Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 5

= August 5 =

02:00:55, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Lalatendu2019
Hi, since this is my first article, please tell me why this was rejected. There are plenty of similar profile/ pages on other casting directors.

I created this page as I could not find any on Wikipedia and i thought it will be helpful for new actors/ stragglers to find more information on Indian movie casting directors.

Thanks. Lalatendu2019 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Girdhar swami. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

07:00:07, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Defp619
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. May I ask why is was rejected? I'm new to Wikipedia and figuring out the rules here.

I noticed that you marked it as a conflict of interest. I found an article of Starr Online being featured at Whole Foods and have seen her as prominent in the disability community. She was a big advocate and leader for children and adults with Autism, from what I can find online.

Defp619 (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only includes articles about people who have already been written about in depth in other publications. Please add references to show that Taxman has been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent publications. If you cannot find such sources then they are not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The patch.com link is a mere mention of Taxman, not an article about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The linked Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles fail verification. They don't say what you claim, indeed they don't mention Taxman at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

10:25:15, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Mariferchis
Mariferchis (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This subject appears not to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The only way it might become an article is if you can show that multiple other reliable, independent publications have written in depth about Scotching. Independent excludes anything written by the technique's inventor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

12:34:05, 5 August 2019 review of submission by 終端如
re-edit 鍾顓如 來自於台灣，只想編輯自己真正的維基百科資料. 終端如 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 終端如 Your draft is in Chinese this is the English Wikipedia we would need it translated into English. You could also go and create an article on the Chinese Wikipedia.  Whispering ( t ) 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

12:51:34, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Venky0235
Venky0235 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This draft is not suitable to become a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:DECLINED. I have tagged it for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

14:23:31, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Grahamfried
I have edited my submission so that it no longer cites any primary sources (which was the cause for my first draft's rejection); it now references only secondary sources, which I believe should make it publishable. Grahamfried (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you've cited are insufficient to meet the WP:NCORP criteria. You would have to find further sources that demonstrate that multiple independent, reliable publications have written about Whitefish Lake Institute in depth. Examples could include articles in national newspapers, scientific journals, or television documentaries. Wikipedia isn't a directory of organisations - it is not about everything. It is an encyclopedia. Instead, I recommend you add to Whitefish Lake (Montana). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Although primary sources generally should be avoided, you are mistaken about that being the problem. The rejection of draft it is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Adding non-independent sources (one written by the executive director, the other a capsule description supplied by the organization as part of their fundraising) does not help. No amount of editing can fix the problem. Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

16:27:12, 5 August 2019 review of draft by Wikieagle01
Hello, I just wanted to know how long it would take for the Pete Wilkinson Wikipedia page to go live that I submitted? I uploaded on 29th June. Thank you in advance for your help.

Wikieagle01 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the current backlog is over four months, so it will probably take at least until 29th October. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

18:55:48, 5 August 2019 review of draft by 70.95.94.136
I'm kind of a newbie editor, and I don't know how to insert links or anything. It would be great if some other editors would write down information they know. Because most of what I know about this topic is that it existed. There's a Korean version of this article that you can read. I'm just making the English version. My Korean reading is poor, so it would be nice if someone would translate all that text on the Korean page. Google Translate is useless apparently.

70.95.94.136 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

19:03:14, 5 August 2019 review of draft by Atomburke1
I am submitting this article about a living person.

Alina von Davier is a notable scholar and pioneer in the field of psychometrics, especially Computational Psychometrics. Her research has been cited over 2000 times, per google scholar.

The article has been declined and I can't find a sufficient reason for its denial. I appreciate any help you can offer on this. Thank you AtomBurke1

Atomburke1 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft was declined for two reasons.


 * First, it contains information about a living person for which no source is cited. All of the possible explanations for this are bad. If you know the information because of a close connection to von Davier, and especially if you are being paid to write about her, you need to disclose that conflict of interest. If you found it in a reliable source, but neglected to cite the source, you need to cite it. If you made it up, you need to take it out. Assuming the last is not the case, Wikipedia biographies should generally be chronological, so put her MA first, her PhD second, and her post-PhD career third. (Her books should also be in chronological order.)


