Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 November 5

= November 5 =

00:58:11, 5 November 2018 review of draft by Thechoosenone123
I am trying to get AMW(Anti-morale Warfare to be posted. It is different than Demoralization warfare. I am trying to get it posted to boost morale in my unit.

Thechoosenone123 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You have to explain how it is different, and then show that the topic is notable. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

02:23:34, 5 November 2018 review of draft by Jennylaviolette
Hello, I am finding it difficult to understand how to choose an article to edit and add it to my sandbox.

Jennylaviolette (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Jenny, welcome to Wikipedia. If you want help writing an article/draft, see WP:YFA. I just posted a Welcome with links for specific help for specific topics on your talk page. If you need anymore help, you can ask again. We're glad you are here. JC7V -talk  02:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Jenny, also check out Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone, which is more specific to why your draft was rejected. Cheers.JC7V -talk  02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

04:40:29, 5 November 2018 review of draft by GiselleV
Hello, my proposed stub entry on actress Zenobia Shroff was rejected because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources." However, my citations include full articles, in which Shroff is the only subject, from Variety, Elle magazine, and the Huffington Post. Should I remove the citations from the New York Times, the Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, which include shorter mentions? Would it help if I got a picture? I don't have any connection to this actress whatsoever, I just happened to be perusing the page for "The Big Sick" and it struck me that one of the film's stars didn't have at least a stub. I was perusing the Wiki page of another "Big Sick" actress with a shorter resume, Vella Lovell, and I noticed that entry had more blog posts in the citations. Would that help? Thanks!

GiselleV (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No do not remove cites to big name media. This may help WP:ACTOR and WP:ENT is the criteria here. Subject may squeak in as notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

05:30:18, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Rajveer90
Rajveer90 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a draft now it is an article. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

05:39:02, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Rajveer90
Rajveer90 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Can you tell me why the draft of Jasbir Singh author has taken from the draft box?


 * You asked for it to be approved as an Article and that is what happened. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

10:58:17, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Talkyomind
The person which the article is written about is the President of the National Youth Council of Nigeria. It is a very highly placed position among the youth of Nigeria and questions are being asked constantly on good about The President of the National Youth Council of Nigeria. He represents the voice of over 100 million Nigerian Youth. So that is why it is important to have the article revised and accepted. Talkyomind (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Simply being involved with a Youth Council is not enough notability for wikipedia.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

11:29:04, 5 November 2018 review of draft by Vanafi
I am trying to make a page for St. George's School Duisburg-Dusseldorf. Since this is school, there are not many independent sources while referencing. Its website is the most relevant source of information. My draft got rejected since there are not much independent references, but I used only checked information and moreover, the school is not mentioned much in other articles, not to say books. What do you suggest in this cases? Vanafi (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanafi (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Schools aren't inheritably notable, so for it to have an article on Wikipedia, you will need to prove it is a notable subject. If the school doesn't appear in references like this, it's not notable enough for an article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

15:04:13, 5 November 2018 review of submission by 71.19.191.130
Hello, I don't understand why our business product is not enough good for Wikipedia when I can find a thousand of competitors owning a Wikipedia page. We are a 25 years olds business company. Our softwares are used in schools, universities and by professionals from all around the world.

Our Wiki draft is professional, completed and full of references.

Tell me exactly what to do?

Thank you.

71.19.191.130 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, first (And I will assume this for the registered user - You will need to explicitly state your Conflict of interest. Someone has already left a message on your talk page regarding this. As you clearly work for the company, you have a conflict.


 * Secondly, just because other articles exist, doesn't mean that your article gets a free pass. The article doesn't have enough reliable sources to prove Notability, which is where it all falls down.


 * I'd also mention, that the draft fails several style guidelines, as we wouldn't usually post "system requirements", or "software features" such as this.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

16:13:53, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Akhilmohan3365
MiDhuN Musiqz is famous in his state. He is a music producer. Accept this content.

Akhilmohan3365 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Read WP:N and WP:NMUSIC. It does not meet the guidelines for the minimum quality of an article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

16:22:02, 5 November 2018 review of draft by Macgirl
I submitted a revised version of an article several weeks ago (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_David_Kirchmann), and have not received feedback for improvement or an approval. Please advise next steps.

macgirl (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Declined on the grounds that the sources are not very much about the subject and don't meet the substantial aspect of what is needed to show notability. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. Your reason for decline is as follows:

"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)."

I have provided 21 references for the article, all of which are reputable in the architecture, construction, and real estate industries, as well as arts, television, and academia. I believe the quality of the sources I've provided are within Wiki's guidelines and prove the notability of the subject (published, reliable, secondary, independent). See below:


 * four (4) sources are newspapers and magazines with unquestionable relevance and national reach (New York Times, New York Daily News, W Magazine, and Fast Company)
 * ten (10) sources are from industry-leading publications (Surface, Curbed New York, New York Yimby, The Real Deal, etc.)
 * twelve (12) sources discuss specific projects in-depth by the subject and/or his firm
 * fifteen (15) sources were published recently (since 2016)
 * one (1) source is an interview directly with the subject in a leading industry publication

I believe the amount of coverage I provided satisfies the "significant coverage" portion of the cause for decline. Furthermore, since uploading the draft, I have found additional sources that can be included but was awaiting a decision before editing the article again.

