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

= October 11 =

02:28:20, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Ryancreekviw
Ryancreekviw (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

09:10:00, 11 October 2019 review of draft by 103.80.22.227
103.80.22.227 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me what i do more.
 * It is written in a very promotional tone and sadly lacking in sources, every statement of fact requires a source, IMDb is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

09:48:59, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Nomembrane
Why has this been rejected? What do i need for this to be approved? These are major achievements in an important persons life? Nomembrane (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is this page not being accepted? Perhaps you need new mods that are not power tripping. Nomembrane (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why has this been declined? Nomembrane (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Draft:Danielle Pepper was rejected for not being notable (not being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). It was then speedily deleted for being vandalism, blatant and obvious misinformation, or a blatant hoax. Because it has been deleted, I can't examine it to see why the two reviewers and an administrator reached these conclusions.


 * A number of essays have been written for people in your position:
 * So your article has been nominated for deletion
 * What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
 * Help:My article got nominated for deletion!
 * Why was the page I created deleted?
 * These may help you understand why the page was rejected and deleted, and what your options are going forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

10:22:51, 11 October 2019 review of submission by 193.111.60.7
We are requesting a re-review because we took care to make this purely informational. There is no sales angle, just facts. Please let us know of any areas you think are sales content and we will remove them 193.111.60.7 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The presence of the topic in Wikipedia would be promotional. It would give the impression that the company is significant, important, or worthy of note, which it is not. Most business are not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. You may find WP:BFAQ informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

10:23:34, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Alexander Andronkin
We are requesting a re-review because we took care to make this purely informational. There is no sales angle, just facts. Please let us know of any areas you think are sales content and we will remove them Alexander Andronkin (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles require multiple in-depth sources, you have one source Alexa which is not suitable, also who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. Please be sure to declare any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

12:25:17, 11 October 2019 review of draft by Dxfydd
Hey, AngusWoof denied this back in July saying that Multiplay already has plenty of coverage for Insomnia. However, Multiplay's events branch was sold to GAME (see Player1Events: https://esports-news.co.uk/2018/11/28/game-esports-player1-events/) and it doesn't belong there any more. What would you suggest now? I'll try to add more content soon:tm: but I can't guarantee pages and pages :p

Dxfydd (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Article Game (retailer) should say that they bought Multiplay in 2015 and sold it to Unity Technologies in 2017, while retaining the events division, which runs the Insomnia Gaming Festival. The history of the festival while it was run by Multiplay can remain where it is. The history of the festival since then would go in Game (retailer).
 * The festival should be spun out into its own article only if there are sufficient independent, reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. Of the sources cited by Draft:Insomnia Gaming Festival, the BBC piece is a good start. But The Daily Mail and Wikipedia are not reliable sources, and the reliability of the other independent sources (See Tickets and Catface Talent) is questionable, and their depth is poor. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

13:25:09, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Til1004
Hi there, I'm searching for someone who can help me improving/publishing the draft. Im looking forward to hear from you.

Thanks! til1004--Til1004 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Til1004 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

13:54:30, 11 October 2019 review of draft by Banquo92
Please review this article again. It still has not been accepted although the last review did not find any issue with it. Please see the comments left by DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC). Banquo92 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since July 4. The current backlog is 4-5 months, so you can anticipate another review by late November or early December. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The last reviewer said "Most of this article is still uncited. See WP:Verifiability for an explanation of why it is necessary." large sections of the article are still uncited, it's not clear exactly what your conflict of interest is but it would be advisable to add as many independent sources as possible to help future reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

14:02:19, 11 October 2019 review of draft by Elijahandskip
I submitted a draft of an earthquake and it was declined, because it wasn't a major event. "Wikipedia doesn't keep separate articles for each earthquake". -BearCat (Person who declined). Should I add the Earthquake information to the town's Wiki page, since a separate article isn't warranted? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Welcome to Wikipedia. I would agree with Bearcat's reasoning here. However, I think what you are suggesting is a Great idea! That way, it's included as part of the history of Lilbourn, Missouri. Happy editing, and if you need any help, reach out to an experienced editor! Bkissin (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

14:05:56, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Davideventi
Hello. I submitted this draft – Draft:Maths Time Joy – but it was rejected because not 'notable enough', because apparently it fails WP:MUSICBIO. However, WP:MUSICBIO shows the criteria for musicians and ensembles, meaning artists more generally I suppose. Maths Time Joy has made a name for himself mainly as a producer and songwriter, having worked with artists such as Mahalia Burkmar, Bebe Rexha and Romans (musician), as well as having been nominated for a Grammy for his work on Gallant's album Ology. So, really, the criteria for his page are shown in WP:COMPOSER. And I personally believe he meets those criteria. Also, Maths Time Joy was awarded the PRS Foundation Writer-Producer Fund a few months ago, with PRS for Music being the leading music royalty collection society in the UK. Which I believe makes him more than notable enough. Especially considering there's plenty of other people - including artists, producers, musicians, songwriters, etc. - with fewer achievements, who have pages on Wikipedia. Would it be possible to have the draft re-reviewed? Thanks!

Davideventi (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . It isn't enough to assert, "I personally believe he meets those criteria [of WP:COMPOSER]". Spell out which of the six criteria of WP:COMPOSER you believe he meets, and identify the sources that prove it. Throwing out random statements, like "worked with artists such as Mahalia Burkmar", doesn't advance your cause. I don't see how he meets any criteria of WP:COMPOSER, but if you're specific about which and how, someone will reconsider, and explain.


