improving itself or addressing critique. No one responded to a single point, and no one told me where to continue this discussion if not here. Your approach was to first dismiss me and then to block me, and that's fine by me. You can keep blocking me, because I don't need to come back.

In deleting the page before that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, Wikipedia editors deleted everything - the page, the history, the talk page, everything just obliterated. And all of those pages have notes saying that they are not to be further modified. So Wikipedia has really disappeared this topic, and now it's chased me away as well. I came here in good faith, but I leave with some bitterness. I will not be donating money or time to Wikipedia until the too-often-toxic culture over there undergoes some changes, which is probably not likely in the immediate future. I have seen this evolution / devolution in some other online forums, and while it's sad to see, there is not much that one humble person can do to reverse it.

p.s. It's a challenge to have discussions about this because a) nuanced discussion is not encouraged here (actually discouraged) and b) this is not set up for conversation because for instance if two make edits at the same time, one can overwrite the other.

--2604:6000:9F00:B700:E961:547F:642F:A62E (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC), quick edit 2:27, 8 November (UTC)

14:44:04, 3 November 2019 review of submission by PKeenan1

• PKeenan1 (talk · contribs)
  • Cook County Bar Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

P. Andrews-Keenan 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the article in the Chicago Crusader. That was a press release that I wrote and the Crusader ran in its entirety. I'm ok with removing that reference in order to have the page approved. Please advise.

Hi PKeenan1. Is your question in connection with Draft:Black Fine Art Month? If so, there are several things going on here.

1. If you're writing a press release about Black Fine Art Month and also trying to write a Wikipedia article about it, then you have a conflict of interest, which you need to disclose.
2. The newspaper group asserts "© Copyright 2019 - Chicago/Gary Crusader" over [1], which will make it difficult for you if you wish to donate what you wrote to Wikipedia.
3. Text written for a press release is designed to advertise the subject, but Wikipedia articles are not allowed to promote anything, so it's almost never possible to reuse press release text verbatim in an encyclopedia article. It wouldn't be just a matter of removing a reference to the press release. Even if the draft hadn't been deleted for violating copyright, the text of it would need to be rewritten entirely.

--Worldbruce (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

15:33:45, 3 November 2019 review of submission by RazorGaming

• RazorGaming (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mohammad Qunaibi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

plz I will lose 100$ if this isn't published pleaaaaaaaaaase RazorGaming (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You have zero reliable sources, so no chance of it being accepted, I'm afraid you will lose your bet. Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

18:06:30, 3 November 2019 review of submission by Wikiabc123wiki

• Wikiabc123wiki (talk · contribs)
  • User:Wikiabc123wiki/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have taken the review under consideration and re-edited the page. I added very reliable and accurate references as there were no references previously which is why the page was rejected for publication. There are no reference issues now and the data used is backed by various very credible sources. I cannot see any reason for why it should be rejected again, and therefore am asking for a second review. Thank you very much. Wikiabc123wiki (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikiabc123wiki, Currently your article discusses a family. But I would say the family is likely not notable, i.e. not well known enough to be included. None of the sources discuss the family at any length. However, the companies they run could be notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

18:37:12, 3 November 2019 review of submission by 119.30.32.50

• 119.30.32.50 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Razu Dawen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

119.30.32.50 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This person is likely not notable. A google search of their name turned up less than 3,000 results. Much of the article has no sources currently. If you can find Bangladeshi sources, please add them. Such sources need to be from reliable sources, such as reputable media outlets, and independent of the subject. They also must discuss the subject at some length, not just in passing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

19:02:33, 3 November 2019 review of submission by Bimjenning69

• Bimjenning69 (talk · contribs)

The sources were rejected. I was wondering which sources are unacceptable and how to change them. Bimjenning69 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Bimjenning69, Two of the sources are YouTube, which is almost never suitable as a source. What you need are more sources like the news article you have. Coverage in the media by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, is critical. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

22:23:35, 3 November 2019 review of draft by Oak9500

• Oak9500 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Edi Karni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have submitted this article for review over 3 months ago and didn't get any reply. What can I do? Thank you!

Oak9500 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oak9500, Please be patient, as it is in the review queue. The queue is currently severely backlogged, with average review times being over 8 weeks. Articles are reviewed in no particular order, although editors are working hard to reduce the backlog, and many are focusing on the oldest drafts. Thank you for understanding. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)