Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 21

= September 21 =

00:29:37, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Jeanlucbonaparte
Hi, I tried to write a page for the artist Farrah Karapetian, and hope to use this experience to better write other pages in the future. Anyway, the page was rejected for the following reason:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

I thought I had had plenty of references, but I have since edited it to make those references even clearer, and certainly all of the references are published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject... They are some of the world's leading art publications. Can I get some clarification about what is wrong with the entry so I can better edit it? Thank you.

Jeanlucbonaparte (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left a detailed comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much; that's really clear. I think I've made the necessary changes. Jeanlucbonaparte (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Jeanlucbonaparte

04:00:42, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Annonymous4
I’m requesting a re-review for Manu Rios, as I have provided enough information about this person, he is really famous on social media, and is an actor. If you would like Edit please do so, thanks in advance.


 * Hi . I've removed the sources that lack the characteristics of reliable sources, and what was sourced to them. Not much is left, and nothing independent. The subject does not appear to be suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, public relations, or self-promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

04:27:35, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Annonymous4
Betttr sources like what, the links I’ve provided talk clearly about this person and his acting career. Please if you would like to make any edits to this Wikipedia page do so.


 * Examples of reliable sources for news include: El País, El Mundo, and ABC. See WikiProject Film/Resources for resources that wikipedians have found useful in writing about film, and, by extension, about actors. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

06:01:36, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Dippyreader
I submitted an article for creation on Wikipedia. However, my article was not created. Can you please help me out with the process and tell me the mistakes that I made, or the edits I need to make. Dippyreader (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your submitted draft reads like an advertisement. Please read the policies linked at the top of your draft.  JTP (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

16:12:25, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Rpfergu
My article was declined because it sounded too much like an advertisement. Please give me some advice on what language to remove to make it sound more neutral. Rpfergu (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Before focusing on language, I suggest you heed the second sentence of the decline, "Encyclopedia articles ... should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The draft relies almost entirely on information from the magazine itself. The draft stands no chance of acceptance unless the topic is covered at some depth in multiple, arms length, reliable sources. You may find Notability (periodicals) helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

16:33:37, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Adarrah
I did not expect an immediate response to my submission so that is the reason I am responding at this much later date.

I am perplexed by Wikipedia’s rejection of my article on Helen and Frank Schreider. The rationale for the rejection states as follows:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. The comment the reviewer left was:

Their own works cannot be considered as independent references for them. We need more reliable sources independent of the subject for this to pass

In checking Wikipedia standards, I note this: Sources need to be independent of the subject of the article, with a reputation for fact-checking and oversight, because sources close to the subject might naturally be biased or promotional.

Also Wikipedia states that articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and that self-published articles or books are not reliable sources.

I want it noted that none of the publications by the Schreiders were self-published. All their articles were published by National Geographic and Saturday Evening Post and their books were published by Doubleday, Coward-McCann and National Geographic. Other references to them are from Los Angeles Times, New York Times, United States Information Agency, and the Explorers Club. How can any of these sources be considered unreliable? If these publishers can’t be considered as “reliable sources,” then I really have cause to be perplexed.

Specifically, with respect to this statement: Sources need to be independent of the subject of the article, with a reputation for fact-checking and oversight, because sources close to the subject might naturally be biased or promotional.

Surely National Geographic, Doubleday and the other publishers of the works of the Schreiders have a “reputation for fact-checking and oversight.” And could all these publishers be accused of being “biased or promotional” because they published material by the Schreiders?

Does this mean that if a bio or a story about Hemingway was submitted, his own published books and his publishers could not be considered as reliable sources? I don’t understand this. One of my friends, a retired professor and the author of numerous academic articles and several books is certain that the article as written and documented would meet the standards of an academic journal and would be accepted for publication; why is it not acceptable in Wikipedia?

I would like to have my submission reconsidered.


 * Hi . There are two different concepts in play here, reliable sources, and notability.


 * If their book 20,000 Miles South, published by a reputable publisher, says that Frank wrote the first three chapters during the journey back, then it's a reliable source for the statement "During the journey back, Frank wrote the first three chapters of their book 20,000 Miles South, which Doubleday published in 1957." (You should, however, state on what page that fact can be found. The point of the citation is to facilitate verification.)


 * Demonstrating that a subject is notable requires reliable sources, but being reliable is not sufficient. To demonstrate notability the sources must also be independent of the subject and of each other. In other words, notability is not proven by things the Schreiders wrote, but by what other people wrote (in reliable sources) about them and their writing. The bulk of any article should be based on such sources, although non-independent reliable sources may be used to a lesser degree for facts about which there is no controversy.


 * If no one had ever written about Hemingway and his oeuvre, Wikipedia would not consider him notable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We're not reading Hemingway and deciding whether or not he's an important author, we're summarizing what scholars have written about Hemingway's life and writing.


 * I think the reviewer is saying that the four cited sources not written by the Schreiders are not enough to demonstrate notability. One could argue that point, but they certainly are not enough to justify an article of this length. Try to find additional arms length reliable sources. Also, it isn't clear where most of the content in the draft came from. Not until the end of the sixth paragraph is there an inline citation, and it's another six paragraphs before the second citation. You aren't required to have a citation for every sentence, but a greater density of citations is expected, especially when one of the subjects is still alive (because Wikipedia has stricter rules for articles about living people). --Worldbruce (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

19:52:22, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Pooja Thakur (Ptk)
Pooja Thakur (Ptk) (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I want to create my page, please accept request. thank you
 * Hello, Pooja. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Writing an autobiiography on Wikipedia is something that we do not encourage (see WP:AUTO for the reasons why we take this position).  But if you continue to seek to publish your own autobiography, keep in mind that it will never be accepted in its current form, because it contains no references whatsoever.  You need to find reliable sources that have talked about you in some significant way.  You also will need to show that you have achieved encyclopedic notability.  For actors and actresses, this means meeting the criteria set forth at WP:NACTOR.  As you look for sources that talk about you, it will be helpful to keep in mind which particular criterion at NACTOR you feel you've met, so that you can place extra effort in finding those sources that best support your claim.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)