Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 December 11

= December 11 =

02:44:13, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Frakes928
Found and added a number of citations highlighting both music ensembles and solo work for Tite's career Frakes928 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Discogs and last.fm, being user-generated, are not reliable sources. Celebrityaccess appears to be a press release. The three newspaper articles either don't mention Groce / Tite, or mention him only in passing. Apple and cduniverse are indiscriminate, so they don't help demonstrate notability either. All in all, I concur with the reviewer that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

04:31:00, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Epiphyllumlover
Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I found some reliable sources not yet mentioned in the article, but a reviewer put on a "Stop" button that I believe was unwarranted. How can I get the stop button removed from the article so I can continue to improve the article with the additional sources for eventual re-submission? For reference and a listing of the additional sources, see the end of the discussion on User_talk:RoySmith, the new ones are the books by Wengert and Atkins, and the article in the star phoenix. Thank you for your consideration.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . After declines by 8 different reviewers in 21 months, rejection of the draft is meant to convey that reviewers do not intend to evaluate it again. Under these circumstances, continuing to re-submit it might be construed as tendentious editing. However, unless you have a conflict of interest or are editing under some form of sanctions, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you. If you disagree with the advice of experienced editors, you may move the draft to article space and let it sink or swim there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks...I have some experience in AfD and am about 90% sure it would survive a deletion attempt if I improved it first. I resubmitted it without modification all of those times because in reading the comments left by the reviewers it was evident that they did not evaluate all of the sources. Maybe half of the sources are not third party--this is an obvious obstacle to reviewers. They probably thought all of the sources were inadequate just because the first ones they looked at were. Also, I was of the impression that there was no limit to the number of times I could request a review--I was evidently wrong on that.


 * I am not under sanctions, and do not have a COI, as I am not a member of any organization connected to the one mentioned in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

05:18:36, 11 December 2019 review of draft by Ccccchaton000
How do I delete this. (kind of want to cry but eh :b) Ccccchaton000 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I tagged the draft for deletion for you. You can also add db-author to pages you made or blank the page yourself. Stale draft will also be deleted eventually. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

06:01:34, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Goforexcellence
The company website is updated. Could you re-review? Also feel free to tell me what would be required to make it published? thanks Goforexcellence (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

08:28:09, 11 December 2019 review of draft by 84.46.52.229
Could somebody with admin rights please "add" (=history merge) the deleted (expired PROD 2016) Kim Iverson with an o to this draft with an e? The birth date on Q6408835 needs a better reference than imported from a deleted enwiki page, and I'd like to know which of many US radio stations were considered as "notable" on the deleted page. While at it please also check, maybe it can be recycled with a "move to commons". –84.46.52.229 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will look into the history merge. In future please make such requests at WP:REFUND. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done the history merge, and restored content and a photo from the previously deleted version. Please have a look. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:REFUND, but the o vs. e issue could have killed the e draft instead of rescuing the o history&mdash;or rather, that's what I feared, because it was all backwards. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources seem pretty clear that it is the same person, and notability now seems clear, so i did the refund, integrated to old info, and approved the draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

08:58:38, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Jordifernanjo
Good morning, As I told you few days ago, I need to have this article published before Christmas. I don’t understand why it is rejected and what should I do to publish it. I would be glad if you could help me.

Regards, Jordi

Jordifernanjo (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As the reviewer remarked, the draft has no suitable sources for establishing notability and will not be published in its current state. Since you didn't add any such sources after two reviews, we can only assume there are none and reviewer's decision to decline the article is correct at this time. Unless the game receives coverage such as in-depth reviews from sources such as those listed here, I'm afraid there really isn't anything you can do to have it published. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we rely on sources. I don't know why you need to have this article published before Christmas, but this isn't a criteria we would use for deciding on content to include (if you happen to have connection with the subject matter, you must disclose it). — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

10:43:28, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Jakeswit
I am working to be included on Wikipedia. As I see it, many of my contemporary theatre artists are portrayed with links to their work, their reviews and their webpages. I have worked with some of the most regarded directors in Europe and feel that it is time to be included in this list. I understand if I am not allowed to write an article about myself, but would like to know how to get included on Wikipedia. Can you help me?