 * Second, the draft fails to show how von Davier is notable. The draft gives the impression that it cites no independent sources (the bulk of any article should be based on such sources), although the American Educational Research Association source probably isn't really authored by von Davier as the draft makes out. In postings you have written that she is "recognized as a pioneer" and "her work has been cited over 2000x". Those might relate to specific criteria under WP:PROF, but the draft makes no claims like that. Whatever criteria she meets, the draft needs to say so and prove it by citing independent reliable sources. Who, for example, says she's a pioneer? Finally, the lead should say why she's notable, instead it says she's an adjunct professor. Whoop-de-doo. See MOS:LEAD for how to write a better lead. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

19:17:22, 5 August 2019 review of submission by MA$HRVA
I have been writing this article Draft:Shripad Vaidya and making time to time changes as advised by expert reviewers. A part of this article was also written by an expert reviewer in addition to me. I always welcomed others to write in this article and not done any changes in their edits. In this way I was developing the article and trying to learn by doing lot of hardwork by following wikipedia guidelines. I was assuming that I will get a period of 6 months (as written in guidelines) to rewrite and improve this article. But suddenly article got rejected and even the resubmit button disappeared. This seems to be injustice for the disciplined newcomer like me.

As far as the notability of the subject of the article is concerned, I feel that the notability criteria is being fulfilled for the following reasons: Under this situation, I request all the concerned authorities to give me a chance to rewrite the article (because I have made a lot of study on that) and also re-review it accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Significant coverage of the subject is available in English, Hindi and Marathi language. The Marathi language wikipedia page of the subject is also available.
 * 2) Reliable sources are available and have been mentioned in the references. They encompass various published works in three different languages in almost all forms of media. Also the number of references mentioned are from different authors and publications.
 * 3) The references mentioned are independent of the subject.
 * 4) There are verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
 * 5) Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources.
 * 6) The outside world has already taken notice of the subject.
 * 7) The reliable sources given cover the subject in context of multiple events.
 * 8) The article is neither a self-promotion nor paid promotion as the work of the subject mentioned in the article is not his source of income. Also I am not a paid editor.
 * 9) By writing this unique article regarding the work done in the subject of Environmental Human Development, I was trying to enrich the wikipedia knowledge base for the subject Environmental Human Development. As per my knowledge, I have not found any article on any environmentalist working in the field of Environmental Human Development in English Wikipedia (though it exists in Marathi language wikipedia).
 * 10) The environmentalist's achievements in the field of record breaking have been noted by the highest and famous authorities in that field all over the world.

Write Right!! 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - I see that you were previously asked for your best 3 sources. While you provided them, you completely failed to engage with someone trying to review them. There's another 3 in the actual article - I don't know who added them. Sources 2 and 3 of them are decent. While I won't review this article, if you post your best 4 sources on my talk page (feel free to have up to 2 in another language), I'll discuss them with you, and let you know how he's doing on the notability front.


 * When it comes to the other reasons that this article has been failing, the insane, completely unhelpful, mess of references adds nothing. For a given fact, no more than 3 sources should be used. Where 1 or 2 sources are used, do not increase them to 3. A limit of 2 for most facts is fine. Use the best sources. Regardless of you being paid or not, it's reading as promotional. Cutting the sources down will make that easier to combat. I don't quite believe it's beyond saving, but it needs major work. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

21:16:13, 5 August 2019 review of submission by AnjeUno2020
AnjeUno2020 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there isn't any information other than the infobox, and no sources, it would automatically fail review. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

21:39:30, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Decipher King
Thank you for the review.

Kindly let me know what exactly the issue is with the article. I tried to make it as clear as possible and not in a promotional way, these are the basic information i know about this company.

Please let me know if i ommitted something or added something that shouldnt.

I will gladly make the necessary changes and republish. Thanks for the effort in advance.

Decipher King (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi The problem with the draft is that the topic is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to resubmit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)