User talk:LJF2019

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

This is LJF2019's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

Page has been archived. LJF2019 ^talk 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LJF2019,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi LJF2019! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could give me more feedback on the draft that failed review today: Draft:History of Hartlepool United F.C.. Your reason was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Would you please give me some additional feedback on the page? Michaeldble (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I wrote on the article that you should consider merging the content you created into the existing article at Hartlepool United F.C.. LJF2019 ^talk 22:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acting so quickly on approving this article. As I mentioned to QuantumRealm, if something is notable, it's notable. How can I (or other editors) go about doing a better job on this? I have added 28 citations, all (I think) secondary and not connected with the subject. Should I search for more? If one citation is good, are two better? Any help you can give me would be most appreciated.

Thanks. Hamish barebones (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had previously updated the Imprisonment section of Jerry Sandusky, the prev version said he's attempting to obtain a new trial, I updated this w/o references & you deleted it as unsourced. I attempted to put in the ref's, one is a copy of the motion for new trial which I uploaded to web archive. I know it is the real motion as I've discussed it by email with the principals, but I'd rather have a link to it on court pages. The second ref is now to one of the articles describing the hearing where the motion was denied.

I do know the ref to the actual file is not great as one has no way to verify that the document is a legitimate copy of the motion entered into trial. Please consider working with me or other editors on this rather than a simple delete. Createangelos (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LJF2019

I wrote this article in 2022 and submitted it for review, which took about four months. Editor QuantumRealm reviewed and approved the article saying, "Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as C-Class…. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 19% of accepted submissions — kudos to you!" Then 45 minutes later, he “disapproved” the article and moved it back to “Draft” status, saying . “I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred. After further consideration, I decided to draftify the article because it requires some additional improvements and sources to meet Wikipedia's content guidelines and notability criteria.”

I asked QuantumRealm for specifics; he responded by telling me to check “…notability guidelines…reliable sources and …verifiability." I then asked him four specific questions relative to the broad guidelines; he never responded.

Returning to work on the article, I added more content and more citations, then resubmitted the article for approval which you, LJF2019, provided on 20 May, leaving the “notability” tag in place. Working more on the article, I posted it to the TeaHouse in July, asking for help in improving the piece. One editor responded, posting broad guidelines – “Article topics must receive significant coverage that is independent of the subject and comes from reliable, secondary sources.” Shortly thereafter, the request was archived. I continued to add content and citations which came from independent, reliable, secondary sources.

I would like to move on to improving other articles and, perhaps, creating more on my own. But, before I do that, I would like to get the “notability” template removed. PMA, the organization charged with overseeing and promoting manufacturing in the country’s fifth-largest manufacturing state for 114 years is notable. I don't want revert anything by myself, (I firmly believe in Wikipedia consensus) so I’m reaching out to you for guidance. How should I proceed? Thanks for your help. Hamish barebones (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamish barebones,

Thank you for reaching out and for your diligence in creating and improving the article on the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association. Your commitment to the Wikipedia community is evident and deeply appreciated.

I understand your frustration regarding the notability concerns. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially for organizations and companies, can be challenging to navigate, but they are essential to ensure the quality and reliability of the content on the platform.

Given the detailed context you've provided:

I recommend gathering a comprehensive list of the independent, reliable, secondary sources you've added to the article since it was last reviewed. This list can be used to make a clear case for the article's notability, ensuring it stands on solid ground against Wikipedia's guidelines.

Engage with other experienced Wikipedia editors, preferably those with expertise in assessing notability for organizations. You can reach out in relevant WikiProjects, or on the Talk page of the article, presenting your case and the list of sources.

If, after a discussion, there is consensus among editors that the notability criteria are met, then the notability template can be safely removed. It's always a good practice to ensure multiple eyes review the changes for consensus, as you rightly pointed out.

If the notability concerns persist, consider starting an "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion. This process will allow a wider community of editors to weigh in on the article's notability, and potentially reach a clear consensus on its inclusion.

I appreciate your dedication to improving Wikipedia, and I'm here to support you every step of the way. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have further questions or need additional guidance.

