User talk:Clearfrienda


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #24

👤 User	💬 Talk	🗂️ Archives	✏️ Contributions	📄 Drafts	🔎 Articles created	🔧 Maintenance	✉️ Email me

Clearfrienda is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to be civil.

My watchlist is large and hard to manage. Please ping me with the {{ping|username}} template if you're trying to get my attention on a page that isn't this one or use talkback.
If you can't find a previous discussion, it was probably archived. Create a new section if this happens.
If you have come here to ask for help because I declined your AfC submission, please leave a message with a clear format, like "Draft:Your draft's name", or click the "reviewer's talk page" link on the decline notice on your talk page, and it will do so for you. Include if you think it shouldn't have been declined or if you need help with anything.

PropertyShark

Hi @Clearfrienda,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article on PropertyShark. I'm reaching out to gain further insight into your decision to mark the article for notability issues. I've noticed that while some of the articles I've cited only mention PropertyShark briefly, there are actually more than three sources that delve deeply into the topic, including The New York Times, The Real Deal, Money Inc., and Forbes. Additionally, I have found sources that provide in-depth coverage of the topic in Romanian, which I believe could further solidify its notability. I just want to ensure that referencing articles in a foreign language for an English-language article won't pose any issues. Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. EvelynJo (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvelynJo: I think your article is probably notable (hence why I marked it with a notice instead of draftifying or nominating for deletion) but I've noticed it is slightly lacking in in-depth coverage. This NYT article offers a good amount of coverage. The other NYT articles offer some coverage but are overall quite limited. In-depth coverage is often considered to be an article entirely or mostly about the subject. The Real Deal articles are a good example of in-depth coverage. The Time article definitely helps. The Money Inc. and Forbes.com sources usually aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia (see WP:FORBESCON). One or two more reliable, in-depth sources will certify notability. Yes, citing articles in a foreign language is completely fine (just make sure they're formatted correctly).

Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Happy editing,

Clear friend a ^💬 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clearfrienda: Thanks so much for your quick reply. I have cited a couple additional articles from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. Hopefully, these will suffice and the notability tag can be removed. Please feel free to share any further feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Best,

@EvelynJo EvelynJo (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

Comix: Generations

Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability"

You deleted an entire page that had been up for months because you stated that it "needed more sources to establish notability". There are 9 sources, all either major publications discussing the subject or well-known nonprofits and large government organizations.

Please state exactly why you believe that an article that has well exceeded the notability measure of other recently-created articles does not establish 'notability'. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is my fault. Imran Ahmed (strategist) is notable. I meant to draftify a page on another tab. I've moved it back and marked it as reviewed.

Sorry for the trouble,

Clear friend a ^💬 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, appreciate it. There will always be false negatives if we're doing our job. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearfrienda, can you please state which sources make this article notable? I couldn't find any (see the discussion on talk) the sources are not independent or significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: There's probably enough significant coverage online to meet WP:GNG. Notably, there's this Financial Times article and this CNBC article which are about him and for the most part independent. There are also quite a few WP:INTERVIEWS with him that offer enough coverage outside of the transcript, like this Independent article and this CBC article . This article is mainly about him. There is this post on the Canadian Women's Foundation. There's also a lot of less-significant coverage in articles like this one. There are more trivial mentions in lots of articles like this one and this one. There are some non-independent references listed, like the article he wrote for The Guardian and some of his interviews, but I don't really see how his notability is contested. That being said, I've marked it as unreviewed until this is resolved. Clear friend a ^💬 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]