Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 8

= August 8 =

05:36:33, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Nrahimian
Thanks for reviewing. Please give me some advice how I can improve it. John Luxton has done a lot for education system of Australia's music. Nrahimian (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the reviewers noted, the article needs sources. These have to be multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. This cannot be a university profile or article (since that wouldn't be independent, if they studied/taught there). — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

05:55:13, 8 August 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:21A4:5325:19E:3436:628:2D1F
Hi there, it has been more 7 weeks since the Draft:Foundation Holdings hasn't been yet reviewed. I would really appreciate it if everyone here reviews this draft. Thanks in advance.

2405:204:21A4:5325:19E:3436:628:2D1F (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - due to a major flux of applications in the last few months, we have drafts that have been unreviewed for 16 weeks, so a further wait is likely. A list of all the entries can be seen here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information . I would be grateful to you if you could review it to ensure everything is good. Thank you. 2405:204:21A4:5325:C81E:AE80:9152:6B27 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

07:20:47, 8 August 2019 review of draft by ErKaranArora
Dear, I didn't understand why this article is not published. I have mentioned proper references and even Shehnaz akhtar won singing competition at 2nd place.

Karan Arora 07:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Proper references? Wikibiopharm, starsunfolded, and IMDb are in no way, shape, or form reliable sources, and should not be cited. APB and Zee are promoting their shows, so they are not independent. Gaana is not significant coverage. Nothing about the references or the accomplishments claimed in the draft suggests that the topic is notable, so I don't understand why you would think Wikipedia would ever publish the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

10:34:54, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Bekobenhavn
Bekobenhavn (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

11:44:31, 8 August 2019 review of draft by Gellerman
Gellerman (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As the reviewer noted there is no "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources". There are no sources like this in the article. It is likely WP:TOOSOON for this article until and if it receives reviews. The reviewer before that already said this too. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

14:28:01, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Frogger11.mr
My submission was a new idea entirely. One that I think is a valid creation. I was hoping the Wikipedia crowd could tell me where I am right or wrong. It was my goal to lend this idea to the world wether or not it was valid or just a pipe dream. I have read up on Magnetoception and it is a valid field of science in which my idea rests. Please reconsider the decision to post my article, if on anything the chance the right person get ahold of it and it become a reality. At lest be tested properly as I haven't the means financially or resource wise to do so.

Frogger11.mr (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you!

15:04:10, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Surya ganguly
The reviewer notes in his rejection Wiki is not a community resource. The original article attempts to define a category of data which falls within Wikipedia's core mission of chronicling the world. The fact that this definition is a community resource is a subjective definition that would apply to Wikipedia pages about solar panels, composting toilets, mobile hotspots - anything that a group of people would find useful.

Surya (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reviewer worded this somewhat ambiguously. But in the end Wikipedia has specific policies about what content is accepted. Sources are required to cover the topic itself, not just parts of it. Grouping things like the article does is original research and synthesis and is not accepted for articles. In other words, the introductory sentences in your article should already be backed up by multiple reliable independent in-depth sources before it even gets to the list. From your other article examples, we can easily find sources that talk about the subject of the article. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

15:35:25, 8 August 2019 review of submission by JeremyBrandt76
Hello, I am creating a page for an author that I believe has enough of a following to have a Wikipedia page. My submission was rejected because some of my citations were not from "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I believe the reviewer is referring to my references for the subject's biographical information, which I pulled from his website.

If I revise the biographical data so that I am pulling from independent sources, is my article more likely to be accepted? Could someone give me their opinion on 1) the subject's notability and 2) the quality of my independent sources in the "selected interviews and speaking engagements" and "awards and honors" sections?

Thank you!


 * Hi . The draft was declined because none of the draft's 17 sources are independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. Capsule speaker's bios are not the result of scholarship or journalistic investigation, they are supplied by the speaker, so are not independent. Awards mentioned only by the awarding organization and the awardee are not worth mentioning. The draft describes him as a CEO and the author of a book. That strongly suggests he is not notable. Certainly the draft does nothing to show that he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)