Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 11

= January 11 =

06:37:50, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Magitroopa
I'm actually quite confused on why the draft is getting rejected so much now. Prior to today, the draft was being continuously submitted/rejected by a IPs and users who don't understand how Wikipedia works and just wanted the article to exist. In comparison to then, the draft has much more information added and the season premieres in less than a month. has been declining the draft due to not enough information/sources, and now it is officially being ruled that the, "topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

Robert McClenon asked for a discussion to take place, since which, it has taken place. Considering the two examples I gave (Survivor: Winners at War and The Amazing Race 32), I'm not sure why there isn't allowed to be a separate season 3 article for The Masked Singer when the season premieres in less than a month and it is even a Super Bowl LIII lead-out program- also the fact I brought up that The Amazing Race article is for a season that does not even have any premiere date/year set at this current time. The season two article was even made back in May/June/July, when the season only premiered on September 25. Considering that more information on the season has come out within the past month and the draft has been updated with such information, I really don't see any reason why it isn't notable and the current redirect to The Masked Singer (American TV series) isn't allowed to be removed at this point. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101, User:Heartfox - The draft is being rejected so much now because the draft is being submitted so many times now without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. I and other reviewers said to discuss whether to create a separate article for season 3, which would split the series article]], at the series talk page.  There has been no real discussion at the series talk page, only statements that the season is about to start and that there should be an article, but nothing resembling discussion or consensus.  I assume that is why User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft as Not Sufficiently Notable, after repeated requests to discuss notability were ignored with idle resubmissions instead.  This does not mean that the topic will not be notable after the season starts.  It means that the reviewer did not consider the topic to be notable at this time, and did not think that the draft was likely to be improved by quick editing and resubmission.  When the season starts and the season becomes notable, the Rejected draft can be moved out of the way to allow development of a new draft.  Until then, continued resubmission is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware that some future TV shows and other unreleased "stuff" have articles. That doesn't mean that they should have articles, possibly only that no one has tagged them for AFD yet.  The usual rule in Wikipedia is that unreleased "stuff" that is still in production (or not yet in production), such as future films and unpublished books, is not notable.  If you can obtain a local consensus that the third season of The Masked Singer is notable before it is aired, then the local consensus is sufficient, but I haven't seen a local consensus, or even real discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that a particular upcoming season of a TV show is notable before it is aired, discuss on the series talk page. If you think that upcoming seasons of TV shows in general should have their own articles, discuss at the TV notability talk page.  Otherwise, future TV shows can be described in series articles.   Maybe User:AngusWOOF and User:JadenFolf, who have reviewed, may also comment.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but like how much of a discussion do you expect? 10, 20 people all coming to a consensus about whether an uncontroversial season of a TV show article is notable? Magitroopa and I have both discussed at the talk page like you said. Who is to say that "when the season starts and the season becomes notable" is the rule? Perhaps you're not that familiar with TV series/season articles on Wikipedia, but having an article before the season airs is completely normal, especially when it's less than one month away... this is the first time ever I have seen one be rejected. I find it a bit frustrating that all that's said in the submission rejections is that it doesn't meet notability standards. The draft has multiple independent reliable sources specifically covering the third season. How is that not notable? The first 3 submissions were done by IPs who haven't made any contributions since then. On January 8, after the article had improved and better sourcing was added and I submitted it myself, you rejected it saying it was "without any visible improvement." I'm sorry but that was just completely false. The differences between January 1 and January 8 were very clear. Then, after waiting a couple days, I submitted it again; this time the entire draft was rejected because "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The notion that the season is not notable until it airs is absolutely ridiculous. Notability is present now, just as I have explained earlier via the references in the draft! Heartfox (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At Teahouse, another editor Maproom said "I suggest you wait until a month or so after it has been broadcast; by then it may be easy to find reviews etc. which establish its notability. Wikipedia has no deadline." Really, we're going to wait a month after the Super Bowl lead-out program has aired to make an article about it? Do the multiple independent reliable references in the draft just not matter? There is clear coverage about this specific topic. This is crazy. Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that we should discuss this in a single location, maybe here, or maybe at the Teahouse, but even better would be at the media notability talk page, which has a longer retention cycle and does not have bot archival. On re-reading the notability guidelines for television shows, I see that the principle is against a separate article, but that the guideline is silent on a key point, so that the guideline definitely needs to be improved.  The notability guide for TV shows says that unaired shows are usually not notable.  This is consistent with many other notability guidelines.  It is silent about articles for planned seasons of existing series, but the principle is clear that it is not necessary to start stand-alone articles for seasons that have not aired.  It also does appear that many seasons that have not started have articles, which does not make it right or wrong, but illustrates that the guideline has a gap.  We can continue to argue here, and eventually this discussion will be bot-archived, or we can continue to argue at the Teahouse, and eventually that discussion will be bot-archived, or we can go to the guideline talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The part where it says unaired shows are usually not notable only refers to announcements about a pilot. I'd actually argue that it's very clear. It says "a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network or streaming provider (for instance, it has been announced at an entity's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series, a promotional trailer has been released, and/or it has a scheduled premiere date)." But that is followed in the draft. It has been formally confirmed... the premiere date is February 2, 2020—the Super Bowl lead-out. What difference does it make if it's "series" or "season"? At the top of the guideline page, it says the general rule is "there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm not sure how that isn't true for the draft. There are 5 of those sources in it. I don't understand why the draft reviewers don't consider those sources as having established the notability required. Heartfox (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Heartfox, User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101 - As I said, I would prefer to discuss this in a single location, preferably at the media notability talk page. It is a very general principle of Wikipedia notability guidelines that they discourage coverage of events, things, and programs that are too soon, including films and books.  I agree that the guideline is silent on when seasons of TV series should have stand-alone articles.  That is why some of us tried to encourage discussion at the series talk page, but instead there were simply repeated resubmissions, first by unregistered editors, then by registered editors, with no real attempt at discussion.  It looked to some of the reviewers as if the objective was to continue resubmitting over and over until a reviewer decided that it was easier to give in.  I will say again that the guideline has failed to address season notability, and that the guideline should be expanded, and I will also say that common sense should be used, which is that future "stuff" is usually not notable.  I did not Reject the draft, but I think that User:CatcherStorm acted reasonably in Rejecting the draft.  There had been no real discussion before the Rejection, because the tendentious resubmissions were taking the place of a real discussion, and the Rejection has at least started discussion, even if it is so far only whining.  If the unproductive whining continues, I will box this discussion so that it can be centralized at the television notability talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, please box it. I agree that the guideline should be clearer. All I am trying to get at is why the 5 independent reliable sources in the draft do not establish notability. Why don't they supersede whether or not it is "future stuff"? So on February 2, 2020, when it begins airing (less than a month away... not that far in the future), all of a sudden it becomes notable? There is coverage already. I believe you are misinterpreting WP:NTV as I stated earlier. Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason The Masked Singer should be singled out when the following show seasons all had mainspace articles before they aired (there are countless examples but these are only the reality show seasons on network TV in the Unied States that have a premiere within recent months!):