Warm regards,

LJF2019 ^talk 18:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:LJF2019 Began implementing the suggestions you made. Thanks! Hamish barebones (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi LJF2019! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in my attempts to demonstrate the notability of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association. On your recommendations, I completed the following:

A. I gathered and posted on PMA’s talk page a comprehensive list of the independent, reliable, secondary sources (32 of them) and asked other editors if they could help by adding more or objecting to those listed. No one responded. This list does make a clear case for the organization’s notability, as all citations are verifiable, independent and reliable.

B. I posted a request for help on the Teahouse. One editor responded with broad guidelines – “Article topics must receive significant coverage that is independent of the subject and comes from reliable, secondary sources.” Then the request was archived.

C. I posted a “Help me” template on my talk page, requesting help from other editors in demonstrating or improving the notability requirements request. I received a response from one editor who told me my use of the “Help me” template was incorrect, and that the “Notability” tag itself was a request for help, not a “black mark.” No other editors responded.

D. It appears, from the responses I’ve received, that PMA may be notable, but it is not a high interest topic to other editors. Not one editor has offered any specific reasons why PMA should be considered either notable or, in this case, not notable.

At this point I would like to suggest that I have done about as much as an editor can do to demonstrate notability. I further suggest that either you or I post a paragraph on the PMA talk page that provides a summary of points A-D above and recommend building consensus for removing the tag. We could set a deadline of several weeks or so to see whether any editors had any particular hypotheses one way or another. Then, unless there were specific objections, remove the tag. Your thoughts? Hamish barebones (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamish barebones,

Thank you for your diligent follow-up and the considerable efforts you've made in addressing the notability concerns for the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association (PMA) article. Your approach and the steps you've taken clearly demonstrate a commitment to improving Wikipedia and adhering to its content guidelines.

Given the actions you've detailed:

A. The compilation and posting of a comprehensive list of 32 independent, reliable, secondary sources is commendable. It's unfortunate that there hasn't been more engagement from other editors, but the lack of response does not diminish the significance of your efforts or the potential notability of PMA.

B. Your initiative to seek assistance through the Teahouse and the use of the "Help me" template, even if it did not yield the desired feedback, shows a proactive approach to seeking community input and improvement for the article.

C. It's insightful to understand that the "Notability" tag is not a detriment but rather a call to action for further improvement and verification of notability, as pointed out by the editor who responded to your "Help me" request.

D. The perception that PMA may not be a high-interest topic to other editors, while challenging, does not inherently affect the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Your suggestion to post a summary of points A-D on the PMA talk page and to build a consensus for removing the notability tag is a sound strategy. It aligns with Wikipedia's collaborative and consensus-driven nature. Setting a deadline for feedback allows for a reasonable time frame for editors to present any objections or additional insights.

Here's my view:

Posting on the PMA Talk Page: I agree with your plan to summarize the efforts and sources that substantiate the PMA's notability on its talk page. This summary will serve as a clear, transparent record of the attempts made to address notability concerns.

Building Consensus: Proposing a deadline for feedback is a pragmatic approach to moving forward. I would recommend allowing a period of 3 to 4 weeks, which gives ample time for any interested editors to contribute their views or additional sources.

Next Steps Post-Deadline: If there are no substantial objections or additional concerns raised by the deadline, we can proceed with a consensus to remove the notability tag. It's essential, however, to document this process on the talk page clearly, indicating that an open invitation for discussion was provided and that the consensus was reached based on the lack of opposing views.

Article for Deletion (AfD) as a Last Resort: If there's still uncertainty about the notability or if there are unforeseen objections, an AfD discussion might be necessary. This step would further solidify the community's stance on the article's notability.

I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia and your willingness to engage with the community's processes to ensure the quality and reliability of its content. I'm here to support your efforts and to assist in facilitating this next step. Please let me know how you wish to proceed, and if you'd like me to initiate the post on the talk page or if you prefer to do so. LJF2019 ^talk 07:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I thought it might be better if you were to initiate a post on the talk page; you certainly know your way around Wikipedia better than I do.

I did take a shot at content for the post. Here it is. Please revise it to your heart's content; my prose is far from deathless. I thought it might be easier for you to have something to start with.