 * Don't get hung up comparing the draft with existing articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. Just because an article exists doesn't mean it should exist, that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It might just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . As I mentioned above, MTJ "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" and he "has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria" – such as Mahalia's 'Sober', 'I Wish I Missed My Ex', 'No Reply', 'No Pressure', 'Grateful' and 'Hide Out', all of which have been released on Atlantic Records, a major record label, as well as charting in the UK's Top 40.


 * MTJ also produced Bebe Rexha's 'Gateway Drug', featured in her EP 'All Your Fault Pt 1' (2017), which peaked at #51 in Billboard's Top 200, and it's arguably a major stepping stone in Bebe Rexha's career, which now counts three Top 10 hits in Billboard's Hot 100.


 * MTJ also has a Grammy nomination for his work on Gallant's album Ology - more specifically for the track 'Jupiter Grayscale'. Which means he "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers". I can even send over his Grammy certificate if that helps.


 * MTJ meets more than one criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Hope this helps clarify. Thanks, Davideventi (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That concrete description is much more helpful.
 * With respect to criterion #1 of WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", none of those six songs charted in the UK's Top 40, according to the chart you linked as evidence. It shows zero singles by Mahalia in all of its Top-n categories. Absent other evidence, those singles are not notable. What label they have been released on is irrelevant. Since none of the individual compositions are notable, he doesn't pass this criterion of WP:COMPOSER.
 * Producing doesn't pass any music notability criteria. Someone notable for being a producer must demonstrate that through the general notability guideline.
 * Criterion #4 of WP:COMPOSER is: "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition ..." According to the link you provided, the album has one nomination and zero wins. Being nominated is not winning (and there is no second place), so he doesn't pass this criterion of WP:COMPOSER.
 * So I still don't see how he meets any criteria of WP:COMPOSER. I hope this clarifies where the disconnects are between your thinking about notability and how the Wikipedia community evaluates it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Criterion #1 is met because two of the mentioned songs are included in Mahalia's album 'Love and Compromise', which, as the link shows, peaked at #28 in the UK's Top 40.
 * Also, why does producing not pass any music notability criteria? Producing is really just another word for composing. Producing the track means also composing the melodies. And MTJ also has writing credits on the above-mentioned tracks.
 * Stating that being nominated isn't winning is one thing. But saying that it doesn't count as coming second or third is really just nonsense. The criterion clearly states "or in some cases been given a second OR OTHER place", which means any place after first counts. So it doesn't really make a difference whether out of the 5 albums nominated, it came second or third or fourth or fifth. It is still a notable and highly-regarded achievement.
 * Hope this clarifies how he meets those criteria. Davideventi (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, WP:COMPOSER criterion #1 is not met by the songs being part of a notable album, because being part of a notable album doesn't make the songs notable. Notability is not inherited.
 * "Why" there aren't special guidelines for producing is beyond our scope at Articles for Creation. You can read the years of discussion of this in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and form your own conclusions.
 * The Grammy Awards are awards, they are not a competition. Competitions are events such as the Eurovision Song Contest in which there is a second place finisher, a third place finisher, etc. If being nominated for an award satisfied WP:COMPOSER criterion #4, the criterion would say so. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

15:40:14, 11 October 2019 review of draft by JuntasCambiamos
Hi, I submitted an article for submission yesterday and it says it has copyright from a page I used for reference. I don't want to have problems with Wikipedia so I want to fix this as soon as possible, but I'm not sure how or what is the best way to proceed. I don't mind deleting the whole article and starting again if that's what it takes. I just want to do things right.

Thanks in advance,

JuntasCambiamos.

JuntasCambiamos (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:JuntasCambiamos. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

15:54:25, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Horse Eye Jack
Hi, I spent a number of hours improving the page Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar (added something on the order of 10,000 bytes) which now clearly passes WP:GNG, it was declined for failing WP:NPOL which I would note doesn't apply if WP:GNG has been met. The argument made by the declining party is that nothing has changed since 2018 which is simply untrue, more than a dozen sources (from all around the globe) have published in depth or significant content concerning the subject since then. Their rationale doesnt make any sense... Nor does the political rant they placed at the top of the page as a comment appear to be an accurate description of wikipedia’s policy vis-a-vis failed candidates who are otherwise notable. Particularly this piece "he will have to win the congressional election in November 2020 to qualify for an article” which has never been true, there are plenty of other ways to qualify. Could someone tell me how improving and nominating a superbly sourced 20,000 byte plus page is editing contrary to the purpose of wikipedia? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

17:09:15, 11 October 2019 review of draft by Professorjacobs
I've made the proper changes to my draft and I still haven't heard anything from the editors. I feel like the editing team (I understand how much work they do) should leave all their notes at once, not make us continue to change one thing, then wait two weeks to hear about another minor change. The title of my page is Nick Uhas, I've been a long time reader and I finally found a topic to make a cool page about and now it feels nearly impossible to wade through this red tape. Someone help me out!

Professorjacobs (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This draft has now been accepted by who has also made some direct cleanup edits - congrats on your article. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

22:33:11, 11 October 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda
Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC) I have corrected highlighted mistakes

Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. This is the sixth time you've asked about the draft since it was rejected.
 * 2019 March 17
 * 2019 April 10
 * 2019 July 6
 * 2019 July 14
 * 2019 August 17
 * Theroadislong reaffirmed that the topic is not notable, and I concur. Volunteers plainly do not intend to review the draft again. You are flogging a dead horse. Accept consensus and, as one essay puts it, "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". The draft will never be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)