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

= March 8 =

01:34:15, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Gravis Sonjiuson
Gravis Sonjiuson (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Block of this user requested. Only here to promote his creation. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

03:14:21, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Sizcoo
Sizcoo (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I had an article rejected, but the editor has not come back after a really long time, and not responding to their Talk. I am concerned. Any help would be appreciated. The article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Birbilis Thanks Sizcoo (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Sizcoo
 * Meets WP:PROF so I accepted. We have a large backlog Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

07:21:14, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Minu Bakshi
Please advise me what changes I can do to approve the content.

Minu Bakshi Minu Bakshi (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for bringing your amazingly self serving page to my attention. I've sought deletion on it. Don't post it again. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

09:30:52, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Mitchelaaa
Draft:International Achievement Recognition Awards UK try to review it faster and improve this article I have written. Mitchelaaa (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , we'll review it in due course. Thanks for not making it a copyright violation this time, that helps.    SITH   (talk)   11:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 10:15:03, 8 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RimaPOD2018
Hello, thank you for your feedback and input. I was wondering if social media sites might increasingly count as 'reputable' sources. There is plenty of coverage over facebook, linked in and youtube. Impact Profile can be downloaded and used and so on. My point is that it's out there and has a lot of coverage, it seems perfect for wikipedia article! Thank you again for everything you do.

RimaPOD2018 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , please see Identifying reliable sources. Facebook and YouTube are not considered reliable because reliable sources e.g. NYT, BBC, WaPo, NBC also self-publish as well as publishing videos on such sites, making references to them unnecessary.    SITH   (talk)   11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

12:24:24, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Catoco
Trying to fully verify sources, but some information was gathered directly from band members, through messenger and email, not a published article. How can I site this source?

Catoco (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unpublished information may not be included in Wikipedia articles. Putting it in would violate one of the pillars of the encyclopedia, verifiability. It's common for Wikipedia articles to present an incomplete picture of a subject (in the sense of lacking some information that a reader might like to know). That's okay if there is no reliable published source for the information.
 * If you're close enough to your subject to be emailing and instant messaging them, you probably have a conflict of interest. Be sure to disclose the nature of any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:00:15, 8 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Scott8905
Our content was reviewed and denied. Since we disagree with the reviewer's reason, should we resubmit? The individual who denied our content recommended that our content be added to the United States Attorney Wikipedia page. Though our content is written about very briefly on the United States Attorney Wikipedia page, adding information about the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA) does not make much sense to us since the roles of US Attorneys and EOUSA are very different. For example, the responsibilities of EOUSA is to provide support with respect to policy, guidance. and budget to the 94 US Attorneys offices including. EOUSA does not make decisions affecting civil or criminal cases. On the other hand, US Attorneys are the chief Federal law enforcement officers in their district. They lead investigations and direct the prosecution of criminal and civil cases on behalf of the Federal government. Additionally, US Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States and have to go through the Senate confirmation process, while the Director of EOUSA is selected by the Attorney General.

Though I would agree that referencing EOUSA on the US Attorneys and the Department of Justice's Wikipedia page would provide the reader a basic understanding of who US Attorneys work with regarding Department of Justice policy and guidance. I would submit that having all the information about EOUSA on the US Attorneys Wikipedia page would provide confusion to the readers since the responsibilities and leadership roles differ greatly. To have a separate EOUSA page linked to the content on the US Attorneys and the Department of Justice’s Wikipedia pages would provide readers a separate resource focused specifically on the function and responsibilities of EOUSA and avoid confusion with the duties of the US Attorneys.

Lastly, other Federal agencies have pages devoted to specific offices, bureaus and divisions. Please see examples under the following:


 * 1) United States Department of Justice under Offices - []
 * 2) United States Department of State under Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State#Organization) show a number of different offices/bureaus with their own pages.
 * 3) United States Department of Agriculture under Organization, budget, and tasks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture#Organization,_budget_and_tasks
 * 4) United States Department of the Interior under Operating Units - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior#Operating_units

These are just some examples of pages that reference other Federal agencies who have dedicated pages specific to offices within their Department who perform a specific function.

Previous reviews of our content did not make the same recommendation for our content to be added to the US Attorney Wikipedia page, their only suggestions were to add more specific references to the content that was directly pulled for the Department of Justice's website. Any insight and direction would be greatly appreciated.

Scott8905 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Answered above Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

16:20:48, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Catoco
A wikipedia article I submitted for publishing was rejected on the grounds that the " subject was not significant" enough to qualify for it's own page. My draft is about the Bär McKinnon music group Umlaut, which can easily be located with a google search. Draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UMLAUT_(band) Bär McKinnon has his own public Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_McKinnon_(musician) Which mentions the band, as well as the related group, Mr Bungle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle Maybe I am misunderstanding the "significance" mention, because the subject seems quite significant. Catoco (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were significant, there would be sources to the article not related to the subject. You have provided no evidence of notability as we define it here whatsoever. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

18:05:09, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Martimartins
hi, I need help with the creation of my first article. I cannot understand if my article in English about Patrica Kaersenhout has been sent to review or not? If not, how can I do it? thank you for your help!

Martimartins (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was sent for review and found to be a copyright violation. You must use your own words not copy from sources. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)