Jakeswit (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Create something notable. Then people will care about it and will create the page. DougHill (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:30:02, 11 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Adamkesselhaut
I'm confused a little because all of the links and assertions in this page are true, certifiable, certified and carefully referenced.

thank you for your help

Adamkesselhaut 16:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference and Discogs is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

17:28:15, 11 December 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19
This is an established writer - please find further information on him below:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A8

http://wimmerbooks.co.il/

https://www.e-vrit.co.il/Author/1087

https://simania.co.il/authorDetails.php?itemId=14002

https://www.booksefer.co.il/index.php?q=%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9F+%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A8&f=author&dir=site&tb_name=catalog&page=search

https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/47/ART2/209/734.html

RWNYC19 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Being an established writer does not necessarily mean you are notable I'm afraid. Your draft Draft:Reuven Wimmer has no independent sources so no chance whatsoever of being accepted. Wikipedia has no interest in what the articles subject wants to say about himself, only what reliable sources have reported.You will need to declare your conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 20:28:44, 11 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jingleman2
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

NBC, The TENNESSEAN, The WILSON, THE VOICE, are ALL reliable sources. I looked at 10 different articles, cut and paste exactly as they did theirs and you are rejecting? Sundance Head, Frank Sims, etc... Please explain and do I delete citations, or just get someone else to review?

Jingleman2 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I rather suspect that the reveiwer looked only at the sources used as inline citations. of those, the allmusic and discogs souces are mere track listings with no detailed coverage at all. Moreover, some editors question the reliability of Discogs in any case. The Two NBC.com sources go to pages no longer on display, so there is effectively no source for either of those. The popvortex source is blocked by my firewall as unsafe, so i cannot evaluate it. The 7th cited source is a wiki, and is therefor not reliable and should be removed.


 * Of the general references not used in the draft as inline cites, The Tennessean articel is faitrly good, althoguh it is partly an interview, which reduces its value. The 2paragraphs source is a bit brief to count as "in depth" coverage, but has some value. The Wilsomn Post seems to be local hometown coverage, and so of limited value. The Idol Chatter source seems not bad, although perhaps a bit superficial. Also i don;'t know that site or how reliable it is considered. The Chronicle Of Mt Juliet is a deaad link at elast for me -- an archived version might be found, I don't have time to look just now. In any case it looks like another case of local hometown reporting. Channel 10 News looks not bad, but again in significant part an interview. And finally there is another wiki, which is again of no use and should be removed promptly.


 * If the non-local sources from the second group are used in-line, and one or two more on the level of the Tennessean are also added and used, or if the NBC sources can be recorved from an archive site, things might be in pretty good shape. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

DES (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU so much !!! I appreciate your direction, and guidance. This is very helpful and I will do my best to fine tune. Should I delete the Discog and Allmusic references Thank you again, my best to you and your family!

22:05:14, 11 December 2019 review of submission by DougHill
Allen Estrin is clearly notable as the co-creator of PragerU. Whatever one may think of PragerU, it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) providers of political videos on the internet. And if one looks at the sources cited, one can see that PragerU would not exist if it were not for Estrin. (I added a new one, but the pre-existing ones already establish this.) One criticism is that the independent articles cited are not directly about Estrin. This is true, but Estrin is not the public face of PragerU, Dennis Prager is. Can a key person in a major enterprise, but not out in front of it, be notable?

