User talk:Dr Ankur Bhire

Hi Dr Ankur Bhire! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Deb was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a term that will have different meanings in different societies and cultures. If this article refers to India only, the introduction should make this clear and the title should be amended accordingly.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Community Health Officer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Community Health Officer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Deb (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Community Health Officer in India, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Community health worker. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is part of a far larger theme. I had three choices after you moved it to become an article:

• AfD, but the topic has merit, so I chose not
• Request a merge, but that takes time, and you may wish to move faster than that
• Put it back in to Draft Resubmit it in your behalf and state that it needs to be merged into the fuller article,

I chose the last. Please perform an orderly merge, gaining any necessary consensus on the target article's talk page as necessary

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Community Health Officer in India and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Community Health Officer in India, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Muhandes was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

As I already commented, the subject does not pass the notability requirements WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Also, there are multiple redundant citations (most of the from unreliable sources) that should be removed. Sources should only be added to for cited facts, not just for the sake of adding sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atul Kumar (Writer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Atul Kumar (Writer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Muhandes (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the 44 (!!!) sources you added to a two line article is actually contributing to satisfying WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:AUTHOR, I do suggest that you clean the article up, remove all the rest of the sources, and resubmit. Also, if you have any relationship with the subject, now is the time for disclosing it. Not disclosing an existing relationship is against Wikipedia policies. --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know Atul Kumar (Writer) professionally as well as personally, He is notable writer your can search on Google also, please help to publish theor1 article on wikipedia. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing a person is fine, as long as you do not have a conflict of interest. If Atul Kumar is notable then I would be happy to assist in publishing an article about them. However, a Google search in itself does not show notability. To be considered notable, the subject must have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. The general notability guideline is that a subject is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specifically, in the case of a person, the basic rule is that people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are also special guidelines for authors, but at a glance I don't think the subject satisfies any of these requirements. The person is also an academic, so the guidelines for academics apply, but again, I don't see how any of these requirements are met.

If you want my assistance you need to help me first show notability. By adding 44 subjects to a two-line article you made this practically impossible for me to do. Read WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and see of the subject satisfies any of these requirements. If they do, show me a reliable source that can be used as proof. Failing that, and at a glance the subject fails these tests, see if WP:BASIC or WP:GNG can demonstrated, and guide me towards the reliable sources for that. --Muhandes (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you interested in this or not? --Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrested. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above what I need in order to move forward. Also, see the talk page guidelines. --Muhandes (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please separate the reference, Which are reliable in This article and remove unreliable reference. Then i will give you more data about this article. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are doing things backwards. The first step is to determine if this is worth our effort by being notable. For this you need to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG (probably try to do it in that order). I am far from being convinced that any of these can be satisfied. Show that they can, and we start worrying about reliability of sources. --Muhandes (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, Atul Kumar wrote an Book on Digital India. According to his book "He wanted to connect Aadhaar card with voter Identity card then he want to use finger print necessary during Election to create transparency between Election commission and Indian citizens." title of this book is Digitalization...For the prosperous nation. In 2018, He wrote second book which is an poetry collection. He also appeared in DE MODE magazine. He also wrote some scholarly article realted to Public Health which is available on SSRN portal. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a book (or even a dozen) is not sufficient to show notability of an author, see WP:AUTHOR. Writing a scholarly article is definitely insufficient, see WP:NACADEMIC. I don't know if "DE MODE magazine" is reliable, but significant coverage in a published magazine is a step towards satisfying WP:BASIC. More coverage will be required, where else was he covered? --Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Ki Awaaz, Dainik Jagran, Jagran Josh, Storymirror, Amar Ujala, Open Library, etc. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Ki Awaaz is meaningless since it is self-published. Coverage in Dainik Jagran is very helpful as is coverage in Jagran Josh. Storymirror is useless, it is a self-published repository for works. Amar Ujala is helpful. Open Library is a repository of works, it does not provide coverage. --Muhandes (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also have artis profile on Apple music and other International music platforms. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These can be used for the article but they are meaningless for notability since they don't provide significant coverage.--Muhandes (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all these citations are helpful for this article. Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the sources yet so I cannot tell if they provide significant coverage. Let start with the coverage in Dainik Jagran, Jagran Josh and Amar Ujala as these are supposedly reliable sources. Can you provide a link to each? I suppose they are not in English, but that is not important if you could make sure the Google Translate translation I use is correct. --Muhandes (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.jagran.com/news/education-awakening-youth-ready-to-join-the-grand-celebration-of-democracy-jagran-special-19108081.html Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From some reason Google Translate is having problems with these pages. From what I could translate, it seems there are only two paragraphs about Mr. Kumar. Other than telling us he wrote a book this source does not provide any coverage. --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.jagran.com/blogs/jagrandesk/ran-dhairya-ka-by-atul-kumar/ Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a blog post of a poem by Kumar. It does not provide any coverage that can help establish notability. --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit on this page here you can find all citation for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atul_Kumar_(Writer) Dr Ankur Bhire (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of the guidelines I linked to? I could not find anything on the draft that establishes notability. You said there is coverage in newspapers, provide links to that and maybe it will be sufficient. --Muhandes (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This draft was resubmitted rapidly, within a few hours, after being declined, with only minor changes. Resubmitting a draft too rapidly after it was declined is not useful and is not likely to result in approval. When a draft that has been declined is resubmitted, the reviewers look at the history, and expect that the submitter will attempt to address the concerns of the reviewers. If the submitter is not sure what the reviewer wants, it would be a good idea to discuss with the reviewer rather than just resubmitting (and annoying the reviewers).

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

The author is very strongly advised to discuss with the reviewers, or at least to rework this draft substantially, rather than just resubmitting.

If this draft is resubmitted rapidly again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice rather than making minor improvements and resubmitting.

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

Resubmitting this draft within an hour after it was declined, and without any apparent changes, is insulting to the reviewers, but is not useful.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission.

It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over.

If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr Ankur Bhire. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Community Health Officer in India".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]