Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 September 27

= September 27 =

10:01:35, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Wendygorski
I am writing a biography about a person I call a renaissance man. So far, in his 63 year old life, he has been an radio astronomer, computer designer, software engineer[wrote WORKWRITER in the 80's], journalist and my partner in Newsbytes News Network, created a TV computer news weekly newscast [The Technology Channel in 1990], author[wrote the book GJ139], a flight tracking website creator[DXFlights], one of the best known travel websites on Greece[ellada.com], a nuclear inspector and now he produces independent movies in Hollywood[first movie was "The Dark Hand" and now "Infernum"].

It was rejected in March 2019 and then again in September by ClarityFriend with the comment: Far from Satisfing (!!).

My questions are: - Can I upload and use photos of magazine covers from the pre-internet era as proof? - Can I include mentions of pre-internet events relating to his life? - Many photos of his early life (thousands were taken on Mykonos, Greece) are on Facebook group archives by other people. Can these be included? I believe these photo archives are public. - Recently the first review from a critic called his latest film, Infernum (to be released December 10 in North America), "INFERNUM manages to evoke the immediacy of the best "found footage" films, with all the breathless suspense and creeping terror but without the awkward contrivances." Can this info be used in the biography? Thank you for providing guidance to be able to submit this biography. Wendy

Wendygorski (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Your misquotation of Clarityfiend's review suggests you may have misunderstood it. Their complete comment was: "Far from satisfying WP:BIO". Wikipedians use shorthand links like WP:BIO to link to policies and guidelines without having to repeat pages and pages of text. Also, the reviewer's comment should be read in the context of the formal reason the draft was declined, which is in the gray box within the larger pink box at the top of the draft. There are over forty links there to explanatory information, which can be daunting. Reviewers often use comments to emphasize a particular point, in this case that the draft's references fail to demonstrate that the topic is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia).


 * How far are the draft's references from satisfying the requirements? Novice Wikipedians are commonly advised to cite at least three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.
 * Not independent: articles.adsabs.harvard.edu, Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, Barnes & Noble, and cambridge.org
 * Not reliable: revolvy.com, sigidwiki.com, imdb.com, and hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
 * Not significant coverage: naic.edu, setileague.org, cpc-power.com, w3.org, aei.pitt.edu, arrl.org, ellada.com, and nawiliwiliyachtclub.org
 * Many are also primary sources instead of secondary ones. In sum, the draft sites zero suitable sources. You would need to throw all of them away.


 * You may not upload copies of magazine covers or Facebook photos taken by other people, they are copyrighted. Photos would be primary sources, so they would not help demonstrate notability. You may cite magazine articles, even if offline. But to demonstrate notability they would need to contain a substantial depth of information about Vekinis, not be written by Vekinis, and be in a publication with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The film review quote says nothing about Vekinis, so it doesn't help.


 * Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a new contributor can attempt. We try hard at AfC to be upbeat and encouraging, but the kindest thing in this case may be to tell you up front that the topic doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being published here. Pick a different topic (one with which you have no connection) or consider an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

13:39:19, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Mojapelo Neo
Mojapelo Neo (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC) why was my article declined
 * Please read WP:MUSICBIO, the notability guideline for musicians.  JTP (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

17:03:39, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Tippy115
Ashley Dennis 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy info. Article in sandbox about rapper Apollo G has been rejected due to poor sourcing. It has a single YouTube video as a source. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Another Courtesy info: Sandbox was WP:G11'ed. User is blocked as vandalism only. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

17:04:01, 27 September 2019 review of submission by Tippy115
Ashley Dennis 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

why??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippy115 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link Draft:Cranfield Plasma Solutions. The reviewer gave good and detailed information in their note. Please reread. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

17:28:14, 27 September 2019 review of submission by UnicornTears11
Hey,

I think I know why I didn't get to publish my article. I didn't spot any sources. I am his daughter so I don't need sources. What I need is for you guys to publish this. This is his B-day present. If you could review this again with this info, that would be great.

Sincerely, UnicornTears11

UnicornTears11 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for birthday presents. It does not need a page for WP:EVERYTHING and everyone, that's why we have notability guidelines.  JTP (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link - article Matt Keller has been G11'd. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

19:09:47, 27 September 2019 review of draft by YBm2XrpCP
My submission was declined due to "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." I have added several more sources from different places such as articles from different news organisations    (+ all the ones that were already on there) and removed most youtube video links as I realise these are primary sources rather than secondary sources. I just wanted to check if these changes are enough before I resubmit? or do I need more sources?

YBm2XrpCP (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article and think the sourcing is still too light. The best coverage in your draft is about his ability to sound like other singers, but there are few profiles about him otherwise.  Also, the social media links are primary sources, don't show notability, and should be removed. Social statistics like YouTube views and Twitter followers are borderline because bots can be hired to boost the numbers, but what you want is people writing about the views and follower numbers, not just quoting straight statistics. You want more coverage in mainstream publications. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)