Bobby Cohn

Click here to start a new discussion.

Draft:Marcus Rhodes (rugby union)

Hi Bobby

Having a bit of difficulty trying to update the Marcus Rhodes rugby union

I'm slightly confused as I followed instructions from another editor. You mentioned LinkedIn as a source I didn't use LinkedIn all my sources are independent. I don't even know him. I'd really appreciate a good steer as I'm currently in hospital for a long time and I thought I would look at some of the entries in Wikipedia as I read it daily Carlton2002 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Carlton2002, I see in your comment here that you do have sources to use, that is excellent. Presently, all that is cited in your article is:

Marcus Rhodes (born 2001) is an English professional rugby union player who plays as a number 8 for RFU Championship club Coventry RFC. He holds the BUCS Super Rugby record for both the most appearances and the most starts, with 75, having started every single game from his first appearance in his debut season.

References

That is where I read the reference to LinkedIn from, it is written in the draft article.

Instead, take the references you do have and use them to cite the content in your article, or consider expanding the article and cite to those references where you use them.

You can follow the guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners to place those citations. Let me know if that's a good starting point for guidance or you there's something else that is causing a sticking point. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there

I've tried contacting you a few times but I can't see my talk message or yours

I appreciate your help and I thought I'd sent you my updated version in a sandbox as requested but I can't see that now either

And I'm recovering from the last medical thing and

I've now been blocked by Epic from any other editing anywhere for a year !

it seems completely arbitrary and draconian based on what?

Another perspective on if this guys think Marcus Rhodes merits being in Wikipedia due to what ? Rugby might not be big in some countries but like cricket in Asia it's massive in others…. What's the process by which I've been blocked.? If I was writing vicious comments i would be the first to say ban! But what i produce a well researched article based on facts and sources and I've been blocked! Carlton2002 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Chamath Sangeeth

Hi, it looks like the issues regarding promotional language and cleanup tags in the draft for Chamath Sangeeth have been addressed in the latest revision. The tone appears more neutral now. Could you please take a look and re-evaluate the draft? Botempa (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Botempa, some issues with the promotional language still present in the draft:

• became famous over the world unnecessary, promotional, lead not supported by text in the body.
• The song received significant views on Spotify and YouTube in South Asia in India. The song was widely shared and led to various cover versions globally Many people made their versions of this song. both unnecessarily promtional and slightly WP:WEASEL-y. Focuses on the song and not the subject of the article. Appears like you're trying to sell a story.
• Following the success of the song, As above, appears like you're trying to sell a story.
• The song charted well upon its release. About the song, not the subject. If you are going to describe the chart, be specific, not using a weasel word "well" but say the rank.
• In 2024, people said They said who is they? Be specific. This helps us determine if it's worth writing about. Named by-lined pieces in WP:RS? Then maybe it's worth keeping this next section. Random internet commenters in YouTube? Probably not.
• Anirudh Ravichander composed this song for the movie Devara: Part 1. Unnecessary, not about the subject. Makes me suspect WP:NOTEBOMB, would the reference support the connect to the subject here? This could be cleaned up if it needed to be kept.
• Sangeeth thinks that it is okay that their songs sound similar. I'm sure he does. It's fine to quote people a little in their own biographies, but that means nothing here would support a claim for notability. Unless the coverage is balanced both with respect to Ravichander and Sangeeth, then this is likely not necessary.

A lot of this reads like what something an AI would parse and try and summarise about the coverage, hence @Anachronist's comment. I would decline it the same if I were to review this myself without being prompted, so I won't do that here. That's before beginning to assess the sources. I haven't opened them, but I'm very suspicious given the context. And they independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage? Do they contain interviews from the subject and quote him directly, or republish what a record label might be saying? These are all things to consider.

I would start by addressing some of the above. Hope that helps, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have further improved the draft for Chamath Sangeeth based on your feedback. I have removed all promotional phrases like "became famous over the world" and streamlined the career section. Crucially, I have added new, highly reliable independent sources from India Today, ITN News, and Deccan Chronicle to verify his work and notability. I have also addressed the issues in the 'Select works' section. Could you please re-evaluate the latest revision? Thank you! Botempa (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick look suggests it has improved already. However I don't think I'm presently suited to address notability and assess any citations on the subject; I'll leave it in the queue for now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Watchlist (play) resubmitted for review.

