Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 August 20

= August 20 =

Request on 03:49:37, 20 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by LucyNakahara
LucyNakahara (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please ask a question Fiddle   Faddle  08:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

08:18:01, 20 August 2020 review of submission by Alvin kipchumba kosgei
{{Lafc|username=Alvin kipchumba kosgei|ts=08:18:01, 20 August 2020|page=it is a notable project as it is widely used by very many people. its soureces range including;google ,safaricom ,citizen and its own webpage. {{Reflist talk}} Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|Alvin kipchumba kosgei}}, Then please follow the comment of the reviewer and make the improvements required Fiddle   Faddle  08:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|Alvin kipchumba kosgei}}, Asking the same question twice is not appropriate. Fiddle   Faddle  08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability
Hello!

I have a question related to the notability criteria... Few days ago, my request was declined even though it had some references, but if we look at some other articles, like Subhuman (film), it has no references or notability at all, how is it still on Wikipedia. Just a question. Thank you! :))

Warmly, Paul XR PaulXR (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have tagged it for deletion, please see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , No article on Wikipedia ever sets a precedent for any other article. If it did we woful have a very fast descent into idiocracy
 * We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

13:05:36, 20 August 2020 review of draft by 2409:4066:103:B9B7:0:0:255D:60B1
2409:4066:103:B9B7:0:0:255D:60B1 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As you were told in the decline notice " the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Internet censorship in India instead. Theroadislong (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

14:00:27, 20 August 2020 review of submission by ClaireMarieV
ClaireMarieV (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I imagine you have a question, Tradition dictates that you should ask it since this is a help desk. I'm afraid our telepathy interface is still in alpha testing Fiddle   Faddle  14:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

14:28:01, 20 August 2020 review of submission by 98.247.16.10
Drastic edit down based on reviewer comments. Tried to remove everything but the verifiable and focus on the notable... what do I do now to resubmit? Thanks!

98.247.16.10 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are MargaritaLover, remember to log in before posting so that your edits are properly attributed to you. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers in the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

17:34:20, 20 August 2020 review of submission by Jasonreed1828
Since this review, 1828 has been covered by many national news outlets - the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, Sky News, the Independent, the Mirror, the Express, the Morning Star, etc. - I believe it is now noteworthy enough.

Jasonreed1828 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

17:46:10, 20 August 2020 review of draft by The Bored History Kid
How to find reliable sources The Bored History Kid (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A subject merits a Wikipedia article if it has significant coverage in published independent reliable sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. These would be things like books, magazines, reputable websites, etc. I might suggest that what you are trying to do might be better suited as an addition to an existing article. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

22:15:59, 20 August 2020 review of submission by KNivarthy
Hello. This draft has been revised to reflect the general notability of the subject. The subject is notable because of her extensive experience in tax policy law, as displayed by her experience developing legislation on Capitol Hill, working in top consulting positions in numerous prominent firms, and her ongoing work in establishing and serving on high-level positions in several notable non-profits. The coverage of the subject has also been revised to focus on her noteworthy career as opposed to her candidacy.

Furthermore, the sources have been edited to reflect a neutral point of view, in that they are reliable and independent of the subject. The sources have extensive coverage of the subject’s career and notable work, and the subject is widely mentioned among several prominent sources.

I implore you to publish this draft, as it provides an important addition to Wikipedia and is a satisfactory summary of the subject’s career and work.

KNivarthy (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The sources you have added do not establish general notability; and as a politician she would only merit an article if she wins her election.  The only reason for the vast majority of sources is that she is running for office. Many of the other sources are press release type stories or merely citing that what she has done in her life, and are not significant coverage. If she wins, a fresh draft will probably need to be written.  331dot (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:KNivarthy - You posted a similar request on my talk page. I rejected the resubmission of the draft for two reasons.  First, Wikipedia very seldom accepts drafts of biographies of candidates for office who have not been elected.  We have found that such drafts are almost always non-neutral, and are focused on using Wikipedia to publicize the campaign.  Second, the draft was resubmitted with very little change since it was last submitted and declined.  Resubmitting a draft with very little change after it has been declined is a waste of the time both of the author and of the reviewer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)  reply