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

= July 11 =

04:31:32, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Forallerrors
Hello. I dont understand why they are saying the topic is not relevant enough. Star Alex was suggested to be written about on wikipedia multiple times. I have followed Star's work since her gifboom days (when she was in middle school she was famous already) Now she has become famous on another application (instagram) and is making huge changes in the modeling industry as a petite model. She is changing the standards of beauty and just because her name is Star, means that all of the information about her online is getting hidden behind irrelevant searches. Star Alex is a notable person and should already be included in wikipedia, which is why I submitted an article on her. I am really dissapointed. The article was a lot of hard work, and effort, and Star deserves to have her information on wikipedia considering she is notable enough for me to have found countless accounts of people pretending to be her, or fan accounts for her. Please let me know if we can fix this and give fashion model Star Alex her first wikipedia page. Forallerrors (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - firstly, Wikipedia "notability" isn't the same as relevance (which would be unbelievably hard to objectively judge - we'd never agree on it).


 * Multiple dummy accounts or fan accounts can be used to reliability verify facets or even be used as a good indicator of notability (a person could duplicate these things to push a person in if we used that as a criterion).


 * Instead, you need some sources that are reliable, independent secondary sources. The current included sources (those that cover her in depth) generally aren't independent (they have reason to not be neutral about Star Alex)


 * I fully get that her name makes her extremely tricky to search "google unfriendly" - I suggest using "Star Alex" and then adding key words always associated with her, which should pare it down. Looking in google news will also help filter to the types of sources we're looking for. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

09:37:08, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Gerard-Odonovan
I am requesting a review with the article or biography i made with Gerard O'donovan. I made some changes and i was hoping this was right. Please help me. thank you Gerard-Odonovan (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - while it is much less promotional, improvements in the editing can't fix a lack of notability. All the sources remain non-independent (and they need to also be reliable, in-depth and secondary). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

09:55:51, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Franceslk
How do you edit a citation that i used the template to create?

Franceslk (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - hi there. I don't know if you're using Visual Editor (looks a little like Word) or Source (lots of everywhere)


 * In Source, go to edit, and in each source you need an additional specification. Add "|title=Appropriate Title A" [Exclude " "] within each template, changing the title as appropriate. If you aren't wanting to add a title, you can just change the specifications as you wish.


 * In Visual, click on the blue number, click "Edit" in the sources box, and add/change the appropriate info.


 * If you give a specific case (and editing style) I can tailor my answer Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

11:03:28, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Aliso4ka2013

11:03:28, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Aliso4ka2013
Hello! For the third time I've been trying to get an approval for my article to get published. Users who made a review left a message that the article references doesn't show significant coverage. But I added 23 references including Associated Press interview and Reuters article. I think it's proven resources with not just a mentions and I don't understand why my article declined. What can I do? Thank you! Aliso4ka2013 (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . In cases such as this, just adding references is rarely the solution. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. What is needed is quality, not quantity. If there aren't 3 solid sources, having 23 poor ones won't get the draft accepted, and if there are 3 solid sources, having 20 other weak ones will only obscure that fact.


 * Examining five of the cited sources at random:
 * The information on goldnews.com.cy ("FXTM drives itself forward with its core values firmly in tow ...") appears to have been supplied by Dashin's company rather than being the product of independent reporting.
 * The AP piece is a primary source interview in which Dashin talks about Dashin with zero analysis by AP. It is neither independent nor secondary.
 * Reuters contains only three sentences about Dashin.
 * RBK Group is a good source about Alpari Charitable Fund, but hardly says anything about Dashin.
 * RIA Novosti is a press release. Wikipedia is not very interested in awards covered only by press releases from the awarding entity or the recipient.
 * Keep Reuters and RBK Group if you can't find other independent, reliable sources that are deeper. Throw the other three away. Perform the same analysis and culling on the draft's 18 other sources. Aim for 6-8 sources total.


 * An example of significant coverage of a businessman in an independent, reliable, secondary sources is this article about Freedman. If you can't find significant coverage of Dashin, he may not be as noteworthy as you think he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

12:56:26, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Tproveau
Tproveau (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I got this message: 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.

There aren't any references per say (this page is just an explanation of the e-library) but I have a few links to external sites that are reliable (like the World Health Organization). Please advise.

Thanks!


 * Hi . Thank you for your contributions. On Wikipedia, notbility is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic warrants an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia aims to have articles about topics that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage from reliable, arms length sources.


 * The draft references no such sources (the World Health Organization is reliable, but not independent because it established and owns the library), so the draft fails to demonstrate that the topic should be included in Wikipedia as a stand alone article. To continue with the topic, you'll need to come up with some independent, reliable, secondary sources that cover the library in some detail. The bulk of any article should be based on such sources, rather than on non-independent sources.


 * If you can solve the above problem, there are additional problems to fix. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual, so the entire "Users Guide" section should be removed. It also is not a place to promote or advocate something. An organization's vision or mission statement is usually regarded as promotional, so use care when discussing its purpose and target audience. Don't state something as fact in Wikipedia's voice if it's an assertion by the organization. Instead attribute the statement to the organization inline. Finally, external links, those that take the reader away from Wikipedia, are not allowed in the body of an article. A limited number are usually allowed in an "External links" section at the very end. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tagged your draft as a copyright infringement, it has been copied and pasted from https://www.vsc-library.org/guidelines/ and https://www.vsc-library.org/about/  Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

14:03:13, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Maviveloso
N needing help to develop the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mavi_Veloso Hi It's been awhile we're trying to create the page. The wikipedia seems to be a very complex thing to do though. After some time trying and not succeeding and being rejected it seems i'm not actually able to develop this page. Is there another way we could do it? how can i collaborate to someone more experienced to help develop this page about the artist Mavi Veloso?

Maviveloso (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . There is a requested article service that might be able to help, but it only works if you are able to identify at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Performatus is a good start. What media outlets commonly review the arts in the cities where she has worked? If Folha de S.Paulo and Le Soir, say, had each published a full-length review of her work, you would have three good sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

15:07:25, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Redmercw
Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer

Redmercw (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer
 * Hi . It was submitted for review 8 days ago. The current backlog is 4 months. Your interests ("I really need ... it approved") may not align with Wikipedia's goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:03:42, 11 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by GBBEK
Hello! I am curious as to my draft for Skuxs.ca was rejected as no reason was provided. I want to make sure that when I re-submit, the article is done correctly!

GBBEK (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - hi, the reason is next to the yellow ! at the top of the page.


 * In short, companies require multiple high quality sources - sources that are in-depth, reliable, independent (which rules out many interviews) and secondary (newspapers, books etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:26:27, 11 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kzmba212
My article has been rejected by the user DAN ARNDT because he thinks that there is not significant coverage. There are few external references because Afro-Latin rhythms are not very popular in northern European countries yet, hence there is not much coverage.

--Kzmba212 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . If there is so little coverage (it can be anywhere in the world) that you cannot cite at least three independent (not from the magazine and its principals), reliable (not self-published blogs, for example), secondary sources (not primary source interviews) containing significant coverage of the magazine, then I advise you to set the topic aside for a few years, it is not currently notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)