Hello Bobby, I have resubmitted Watchlist(play) for review and feedback. I have revised the draft to address the concerns raised in the previous review. The article has been rewritten in a more neutral and concise encyclopedic style, citation errors have been corrected, and non-independent academic sources have been removed. The remaining content is based on independent published reviews and production sources. I would appreciate a further review of the draft and any additional feedback that may help bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's content guidelines. Thank You Prabeshghimire82 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Prabeshghimire82, there's nothing that I could see as a reason to keep it in the draftspace, so I've accepted and moved it to the mainspace. I did remove the Broadway World citation as it is generally considered unreliable, see WP:BROADWAYWORLD. Otherwise, I just did some small cleanup, you'll see the play now at Watchlist (play). Thanks for your contributions! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reading and your suggestion on the articles I recently submitted on Wikipedia. I am brand new to Wikipedia. I enjoyed reading your description of yourself and I can relate to what you have written. I have been working in the linguistics/languages field for over a decade now, and I have kept a journal since I was a kid, and I write about all sorts of things. Anyway, a lot of the articles I have submitted are based on personal observations, exposure, training and reading. However, after writing the best draft, I did deploy AI to come up with the final draft. Perhaps that's not a Wikipedia-n thing to do. Any guidance on how to move forward? While still keeping on contributing to the Wikipedia community? Thank you! PX2N (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PX2N, happy to have you aboard and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia! Let me warn you that you've definitely decided to jump off the deep the end, as writing an article from scratch is often referred to as one of the most difficult things to do on the project, epically as a new editor. And there are a couple problems you'll experience in general with your current plan, but nothing insurmountable.

Regarding how you are contributing text: "the articles I have submitted are based on:"

• "personal observations, exposure"  Not good, as all of the writing on Wikipedia needs to come from a published reliable source
• "training" Okay, if you can cite to reliable sources such as university textbooks
• "and reading"  Great, just remember to include a citation, but this is exactly what we look for in good contributions.

Consider the guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. This is a good introductory guide to references and how to produce them. We also have explanitory guidance or policy pages for most things on Wikipedia. Consider Wikipedia:Verifiability, the policy which states everything must be referenced. Wikipedia:Reliable sources discusses what makes a source reliable and the instances it can be used. Start there, and you will see many blue links that discuss a lot of the aspects of the project.

Regarding using an large language model, or "AI chatbot"; this is strongly discouraged in both writing new content and using it to communicate with other users. There's a variety of reasons for each, but it comes done to not being able to trust the output and the limitations in communication. The policy WP:NEWLLM and the section § See also have a lot more to say about it. You can use it to check small things like grammar or help your phrasing, but it's best not to use them in general.

For most things as you're getting started, the Help:Introduction will cover 95% of what you need to get started and the Wikipedia:Teahouse will be able to answer the rest of your questions. If you're looking for other things to do that will definitely have an easier learning curve to jump into than a new article, the Wikipedia:Task Center has some great places to start. Consider picking an area that interests you and see if you can help fix some problems. § Fact-Checking and § Fact-Checking are what got me into editing.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bobby for such a comprehensive and thoughtful reply!

I want to clarify something here. By Personal observations and exposure, I mean, I have spent a significant amount of time among folks who speak Pashtu as their mother tongue, I have native level command of two very distinct dialects of Pashtu and have extensive exposure to several other dialects. I have studied the language, in addition to studying and having a native level/professional command of its neighboring languages. And since I have had exposure to all these languages throughout my lifetime, therefore, I used the phrase "personal observations and exposure". PX2N (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad to hear it was useful!

If you have published anything, then you can cite to those, we do have guidance on WP:SELFCITE about using your own work and as long as it is acceptable and within reason. The difficulty arises when you haven't published, then the fear is it drifts into Wikipedia:Original research territory. Not that I doubt your experiences, but the rule of thumb is someone should be able to double check (e.g.: borrowing a book from the library, reading a journal article) using a citation behind anything written on the project. Without a citation to a reliable source, it would then be a failure of the WP:V as I mentioned previously.

For example, the biographer Robert Caro could use any of his four books to write about Lyndon B. Johnson's early life and career, but couldn't contribute to the article Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson without first publishing and then citing his fifth book (he better hurry up and publish it, I'm waiting).

But if you don't have those sources, that's okay. Doing research and finding citations is an acceptable way to contribute, and ensures that the content you do add isn't challenged and removed by our procedure WP:PROVEIT.

