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

This will need more/better sourcing than the trade reviews. Reviews from these outlets have been frequently challenged at the Articles for Deletion process, so I'm concerned that it could be challenged/nominated if it was moved live in its current state. The Locus Award nomination unfortunately won't count towards notability, as it didn't win. It's a major award, but nominations have never counted towards notability - I've seen people argue against Oscar nominations as a sign of notability. Could this be discussed in the article for The Weird? It's not through the same publisher but it is the same editors, so there's some link there.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The New Weird (anthology) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bookisher! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookisher! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you're obviously interested in literature and speculative fiction, I'm also tagging Piotrus to give you a welcome! He's interested in this as well, so you'll undoubtedly run into each other as you edit on Wikipedia, so I'm going to be overly eager and introduce you both now! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also admittedly hoping that he can work his magic and find another review for the anthology. He's got some super sleuth abilities! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, well, thanks for the warm welcome -- I confess I was nervous submitting the page. I figured in part since the parallel compilation on weird fiction by the same people had a page, that might push it over the top. That said, I totally understand it needing to stand on its own, regardless. Bookisher (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. If you need help finding sources for a book etc. give me a shoutout (ping or drop me a message on my talk page) and I'll see what I can do (particulary in English and Polish). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you have or can find anything that bolsters notability for The New Weoird (anthology) I'd welcome the assist. I addressead some issues noted in the rejectionbut the more good sources and facts that merrier! Bookisher (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Weoird (anthology)? Cool; I've in fact been creating article sabout SF anthologies recently (on pl wiki). (Btw, if you have a draft for this article, please link it, btw, so I know what you've found already). But, errr, didn't you mispell the title? What I see in a quick search is nothing, but if you meant The New Weird (anthology): two reviews reported at [1], in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus (magazine), IMHO that's enough to show borderline but sufficient notability. And you already found several other good sources, so the article is fine.

Few minor comments for The New Weird (anthology:

• fill in URL field for online works, DOI for academic papers, page range cited for books (obligatory) and other works (like journbals, nice but not enforced)
• Debold words in content (bolding like this looks like AI style...).
• list all stories, if possible, provide a short plot summary and summarize reviewer comments for each

For example of my relevant works on en wiki, see A Polish Book of Monsters or The Dedalus Book of Polish Fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 31 December 2025 (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 Qcne was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi, I've submitted the other submission for you as that is the proper place to submit drafts.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bookisher/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

qcne (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Weird (anthology), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nighfidelity (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much -- exciting to see it live and glad I could source it well enough this time around! Bookisher (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2025 (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 SignedInteger 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 web content). 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:

A lot of the sources led me to dead ends. But even if they didn't, a good amount of the sources here are from the University directly (and are thus primary sources) or are just the podcast itself. One of the paragraphs here claims that Joh has been cited in The New Yorker, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, then why not cite those as sources here? As it stands, this will be declined.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 23:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed response. I will review what I have, see if I can find more, or if all else fails: will likely use some of the material on the host's bio page. Cheers! Bookisher (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookisher You're welcome. I've checked the draft again and while I'd say this has a higher chance of passing Wikipedia:NWEB, I did notice that two of the new sources are written by Joh herself, which do not make them independent of the subject matter. Also when checking them both I got 404 errors, you might want to check the Wayback Machine to find an archived link for those two sources, If there aren't any, then please try to find other sources. I'd also recommend starting a draft for Joh herself if you feel like you're ready for that. For that one, it would have to pass Wikipedia:NPROF (I recommend you read that, it doesn't appear to be as difficult of a criteria list to pass compared to most subject matters). But that one is up to you. Good luck! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 08:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deltaspace42. I noticed that you recently removed content from Planet Money without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my -- not sure at all what happened. I was (attempting to) expand the page based on the standing request for a more substantial intro. I'm terribly sorry for apparently the causing the opposite to happening. I'l review my logs and see if I can figure out my mistake. Thank you for being gracious about it and reverting the error. Bookisher (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2026 (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 MelbourneIdentity 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 web content). 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.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

MelbourneIdentity (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookisher I actually listen to this podcast. I think you'd be able to get it over the line if you had a couple of really strong mainstream reviews of the pod by independent journalists? qcne (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- I was a little surprised by the rejection this round. I can keep looking, though I would more than welcome you adding what you think would work well/best to the mix. After a 'double rejection' I feel uncomfortable pushing it forward without asistance from someone with more page creation experience. Bookisher (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What we're looking for is some sources that provide critical analysis/review of the podcast, without being a primary source. So that excludes UC Davis, 99pi, Apple Podcasts, WNCY. And then we want significant coverage, more than just a line - so that excludes niemanlab and American Literary History.

Ideally, three review websites that review the pod. Feel free to drop any you find here and I'll take a look. qcne (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of searching for sources and added them to the talk page of your draft. The best one by far is the DeMorgen source. I recommend searching for more German and Dutch sources. It seems the show may have received coverage in those languages. If you can find one or two more on the same level as the DeMorgen source I think that'd be enough. Feel free to ping me if you need any further assistance. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a hodgepodge but ...

Simon Owens is a solid source IMO: https://medium.com/audioteller/the-best-podcasts-you-should-listen-to-this-week-51dca072593c

Maybe: https://www.poynter.org/tech-tools/2017/how-roman-mars-used-president-trump-to-become-the-beyonce-of-podcasting/

I can't seem to find a working link but I've found references to "Roman Mars’ other podcast is a Con Law 101 class" by Alissa Walker on Curbed

And then a mention here as well: The New Statesman // Volume: 145 // Issue: 5345 // Page: 111

Mentioned: https://www.cjr.org/politics/donald-trump-podcasts.php

On another pod: https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/episode-14-prohibition/

A few dead links sent me to Archive.org but dead-ended there as well. Ugh. Bookisher (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookisher

1. Unfortunately we usually don't accept Medium unless its a subject matter expert posting. I don't know Simon Owens, but he looks to be a small-scale journalist, maybe not mainstream enough.
2. poynter is a little too much interview with Roman Mars.
3. cjr is okay.
4. wapo is an interview with Mars, so doesn't count.

qcne (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great points all around -- I knew Medium was dicey, but thought maybe the rep would outweigh that. TY! Bookisher (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a deep search myself and I'm not finding three strong sources unfortunately!

Id recommend instead expanding Roman Mars with a new section about this pod? qcne (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea -- been expanding that subsection! Did add fresh sources though too to the page version. Before I throw in the towel, if you are game, I'd love to have someone skim them now that there are some (IMO) good new refsm incl. international ones. Bookisher (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a subsection is probably the best way to go as well. My only other recommendation would be to check out WP:LIB if and when you're eligible. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK re:subsection -- I am not sure how much to 'strip out' if going that route. Feels like this could really overwhelm that bio page at its current length. Any tips/rules of thumb for that? Bookisher (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is being merged because there aren't enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability I would recommend keeping it on the shorter side. Summarize what the reliable sources say and provide an overview of the subject. The relevant policy here is probably WP:BALANCE. You could also give the WP:TMI essay a read. If you want a specific word count, I'd say don't go over 300 words, but that's just my opinion. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page Mother of learning has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry it was a first draft I was importing there, accidentally published it live, and within seconds I moved it to 'Draft' space but I guess it still triggered SD. :S Bookisher (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in writing a new draft about something related to Roman Mars it looks like his book is probably notable. If you start working on Draft:The 99% Invisible City and you think it's ready for mainspace, let me know. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That one seems a more ready contender as a stand-alone entry. Have also been thinking Joh may warrant a bio entry as well, as I found a number of things specific to her influence both within and beyond the shared pod. Bookisher (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]