I have also encountered peers of Kirchmann with a similar portfolio and background, who have Wiki articles that feature less sourcing but somehow were approved. See below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Wimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Efstathiou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_W._Hartman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Enquist

I am particularly interested in the subject of my draft article, as I have noticed a lack of good quality Wikipedia articles about contemporary architects doing innovative projects in the midst of one of the largest building booms in the history of New York City (see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/construction-map-buildings-department.html0. Architects are relevant to Wikipedia and our culture at large in the same way that book authors and filmmakers are relevant--architects produce works that are highly visible, in many cases public, and part of the fabric of our cities. As such, the notability of the subject is tied to the notability of the projects--in this case, a series of high profile mid-sized projects that are changing the landscape of the city and have been covered in industry-leading publications for years.

By all means, Kirchmann is not the only architect engaged in this type of work, but it was the one I chose to start as he has a rich portfolio and interesting history. I would very much like to continue working on the draft and would appreciate specific suggestions on how to improve.macgirl (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - unfortunately I can't provide a full response at this moment, but I felt it worth specifically pointing out a couple of things: one is that "Significant Coverage" refers to coverage in individual sources - lots of little mentions don't add up to Sig Cov. Secondly, status of other similar articles doesn't alter the rules on any other article (otherwise one poorly sourced article would justify every other in its field) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

19:31:10, 5 November 2018 review of submission by WanderingHP2
I created a draft for submission, and was told that it felt a bit promotional... I was given no reason, and did not see that myself, but I figured I would try to address it anyways. I am creating an entry for a blog/brand for informational purposes. I HAD some information about the authors/founders but I took that out (in hopes that was what they were referring too by "promotional.") I had several references (magazine and online) and have many more, all to corroborate the very basic information I had in the end. It was two simple sentences explaining what "Retire Early and Travel" is. Nothing promotional. Nothing advertising. A simple statement of facts. I was not given any feedback, but instead the entire draft was deleted. In the notes it says for the same reasons, but does not go further. There was not one piece of promotional or advertising information in that draft. Not one. I've emailed the user who made the decision to delete, but from what I read online I will never hear back from him.

I'd really like to know why my draft was deleted entirely, AND what he could possibly have been referring to prior to that. I am absolutely going to recreate this draft and continue to do so until it is published. It meets all criteria and guidelines...triple checked via Wikipedia pages, so there is no logic behind it's denial or it's deletion.

I understand everyone here is busy, but I would really appreciate a reply to this as I'm going to continue to create the draft (according to the wiki guidelines) and would hate for this all to happen yet again. From what I read online, it happens all too often.

~Thank you, WanderingHP2 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * I'm not an admin so I can't take a look at your deleted draft, but that is normally only done in fairly blatant cases of being promotional - marginal cases would almost always be "declined" not "deleted". In this theme it was likely that the deletion nominator felt that the article was encouraging the activity and that it was created for that purpose.


 * Before going further - do you work with the brand? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * I understand, but it was several short lines of simply facts. "Retire Early and Travel" is an early retirement travel blog... I took out anything related to the authors and founders before resubmitting it again. Promotion would imply speaking positively about something to persuade others to think positively. I did nothing but display facts. Simple facts at that. Nothing opinionated. Nothing that made the blog/brand seem good in any way shape or form. THATs why I was confused. I followed ALL wiki articles about this and it fell in line 100%. If he didn't like my references, that would be one thing (have many more) but I didn't get that from the deletion of my draft...


 * I know the owners of the blog/brand, yes. But I do not promote them in any way, and the two sentences I submitted had NOTHING positive to say about them either. IT was a simple statement of facts. As if someone was wondering "what is this" and did a quick search, ah, its a blah blah blah about blah blah blah. I initially had info about founders/authors but it wasn't there in the end. So no clue why it would be called "promotion."


 * WanderingHP2 (talk)


 * Every statement can be a fact and still fall afoul of the promotional issues. However I think I am unable to resolve the issue - request for an admin please. If you don't get one in a day or so then message again and I'll find one, but as a speedy deleted draft it's probably preferable to have an AfC-oriented admin which should be fairly present around here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

21:11:07, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Zugger69
Draft: The Lucas Plan (from Arms Production to Socially Useful Production)

I wrote an article on the Lucas Plan; It was suggested that it needed improving and many more references adding to the text; I think it is now complete but wanted to ask if there is more work needed.

I would be very grateful for your feedback Zugger69 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is notable. The formatting could use some work but that isn't a barrier to approval. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

22:03:34, 5 November 2018 review of submission by Wiki Lee Jones
First time author here, so I appreciate whatever advice you can provide.

I wrote an entry titled "The Search for the South's Funniest Accountant." I was (I thought) very careful to ensure that the piece was written in a neutral tone. I linked to several publications and television news outlets (some quite prominent) that had done stories on the event - an event, which, by the way, has been taking place for more than a decade. Still, my entry was rejected because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I'm stumped, frankly. I just re-read it and am trying to figure out what I can do to make it acceptable (i.e., less advertise-y). Any thoughts? Thanks.

Wiki Lee Jones (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the Draft. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 23:30:17, 5 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 11players sports
Hello, I am requesting assistance in regards to an article that I submitted about Bryant Lazaro. Article was declined because it is not showing reliable sources. There are four referenced links provided in the article, but they do not seem to be enough or maybe it's not the right kind of reference. Wanted to get some advise on the sources/references.

Thank you

11players sports (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for reaching out and for your draft. The sources provided are passing mentions, or in the case of this source, a primary source (interview). You need more than passing mentions for Bryan Lazaro (paragraph or more) in reliable sources, independent of him. See WP:RS, WP:IS and WP:ATH for more. Work on establishing these sources. thank you. JC7V -talk  23:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)