User talk:Iwaqarhashmi

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Iwaqarhashmi}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Reminder to all Wikipedians, vandalism on this talk page will be reverted and logged immediately, and if you need general help and I cannot respond in like 10 minutes, please contact someone else or go to the Teahouse. Reminder, this page is being archived by Cluebot III; do not reply to any archived messages as they will be ignored; if you want to revive messages that are more than two days old, please create a new topic as they are archived.

Freedom to Read[edit]

Please reconsider the draft-to-mainspace of Freedom to Read. It seems well-sourced and is listed as one of the D.C. public artworks. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn I agree that the "Freedom to Read" sculpture seems well-sourced, with information likely coming from a credible source about D.C. public artworks.

However, for Wikipedia, notability is a key criterion for having a separate article. While the sculpture is interesting, it's possible it might not meet the notability threshold yet. This is just my opinion, and other reviewers might have a different take.

The best course of action would be to encourage the submitter to refine the draft further. Perhaps including additional details about the artist, the sculpture's design or historical significance, or its reception within the D.C. community could strengthen the notability argument. With a more robust draft, it might gain approval from other reviewers. Thanks! Waqar💬 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. This was the first I'd seen of the article, and noticed it seemed well sourced and qualified as a visual arts article about a sculpture. Notability in artworks, I would think, would be automatically achieved when adequate sourcing is achieved. But I'm not sure where the line is "officially" drawn on artworks, so would like to bother, I mean call in, editors with lots of experience in visual arts pages, Another Believer and Johnbod. I like the reading aspect of the statue, seems unique in some ways, especially for D.C. which has a lot of statues and articles about statues. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the photograph is up for deletion. Can someone move a copy to English Wikipedia and fill out one of those fair-use forms? Thanks. That should be a policy at Commons. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarification! The article does show promise, and it's great that you're proactive in strengthening the article.

Also you're right that notability for established works of art can sometimes be more flexible.

For the visual arts expertise, calling in editors is a perfect idea. Their experience will definitely be valuable in refining the article's focus on the sculpture's unique aspects within the D.C. art scene. Waqar💬 09:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the main thing right now is to save the photograph from being deleted at Commons without a copy available on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the image might get deleted from Commons due to copyright concerns. This can happen if the image doesn't have a clear license granting permission for its use on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable. I'd guess 50/50 at Afd at present. In theory, adding material rather than better sources doesn't make it any more notable. Isn't there a DC project to ask? Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orpington & District AbC[edit]

I have the papers from archives from 1912 and 1936 etc they’re not on the internet, I’m happy to send them to you so you can add citations ? im a boxing coach not IT wizard so your help would be appreciated ? Box32 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on published, reliable sources that are available online for everyone to see. This allows other editors to verify the information and ensure accuracy. Unfortunately, unpublished archival documents wouldn't qualify. But you could try searching for published sources that corroborate the information in your archival papers. Waqar💬 15:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had this draft on my watchlist after the user was asking me for help with it yesterday. You're rejecting it as not adequately supported by reliable sources, but it has several print newspapers listed in the references. Is there a reason to doubt the reliability of those sources? Belbury (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out about this draft. I do see several print newspapers as references and they can be reliable sources, but unfortunately, many of the references listed aren't readily available online for verification. This makes it difficult to assess their credibility and ensure the information is accurate and unbiased. Additionally, the draft's tone seems to lean a bit towards advertisement, it should be presented in a more neutral and factual manner. The draft has been resubmitted multiple times without incorporating the reviewers' feedback, and they also removed the decline templates and comments. Waqar💬 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yusuf Ziya Bey[edit]

Hello @Iwaqarhashmi, I have now added further sources to my draft and thus strengthened the arguments with sources. Does this article fit now? If not, could you help me or point out the deficiencies in more detail? Xelîlê Zozan (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the additional effort you've put into strengthening your arguments with sources. Please feel free to resubmit your draft, and it will be reviewed thoroughly to see if it meets the acceptance criteria. Waqar💬 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]