Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 5

= October 5 =

04:32:51, 5 October 2019 review of draft by Oldag07
I accidentally submitted a second time without thinking. It isn't ready. I am not sure how to unsubmit the request. Oldag07 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldag07 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cancelled the submission process for you. Please be sure that you actually want it to be (re-)reviewed when resubmitting. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:50:40, 5 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Agnesgerlach
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

{{ }} <{{!--Hello, Ages Gerlach here. I just tried to put up a page for Dr Ellington Darden which was rejected for "essentially self advertising." Other bodybuilders are featured on Wikipedia such as Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, Phil heath. Casey Viator, for example, who Dr Darden competed against, won 3 AAU titles and Dr Darden won 17. You have an existing article on High Intensity Training which mentions Darden and Darden invented High Intensity Training, and the acronym H.I.T., which has been hugely influential on 20th century weightlifting. He has written 75 books and I made a list of some of them, was this a mistake? I didn't list the 600 articles in magazines and medical journals. Does listing the books look like self promotion? Should I have left his books off and just talked about his development of H.I.T.? He is quoted and referred to all through the weightlifting world so there are numerous secondary sources although many of these are from before the internet as he is 75 years old. There were numerous articles about him, and his sidekick Arthur Jones (who does have a Wiki page) back in the 1960s and 1970's but in paper magazines....so I can't link them. Nowadays most discussion of bodybuilding is done on forums etc. Nautilus (gym machines - where Darden was Development manager for 20 years) and H.I.T. probably peaked in popularity in the early 1980's. He seems notable to me but maybe he is not in Wikipedia's eyes. Either that or I have written the article in the wrong way to portray him as notable. This is the second time I have tried to write a page for him. There was one message from theroadislong saying don't use revolvy/forums/blogs etc as references and I was about to tackle this today but the page has already gone. I was sure others interested in fitness and the history of bodybuilding would have got involved to help improve the page in due course. Anyone who has ever worked out or talked to a coach has had these type of discussions on how to train. I am genuinely baffled, this man was a champion and I listed the competitions where I could prove the result. He made one of the most significant contributions to fitness in the 20th Century. Before his H.I.T. serious lifters spent 3 to 4 hours in the gym a day and after H.I.T. people realized they could just work out 2 to 3 times a week and only for a hour if they lifted to failure. Surely someone who changed a whole industry is notable? I am not paid and nor do I have a conflict of interest. I just think his work is brilliant and he seems majorly notable to me. But I am losing confidence as my work here on Wikipedia increasingly gets deleted. Perhaps you can explain to me that he really is not as notable as I thought. If so, I will admit defeat and leave Dr Darden alone. Thanks Agnesgerlach (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC) -->}}

Agnesgerlach (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft has not been deleted? It is here Draft:Ellington Darden. Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

15:01:26, 5 October 2019 review of submission by Godfreychuks
I'm requesting a review because i believe that these article will help improve wikipedia, and moreover ia about a living person Godfreychuks (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Being a living person is not a reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. Rejection is meant to convey that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

15:43:46, 5 October 2019 review of submission by User4517
This page is necessary as the band does not have a central location. In order to learn about the band, the researcher would have to dig through several articles and resources. User4517 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

15:47:24, 5 October 2019 review of submission by User4517
User4517 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This page is necessary as there is no central local for this bands information. The researcher would have to search through several articles and sources in order to find this information.
 * Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting your band, please see WP:BAND for what is required. Perhaps Facebook would be more suitable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

18:13:33, 5 October 2019 review of submission by User4517
User4517 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The bands page is necessary as the band does not have a central resource to find the needed information. This page would take that place. If a researcher wanted to get information for the band, several article and resources would be needed. This page would take those individual resources and articles and create a single resource that has links to the original resources. Thank you User4517 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User4517 Wikipedia is not a social network. This isn't Facebook it's a encyclopedia.  Whispering ( t ) 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

22:27:26, 5 October 2019 review of submission by User4517
User4517 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC) This band has no central resource for their information. I was creating the page to create that central location. Without it, fans or researchers must search through several articles and other sources to find the information. The sources are also included in the page if the reader would like to see the original post. Thank you User4517 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT the location for creating a " central resource for their information". You have been repeatedly told this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)