Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 23

= February 23 =

08:04:51, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Wikiwarrior19
The draft article: Joshua Brandwood was not moved to the main space as the reviewer claimed it was not supported by reliable sources. I would like a second opinion on this as there were numerous reliable sources including an official university website alongside a reference to the Metro website. There were numerous references used to support each piece of information in the article. If you also type in Joshua Brandwood in google then this individual is notable. Please can this be reviewed again? Thank you.

Wikiwarrior19 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blogs typically aren't considered a reliable source. Also, just because someone shows up in a google search doesn't mean they're notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

11:26:00, 23 February 2020 review of draft by Hrdwrkinmom436
I just want to edit my reviewer comment for my draft.

Hrdwrkinmom436 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

13:59:27, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Giuseppe Rodio
Hi Team

I see my submission was rejected as the topic is considered not relevant enough for being posted. Would be feasible to please learn more about relevancy and what scope/ reach does a topic need to carry in order to be considered relevant?

I understand not many people know about SANGHAMITRA in Europe or the Americas, however the brand and family name touches millions of people in India. The designer (Sanghamitra phukan) is the daughter of Actor Biju Phukan, widely considered the most important actor in the North east of India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biju_Phukan

Sanghamitra is the first indian model to have ever featured in a global Benetton campaign and was formerly global brand ambassador for Reebok, she worked internationally as a professional model and gave shape to her sustainable fashion/ lifestyle brand during the same time.

Across the last decade, SANGHAMITRA actually participated at the London fashion week, headlined the ASVOFF festival in Paris and hosted several events in both London and Milan (if international relevance is something important to wikipedia). Still regardless of that, the Sanghamitra annual fashion show is arguably the most important fashion appointment in the region of Assam, watched by millions of people locally and thousands of Indian/ Assamese people on global satellite TV.

The brand was featured on Forbes and innumerous local media platforms. Is there anything we could to provide in order to demonstrate this? Or could you please guide us on what would qualify as relevant to be rightly posted?

Giuseppe Rodio (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you've declared your COI. You need multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or blogs. What you have is a Youtube from a show (with only 24 views), the company web site, & a paragraph in a magazine which is indistinguishable from a press release. None of these will do, but if she is as important as indicated above, there should be significant material about her in multiple international major newspapers and magazines. You need to find it  DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:03:47, 23 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Athousanddaysbefore
Hello, I am having trouble publishing an article. I keep receiving the same boiler-plate message of rejection, despite providing internationally-recognized, independent sources that fortify the subject of the article's relevancy. The article in question is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Black_Heart_Saints

Can any editor please provide more insight other than the standard boiler-plate message of rejection? I've resubmitted multiple times, each with more references than the last submission.

Thanks for your time.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry you've gotten just boilerplate, I know that can be darn annoying. Hopefully I can clear things up. There are a lot of bands in the world, and we can't possibly write about them all. Thus we have the music notability guidelines. I'm afraid I don't see how the band meets any of those requirements. The best shot they might have is charting, but we're actually pretty picky about how we define charting. The websites we use, (based off of Nielson Data) and, do not have the Black Heart Saints song on it. They also don't seem to have enough independent media coverage, its mostly local stuff about them playing a gig somewhere. Unless I've missed it, I don't see any national coverage. Regional notability is not enough. Unless you can point to me how they meet some part of the notability guidelines, I'm afraid they aren't notable, and we just can't have an article about them. I know that is tough to hear, but we can't write about everything. And who knows, the band appears to be increasing in popularity, they might be notable in a year or so, and then you could pick up where you left off!  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

15:27:51, 23 February 2020 review of draft by MayaBliss
Looking for help to get this article published. I've made more edits to address all of the concerns, and want to see if it's now acceptable before resumbitting. She has numerous press mentions and bylines in credible publications, plus published books so I believe she fits the requirements. Is there anything else I need to do or add? Thank you.

MayaBliss (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have a neutral tone at this point. I would focus on finding more reliable sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that an article must be significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Although all of your sources meet the "significant" part of this, only one meets the independent/reliable threshold (although I could be missing some since you have quite a bit of sources. If so, feel free to let me know). Here are some examples of what I'm talking about. seems to be an independent, and for the most part, reliable source. However, the mention of the subject of this article is at most trivial (she is only quoted once). Another example would be, which mentions the subject of this article significantly, but isn't independent of the subject. The only source that seems to fit all three criteria currently is . As a final note, I would recommend you take a look Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy if you have a connection to the subject of this article. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

18:51:51, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Dave Bains
I am not experienced with Wikipedia but I feel a sense of duty to contribute what I can. I am not sure how this article should be placed. I would like something like Biblical_hermeneutics but for the SGGS Ji. As far as I can tell there is no such article for the SGGS Ji. There are sections on its interpretation and meaning like Sikhism, but these only give one interpretation; and furthermore the perception that is the one true interpretation with which all Sikhs agree.

Do you think it would be good to have such a separate article on interpretation of SGGS Ji? Or is what I have written more suited to an existing article?

Also as a final note, a lot of my points are backed by Harjot_Oberoi's The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. I think his article could be expanded with some of the points he makes on what "distinct religious boundaries" the Singh Sabha were defining, and the points of interpretation which they took issue with. It was a significant part of their conflict but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Thanks for your help.

Dave Bains (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Taking a look at your sandbox, it has improper sourcing and tone. All statements need a citation to a reliable source. A religious text cannot be used as a source about itself. You instead need a secondary source that discusses the book/person in question. Also, the tone is not the neutral one expected on Wikipedia. It uses second person POV, which is not appropriate. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, whose goal is to present information about notable subjects in a neutral and non-biased way. Your article at present seems written more like an essay or personal reflection, which is not the sort of stuff we are looking for. It needs rewriting with a reliable source, but could become useful. If you need further help, feel free to ask here, or on my talk page. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

21:34:33, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Hannes Josef
Hannes Josef (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

review of submission by == 21:54:46, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Hannes Josef ==

Approve the wiki account Hannes Josef (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

22:47:18, 23 February 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:4080:52C0:18B0:F35D:2B24:91B5
I believe my subject is notable enough, he has been featured multiple times on reputable and major articles, such as Respect Magazine

https://respect-mag.com/2020/02/ysl-rich-pablo-drops-off-baguettes-track/

https://respect-mag.com/2020/02/ysl-rich-pablo-teases-king-spider-effort/

2600:1700:4080:52C0:18B0:F35D:2B24:91B5 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)