For PMA Talk page:

I have been working with User:Hamish barebones to improve the article Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association. He had requested my help in removing the “Notability” template from the article.

To date, here's what’s been done:

1. Citations - Total number of Citations – 32, each an independent, recognized media or publishing source.

Sources –

Sources from the subject of the article – None

University/higher education publishing

University of Pennsylvania Press – 5 citations

Pennsylvania State University Press – 1 citation

Commercial Book Publishers

Dorrance Publishing, Pittsburgh – 2 citations

Vanguard Press, New York City – 1 citation

MacMillan and Co., New York City – 1 citation

Newspaper, Magazine Publishers

New York Times, New York City – 6 citations

Bloomberg, New York City 1 citation

PennLive, Mechanicsburg, PA – 3 citations

Insurance Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, - 2 citations

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh – 1 citation

City & State PA, Philadelphia – 1 citation

Inside Sources DV Journal, Washington DC – 1 citation

Pennsylvania Business Report, Washington DC – 1 citation

Pittsburgh Business Times, Pittsburgh, 1 citation

TribLive, Taretum, PA 1 citation

NorthcentralPA.com. Williamsport, PA – 1 citation

Philadelphia Magazine, Philadelphia – 1 citation

Trade Journals

Reliable Plant, Tulsa, OK 1 citation

Energy News Network, St. Paul, MN 1 citation

This list was posted on the talk page of the article; no editors commented or objected to any of them.

2. Teahouse

An explanation of the issue and request for help was posted on the Teahouse. One editor responded with broad guidelines on notability. The request was then archived.

3. User:Hamish barebones posted a “Help me” request on his talk page. One editor responded with information that the “Help me” request was used incorrectly. This editor also noted that the “notability” template was also a request for help, not a negative.

4. User:Hamish barebones continued to update with article and add new citations on his updates.

A conclusion from responses to this activity is that, although the PMA may not be of high interest to other editors, this does not affect the notability.

Quite a bit has been accomplished on this article, so I would like to propose that the “notability” template be removed. In the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and consensus, could editors read the article, check the citations, and let us know whether they concur with this conclusion?

I suggest that we set a deadline of 15 March 2024 and make our decision then. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Hope this helps. Hamish barebones (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LJF2019 I posted a request to you (above) about ten days ago and you did not respond. I hope I made some mistake in the post or that you're relaxing on a warm beach someplace. But I'm trying again and hope I'm not a pest. We'll have to push the suggested deadline for response back a bit, but that's easy. Thanking you in advance.Hamish barebones (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LJF2019 I hope all is well with you. Since I have not received a response to my request above, I will post it on the PMA talk page. And again, hope you are on a warm beach or in an interesting city. Thanks for all your help in this; I'll keep you up to date on how things go. Hamish barebones (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tony Soprano 2.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. hinnk (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with:

• File:Jennifer Melfi.jpg
• File:Carmela Soprano.jpg
• File:Junior Soprano.jpg
• File:Silvio Dante.jpg
• File:Paulie Gualtieri.jpg
• File:A.J. Soprano.jpg
• File:Meadow Soprano.jpg
• File:Adriana La Cerva.jpg
• File:Bobby Baccalieri.jpg
• File:Janice Soprano.jpg
• File:Livia Soprano.jpg

hinnk (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hinnk,

I’ve noticed that you’re targeting images I uploaded and pushing for them to be replaced with pictures that you personally uploaded. This goes beyond a simple concern for adhering to Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. It seems more like an attempt to assert control over these pages, which raises questions of bias and conflict of interest.

The images I’ve uploaded serve an important function for their respective character articles. The characters of The Sopranos are defined by their specific portrayal in the show, and generic, freely-licensed images cannot capture the essence of the actors’ performances or the visual style that made these characters iconic. The non-free content criterion specifically allows for images like these when there are no suitable free alternatives, which is exactly the case here.

Moreover, the way you’ve edited the image pages, adding infoboxes recommending replacements with your own uploads, clearly indicates that you’re not acting impartially. This behavior is inappropriate and could be seen as a misuse of your editorial privileges.