 * Dancing with the Stars (season 28): Mainspace (redirect removed) on August 20, 2019. Premiered on September 19, 2019.
 * The Voice (season 17): Mainspace on May 31, 2019. Premiered on September 23, 2019.
 * The Bachelor (season 24): Mainspace (redirect removed) on November 19, 2019. Premiered on January 6, 2020.
 * Survivor: Winners at War: Mainspace on December 18, 2019. Premiered date is February 12, 2020.

And then you give a special barnstar to the editor who rejected it? Wow... some contribution going against the consensus given above. Heartfox (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Heartfox - There is a distinction in logic between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, but this distinction seems to be very hard for some Wikipedia editors to grasp. It is commonly assumed that because a draft will be declined or rejected if it does not have reliable sources, all that it necessary to get it accepted is to find enough reliable sources.  The reliable sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition.  Read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  As to the other shows that had season articles when they should not have, read Other Stuff Exists (but we don't care).  One of the judges might have a contract dispute with the network.  One of the contestants might become ill.  It would have been helpful to discuss the third season on the series talk page when submitting the draft, just as the reviewers said.  No, the draft was resubmitted tendentiously, in the hope of getting a different reviewer, and then when the draft was Rejected, there is whining, which at least is better than no discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What? If a judge is fired or a contestant withdraws that would be noted in the article with a reliable source. Nothing in the draft is speculative or presumptive. I'm pretty sure Fox isn't changing the Super Bowl lead-out program—the event and its details are certain to occur, as is noted with the sources. Filming has already occurred. As I said earlier, I submitted it on January 8 for the first time after I added multiple reliable sources, with the belief the draft would be accepted because of them, not because I wanted a different reviewer than those who had reviewed it before. Who are you to assume why I edited a certain way? I continue to not understand what your definition of discussion on the talk page is. 5 people? 10 people? Nice words? Our opinions have been clearly stated and are in conjunction with common practices for years of it being acceptable for a TV season article to be in the mainspace when a premiere date has been announced and other info is available from reliable sources, just like a TV series article. Why do you get to decide that's no longer the case just because the guideline only refers to "series"? Is it not unreasonable to infer "season" applies as well, as it has for years? Heartfox (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:NTV. It says "a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network ... (for instance, ... it has a scheduled premiere date)." There is a scheduled premiere date confirmed by the network—it's sourced in the draft. It completely conforms with that guideline. Is that technicality really that big of a deal? Heartfox (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:37:02, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Cjullien
Eligis was created in 1993 to develop, maintain and commercialize of two Lisp compilers:

