Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 9

= July 9 =

02:04:45, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Andrew nyr
I have cited mutiple secondary sources. the only criticism Andrew nyr (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

03:01:56, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Emsport2000
I submitted my article over three months ago, and it still hasn't been reviewed. When should I expect it to be reviewed? Thank you

Emsport2000 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - I've reviewed and accepted the article. While max time is currently 15 weeks, I suspect this one was in the queue for the while as a bit of an anomaly with two excellent sources and a real dearth of others findable/present. In any case, I felt it passed WP:GNG, though a new page patroller will also take a look at it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

04:24:22, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Theaveragezach
Hello there! :) Would like to understand what went wrong with the submission or this :D Your experience, expertise and advise in this would greatly help! Theaveragezach (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Most business aren't notable (aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). See WP:BFAQ for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

06:21:19, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Timjarvis59
Timjarvis59 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

06:22:15, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Timjarvis59
Timjarvis59 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

07:38:17, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Manishsinghon
Manishsinghon (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

09:06:41, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Sindysparkles
First, thank you @Nosebagbear for all your help and suggestions. Second, I think the article is almost ready and would really like review if possible :) Many thanks in advance. Sindysparkles (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * your draft is in the pool of drafts awaiting review for 3 hours. The current backlog is about 4 months... Please be patient. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you sorry! Was just asking for advice :) thanks again

10:19:36, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Stermotich
Hello, my article as the follow was declined, can you tell me why?

SES - Solo Extreme Swimming

It is a new discipline of solo long-distance swimming where the swimmer does not receive any support from outside and do not supply the route earlier. The idea is to enjoy in long-distance swim and permanence in water by following the coastline.

The solo extreme swimmer carries all necessary attached to his body (hip bag, backpack or similar). It is not allowed to pull or push the equipment. The swimmer can use swimming goggles, diving mask and/or snorkel. It is prohibited to use swimming gloves or similar, swimming or diving fins and any other swimming gadgets.

When a solo extreme swimmer establishes SES record, it is prohibited for him to exit from the water or relax on any floating object. Drinking and eating should occur into the water without touching the river, lake or sea bed.

Solo Extreme Swimming is most demanding long-distance swimming activities due to bad hydrodynamics, low speed, refraction waves near the coastline and no support at all.

By the actual law in most countries, there is no limitation on swimming close the coastline, but there is a limitation to swim on open shore without boat support due to the risk of being killed. Solo Extreme Swimming had his birth in Istria / Croatia in 2019.

Stermotich (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - it was rejected because it didn't have any sources to show notability, and additionally there did not appear to be any suitable secondary sources visible on the internet.


 * If you can find 1 or 2 sources, I'd suggest adding a section to the Long distance swimming article. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

10:22:34, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Stermotich
If I put a way SES?... Is ok to you to publish somewhere else the description on the web? What reference do you need?

Stermotich (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources being used to show notability should be: In-depth (c. 8+ lines), independent (no reason to be biased, and also rules out interviews/press released), reliable (generally accurate source) and secondary (newspaper, book, etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07:43, 9 July 2019 review of submission by 2605:A000:140D:4903:C8A1:1355:754F:21F8
I add more links 2605:A000:140D:4903:C8A1:1355:754F:21F8 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

16:37:32, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Stiflegold67
I'm having trouble understanding how much cited content is needed for Commissioner Chuck Eaton. It has been rejected twice. It's a statewide elected position in GA.

It's common for PSC Commissioners, across the country to have Wikipedia pages, and they have less content than Eaton's proposed page. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks in advance for your help. See below of examples:

Brandon Presley of MS Tim Echols of GA Jeremy Oden of AL

Stiflegold67 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Have you tried discussing the decline with the reviewer on their talk page? That's the best place to start when you have questions about a specific review. The existence of articles doesn't mean they should exist, so it would be better to base your argument on the WP:POLITICIAN guideline than on examples.


 * If you don't get an answer that satisfies you, there are other options available. If you have a conflict of interest, then you should go through the Articles for creation (AfC) process, but if you do not have one, then the process is optional. If you believe the draft meets the guidelines and you aren't getting useful feedback from AfC, you may WP:MOVE the draft from the Draft space to (Article) space yourself, where it will sink or swim on its merits. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

19:02:35, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Romeonew
There is considerable resource in this article, due to which it comes in the Notable category of Wikipedia.--Romeonew (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . You are mistaken, at this point in his career he is not notable. The draft cites a few reliable sources, such as The Times of India, Dainik Jagran, and Dainik Bhaskar, but they either don't mention Thakur at all, or mention his name only in a long list of credits. They are not significant coverage of him. Download sites like Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube don't demonstrate notability (Netflix doesn't even mention him). The remaining cited sources are not reliable. I recommend that you stick to the reliable ones listed at WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force until you have gained more experience in evaluating sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

21:39:48, 9 July 2019 review of submission by 2601:81:4000:6215:587A:68F:FC9E:669B
2601:81:4000:6215:587A:68F:FC9E:669B (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

22:53:14, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Aproudlock2010
Aproudlock2010 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

22:53:14, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Aproudlock2010

I am looking for help to edit/ change the name of my draft for my client. I wish for it to be changed to Alexander Proudlock


 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Aproudlock2010. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your disclosure. It would be best to place it ("I’m a family member of Alexander Proudlock") on your user page along with a brief statement that you understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and intend to follow them.
 * You can change the name of a draft by moving it to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)