I’ll be contesting these proposed deletions and bringing this matter to the attention of administrators. If this continues, I’ll be raising the issue of your conflict of interest as well.

I’m more than willing to discuss this further if you have genuine concerns, but if your intention is to replace valid non-free content with your own contributions, then I’ll take the necessary steps to prevent that.

Best, LJF2019 ^talk 05:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images I uploaded are free alternatives made available by HBO under a CC-BY-3.0 license. If you think they aren't suitable replacements, you're welcome to mark the versions you uploaded as {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed}}. And obviously if you think there was something untoward with my replacing the images, you're welcome to raise the matter wherever you think is appropriate. hinnk (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the images you've uploaded are suitable replacements simply because they are available under a CC-BY-3.0 license from HBO misses the fundamental issue. The images I provided are critical for accurately representing the characters as they appear in The Sopranos. They capture specific moments and nuances of the characters that generic promotional images cannot replicate.

The images you've uploaded lack the contextual depth necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the characters. Promotional materials often fail to convey the intricate expressions, settings, and interactions that are essential for illustrating the characters' development and significance within the series. Replacing carefully selected screenshots with these generic images diminishes the quality and informational value of the articles.

Furthermore, your pattern of targeting multiple images that I have uploaded and substituting them with your own raises serious concerns about your intentions. This behavior suggests a conflict of interest and appears to prioritize your contributions over the integrity of the encyclopedia. Such actions are contrary to Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and collaborative editing.

The non-free content policy permits the use of copyrighted images when no free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In these cases, the specific screenshots are irreplaceable for illustrating the characters as they are known to viewers. Your insistence on replacing them without considering their unique value undermines the articles' accuracy and completeness.

If you genuinely believe that the images you've provided are more appropriate, it would have been constructive to initiate a discussion on the relevant talk pages before unilaterally making replacements. Your dismissive suggestion that I can dispute your actions after the fact does not align with Wikipedia's collaborative spirit. LJF2019 ^talk 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be direct. I disagree with several points you've made, I think the case for "captur[ing] specific moments and nuances of the characters" is tenuous, and because my browser's AI content detection plugin is going wild right now, I'm not willing to discuss this further on your talk page.

Thank you for laying out your justifications on the files' respective talk pages. I'm sure that'll help the reviewing admin make a decision about what the best next steps are. hinnk (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing that you dismiss my arguments as "tenuous" without offering any substantial rebuttal, and then cite your browser's "AI content detection plugin" as a reason to avoid further discussion. If a plugin is preventing you from engaging in a meaningful conversation, perhaps it's not me who should be reconsidering their approach.

Whether or not you believe my points were crafted with the assistance of AI doesn't diminish their validity.

Deflecting the issue by pointing to an "AI alert" seems like a convenient way to sidestep the actual discussion about the suitability of the images.

The core matter remains: the images I've uploaded are crucial for accurately representing the characters in The Sopranos. They capture specific nuances and contexts that generic, freely licensed images do not. Replacing them without adequately addressing these points does a disservice to the encyclopedia.

Since you're unwilling to engage further, I'll leave it to the reviewing administrators to assess the justifications I've laid out on the files' talk pages. I trust they will consider the merits based on policy and the best interests of Wikipedia. LJF2019 ^talk 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 3 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Tony Soprano 2.jpg
• File:Jennifer Melfi.jpg
• File:Carmela Soprano.jpg
• File:Christopher Moltisanti.jpg
• File:Junior Soprano.jpg
• File:Silvio Dante.jpg
• File:Paulie Gualtieri.jpg
• File:A.J. Soprano.jpg
• File:Meadow Soprano.jpg
• File:Adriana La Cerva.jpg
• File:Bobby Baccalieri.jpg
• File:Janice Soprano.jpg
• File:Livia Soprano.jpg

Thank you. hinnk (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kalsingh2023 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kabir Mehta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, unfortunately my submission was rejected, citing that the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

I believe that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, going be this specific criteria mentions for Creative professionals - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " The subject has created and co-created multiple such works - and all works have multiple articles and reviews. Please let me know if I am missing something here. Best regards,

Kalsingh2023 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]