Thanks in advance for replies, and thanks for the quick turnaround so far. DougHill (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * if one looks, none of the sources are independent coverage. I would expect someone applying for AFC to understand that interviews, Amazon and listing aren’t valid sources. Praxidicae (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Aren't Mother Jones and Daily Signal independent coverage? (Even if they interview their subjects as part of their story?) Of course PragerU is extremely dependent, but that link does show that he's a co-founder.  (The other links just show that he did indeed write or do the things the article credits him for.) DougHill (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mother Jones piece is indeed significant independant coverage, with a though article about Estrin and his work before the interview section starts. Two more like this and i would approve the draft. should probably have noted that. The Daily Signal piece is a more traditional interview, where more than half of the content comes from the subject. But it is unlike the classic interview, wheer a reporter asks short questions and the subject gives long answers. Those are not considered independent here, because all the significant information is in the words of the subject. The  Daily Signal story has significant editotrial content in the reporter's voice, i would count it as perhaps 1/2 of the usual three essential sources. As to the other cited sources:
 * The first is from his business, PragerU, clearly not independent and too breif to be of much value even if it were. Does nothign for notability.
 * The moviews.disney is just an announcement of a production, and does not even mention Estrin . It should be removced from the draft as of no value whatever.
 * The LA times review would be of value in an article about the film Bare Essentials but it again does not even mention Estrin 's name.
 * The 7thart piece very breifly describes a production by Estrin, and does mention his name, but does not help the case for notability. It also looks as if it is largely based on a press release, but even if it is independant, it is not significant coverage.
 * The Amazon listing should be removed promptly. An OCLC or google book link, or even jsut the title, publisher, date and ISBN are enough to support a statement that the book exoists and Estrin was a co-author. An actual independent reveiw of the book might contribute to notability under WP:NAUTHOR. This does not.
 * I hope that makes things a bit clearer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks DES for your clarity and courtesy. Since then, we've added and removed some sources.  Some of the previous sources were included just to support facts and not notability.  I felt embarrassed to read that I'd included sources from disney and LA Times that don't list Estrin.  So I rechecked, and they do mention Estrin and the roles the article attributes to him.  So I've left those sources in.  The amazon link was also just to verify a fact, but it's now replaced with a review, which supports the fact and contributes to notability.  We've also added a review and a mention of a book he co-wrote.
 * We've added some more news articles also. So I hope you'll take another look, and advise us what the draft might still need to satisfy notability. If we're not close, we might consider redirecting the article to PragerU.  If we do so, we should include some comments in the redirect code about what an article would need before the redirect is replaced. DougHill (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DES for offering to take another look. Here are the cited sources which IMHO best speak to notability. Thanks in advance, DougHill (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Present when draft was submitted:
 * Mother Jones article on PragerU, discussed above.
 * Added before your comments above:
 * Daily signal story discussed above (as "half of the usual three").
 * New sources:
 * Academic review of book he wrote.
 * Popular review of another book he co-wrote for which we also have another review and a mention in the press.
 * News story about subject not related to other items on the draft.
 * Recent NY Times article on PragerU. This newest source shows media coverage, and a photo, but mostly tells us what the earlier sources did. Might be worth another half.
 * Thanks for the information, I will take a look. I note tha tin your post above dated  12 January 2020 you write:  and  and  . Just who exactly is "we" and "us" that you refer to? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Lately "we" is mostly me, but I did not start the draft. It has had several contributors, including at least one other lately.  But I think I found all the sources listed above.  (I think of Wikipedia pages, including drafts, as the collective efforts they are.  So that's how I wrote.) DougHill (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks DES for recommending book reviews, which have been added. DougHill (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

23:05:52, 11 December 2019 review of submission by Creators Robot
I have found this book is registered in the Google Books database. As an editor, we are always taught to find out reliable sources and google books is one of those. The book has also got ISBN number which is very necessary to provide the notability of a book. So, I believe this book has got enough notability to be listed in the Wikipedia. Thank you. Creators Robot (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Pretty much any published book will be on Google books and have an ISBN. To show notability, cite some reviews of the book or news about it. DougHill (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)