Hope that helps, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Bobby, again, I am gratefully thankful for your reply. I am published in reputable journals, however, that was from the early part of my career which was in cancer research. However, I have gone through the rigor of academic/scientific research, peer review and objective/scientific writing, which I think is a good thing and a bad thing when it comes to Wikipedia. I have been writing on language/linguistics related topics for a long time and have been using my writing as my "abstracts" for the pieces I have submitted. However, I also understand that my approach might be too academic and scholarly, and not Wikipedia like. I have become aware of that (thanks to your and some other editors) and am going to tackle that approach, while moving forward. PX2N (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Gopi Longia

my dear brother/ sister pls help to write check my draft ok or not Dr.Gayne (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you removed the AFC template. I've restored it for you so that you can click the resubmit button to have it reviewed again. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

only source taken from chatgpt but information written by myself in my language Dr.Gayne (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dr.Gayne, the phrasing of "received media attention", "which was discussed by" and "he was the subject of national media coverage following" are often the way LLMs tend to describe search results when they find sources. You may find it helpful to write about what has been said about the subject and then cite to the sources.

As it stands now, you only have one citaion, but notability is often supported by multiple sources, all of which need to be reliable, secondary and independent of the subject and should discuss the subject with significant coverage. Further, notice that you are using bare URLs. Consider Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Your first article.

Also consider MOS:LAYOUT, which explains the formatting changes I made to the draft, not that looks of an article will dictate acceptance at AFC, but if does reduce the work that another reviewer will have to do (or re-do, as in this case here) before accepting your draft.

Happy editing. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Request on 18:26:34, 10 June 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by Glpollock1

• Glpollock1 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Glpollock1/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bobby! I think I meet the criteria for notability because of #2 - "Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards used in a notable music genre." I have over 30 published by major publishers in the sacred music genre. Most composers never even get one! Should I do a chart that lists them all? I've seen other composers on Wikipedia that have done that. All my publications are listed on my ASCAP account page but putting that in a reference won't do any good. Clicking on an ASCAP link only takes you to the main page. Tnanks for your help! Gail

Glpollock1 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Glpollock1, the specifics for criterion #2 says "Has composed a number of notable melodies, [etc]" (emphasis mine) which means that the melodies themselves would have to be notable. Note that being published is not the same as being notable. A notable piece of music would follow WP:NSONG, WP:NALBUM, etc, or the WP:GNG. In essence, this would mean each of your melodies would also qualify for a Wikipedia article. I didn't immediately see that present in your draft; which compositions of yours are notable such that you would qualify under the above criteria? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I did see that. But my music is print, not recordings, unless you count all the recordings of it that people who bought the print music have put on YouTube. Maybe something like sales figures over the life of the publication? Glpollock1 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Glpollock1, if there are no suitable subject-specific notability guidelines and a criteria for WP:NMUSIC does not apply to the piece, work, or composition you have made, then the piece, work, or composition will need to qualify as notable under the general notability guideline. This will need to be demonstrated for each of the pieces, works, or compositions as WP:NMUSICOTHER #2 (the one you are suggesting) specifies a number of such notable works.

Alternatively, if you do not qualify under the music guidelines, as a biography of a living person, you may otherwise qualify as notable under WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO or the same general notability guideline. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, just thought I'd provide the whole paragraph from Wikipedia's page - I am "outside mass media traditions." I do print music which church musicians around the world buy to perform themselves. So I'm under the second criterion shown below:

Others Shortcut WP:NMUSICOTHER Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture.

THIS ONE - Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards used in a notable music genre.

Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory, or teaching for a particular music genre.

Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre.

Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria. Glpollock1 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Glpollock1, yes I do see that. I pointed out a specific part above in my message, did you see my response above? Here's a link to the spot on the page. Here. I asked a question as a follow up about the specifics of the criteria you quoted. You can reply to me by clicking the blue reply button. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I did see that. But my music is print, not recordings, unless you count all the recordings of it that people who bought the print music have put on YouTube. Some of the other sacred music composers on Wikipedia just seem to have charts, i.e. James Biery, and he only has 14! Maybe something like sales figures over the life of the publication? I might still have my royalty statements. Or the number of countries I have gotten royalties from? Sacred music, unless it's The Messiah or Mallote's The Lord's Prayer, generally don't make a top 40 list because there really isn't one. In other words, I feel clueless. Glpollock1 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Glpollock1 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Glpollock1 the existence of other work on Wikipedia holds no weight in consideration as to whether a differen subject should be accepted or not as it does not work in a precedent-setting manner. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sales figures, royalty statements, the number of countries have no bearing on notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, only sources which demonstrate either a SNG or all of significant coverage, reliability, secondary and independent per the GNG will demonstrate notability. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)