Le_Lisp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Lisp - very famous in France Lisp) compiler initially written by INRIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Institute_for_Research_in_Computer_Science_and_Automation).

OpenLisp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLisp) which is the most quoted fully conforming [ISLISP] ISO Lisp implementation. It is also the only ISLISP compiler having a commercial support.

Eligis has participated on more than 10 years to the ISLISP normalization effort.

Now I don't know how to improve the page talking about the company behind those two commercial Lisp compilers.

Thank you for your help. Cjullien (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , While a company's products may be notable, that does not mean the company itself is. It appears that coverage of the company is scant, which means it might not be notable. You would need multiple reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. If such quality sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

08:42:05, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Devesh16041996
Please check one more time. MTV Roadies (Season 17) is the genuine article.

Devesh16041996 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that it has been deleted because it is not notable. While it was...genuine? I guess? thats not a standard we use here. Since the subject lacked media coverage, we cannot cover it. Perhaps once it airs it may be notable, but at this point, some time prior to airing, its not fit for Wikipeida. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

08:46:37, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Aeacus10
Hi Wikipedians, firstly thank you for the swift feedback as I was a bit clutched went system said it could take up to four months for a review. This really shows how involved and efficient the wiki world is, I admire it. I'm seeking for help on this article i wrote for The BrandLaureate. It is a prestigious award and is recognized by many people around the world. Influential people like Prime Misters, Kings, Noble citizens, Athletes, Celebrities etc have been presented with this award. Can you please guide me on how we can make this go live and what else can I support in terms of references to justify all this information. Thank you and looking forward to a reply. Aeacus10 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Aeacus10 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I concur with the reviewer, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. I've also nominated The BrandLaureate Awards for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I don't think you guys understand where this is coming from. You cant simply make a decision to say that is not worthy of being on Wikipedia and nominate it for deletion. It really just shows how shallow your reviewing system is. This corganization is legit and has been giving out prestigious awards for almost 14 years to contributors and influential souls from around the world. There has be to some sort of write-up or information on this organization and their notable works which they are doing to identify and award souls that are making this world a better place to live in. I agree that this article has been edited by one person which is me, but I rest assure you there are many more out there who can contribute to this organizations achievements. I have taken a long time to edit this please do not shut it down like that, I've re-wrote it 10 times, and now this is what you can simply say after understanding about this organization in less than what? 5 minutes? Please be a little professional and not keyboard warriors from your end, sit, think and consider before typing something like that above Worldbruce, fellow Wikipedian.

CC : :Hi. and, welcome on board the discussion mates. Let's take some time, I will update on further credible references/citations required. Have a pleasant Sunday. Aeacus10 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

12:44:43, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Halldor Ulfarsson
Hi I am a very inexperienced user (this is my first post) and I am unsure why this article was rejected.

This submitted first version was intentionally very short and I thought to expand it as I go. If the brevity is a reason for rejection it would help me to know...

I cited an academic paper puplished in a peer revieved proceedings of an academic conference (NIME) as a source. If the source is a reason for rejection it would help me to know...

The subject matter is a new hybrid musical instrument being used by a small number of composers and performers but gaining recognition in expierimental and new classical musical circles. If the topic does not have wide enough appeal and this is a reason for rejection it would also help me to know...

Thanks in advance! Halldór

Halldor Ulfarsson (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The words that leap out from your question are "new", "small number", and "gaining recognition". Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Something that is new or up and coming is rarely a suitable topic for the encyclopedia because not enough has been written about it in independent reliable sources to create a complete article.


 * Brevity is not necessarily a problem, so long as the draft shows that enough source material exists that it can be expanded beyond a few sentences (see WP:WHYN and WP:PERMASTUB). Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources, that contain significant coverage of their topic. Conference proceedings are acceptable sources, not as ideal as peer reviewed sources, but infinitely better than random web postings.


 * Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks novice Wikipedians can undertake. It's more effective to start by improving existing articles. That gives one the opportunity to see mistakes that others have made and become familiar with our policies and guidelines. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a project in your area of interest, perhaps WikiProject Musical Instruments, or visit Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:51:22, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Crashingdown Man
Dave Taranto On 14th December I let the community know that I am writing an article on a producer, radio announcer and promoter David Taranto. It was rejected on the grounds that it wasn't relevant enough.

I believe I didn't provide enough information about the subject, or gave misleading info on my intentions, which might have made it appear that the article might be a bit amateurish. I hope I didn't mislead. I must stress that an article on David Taranto would provide crucial historical information on the Australian comedy industry.

I should explain. In the Melbourne comedy industry in the 1990s, David - Dave - Taranto showcased many Australian comedians who became international acts such as The Doug Anthony Allstars and Lano and Woodley, who received the Edinburgh Fringe's Perrier Award. The BBC subsequently produced a TV series starring Lano and Woodley. He promoted and broadcast many other successful comedy acts in the 1990s. Dave's untimely death in 1999 put an end to his short career. But a number of producers and myself feel that that specific era in Australian comedy is missing from the industry's history. I would like to create an article to provide the public with details of his career and activities. There are a number of other colleagues who will contribute information and edit facts.Crashingdown Man (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To help you get a clearer picture, I am a performer, comedy writer, dramatic actor and playwright. In constructing a Wikipedia article I am committed to providing a professional product.

I have provided information taken from Melbourne newspaper The Age' Bold text for your information. https:// www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tv-and-radio-comedys-new-centre-stage-20021230-gduzxw.html

I hope this allays any concerns you have regarding the importance of the article. I will proceed very slowly in slowly gathering verifiable facts and consult with other professionals amongst the comedy contributors. If you want further information about me, I have an IMDb page. There are also a number of articles about me online.

Thank you for your feedback, Theroadislong. Much appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Frederick - Fred - Rowan.

Crashingdown Man (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft here User:Crashingdown Man/sandbox has no content apart from his name? Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:58:55, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hawthorne9520
I was missing a page for the 2020 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards on here, so I figured I'd create it myself. However, after I submitted it, it got rejected for the following reason:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Now I'm not really sure how to fix the issue. I only used a single reference (the official nomination form), because that's where all the information came from. Now I understand the importance of having multiple references, but there are no other sources listing the nominees. I based my page on the 2019 version of the awards, which also only has references to the nominees and/or the winners.

So what do I do? Do I wait for additional references to come up? Do I add more references on Fangoria Magazine in general, and adding some content about that? I'm looking forward to a response, as I want to start contributing and want to do it as right as possible.

Hawthorne9520 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . If there are no other independent, reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. Mimicking an existing article is chancy; just because an article exists, doesn't mean it should exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a fuller explanation). You could merge what you've written into Fangoria Chainsaw Awards or wait until after the 2020 awards, by which time more is likely to have been written about them in reliable sources independent of Fangoria Magazine. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

20:58:33, 11 January 2020 review of draft by Siegien123
Siegien123 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The comment of the last reviewer stands. Your sourcing is inadequete, and does not show how the subject is notable. You need higher quality sources. If you have specific questions, please ask a new question, and write out what you are concerned about. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

21:58:08, 11 January 2020 review of draft by MortgageGuru23
Hi. I've had an article rejected twice now because it reads like an advertisement. I have followed the AfC guidance and included lots of third-party sources. I have tried to use a neutral tone throughout.

Please help me understand which phrasings/wordings need to be changed, so that it doesn't read like an advertisement.

thank you!

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well a few things stand out. The manifesto section should go, thats blatantly promotional. Any blogs published by the company or the company's websites are not independent sources; they and the material they support should be removed.
 * If you have been compensated in any way for your edits, are an employee of the company, have a stake in the company, or any other financial relationship with the subject, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. Failing to do so is a violation of the Terms of Service. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have been compensated in any way for your edits, are an employee of the company, have a stake in the company, or any other financial relationship with the subject, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. Failing to do so is a violation of the Terms of Service. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * CaptainEek (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020
 * Hi CaptainEek. Thanks for your response.


 * Are no blogs/press releases/etc allowed at all? I don't think it's a problem in this case, as there are independent sources that cover the same things.


 * The manifesto seemed notable to me, as it had been discussed by UK parliament, and was part of a big movement in the UK (customer loyalty penalties). But I can remove that too, if you feel it is only promotional. MortgageGuru23 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Press releases and blogs may be used in sparing circumstances. I don't think those circumstances apply here. Wikipedia says what reliable and independent sources say about our subjects, not what the subjects say. Otherwise we would be little more than a mouthpiece for companies. If there are independent sources that cover the same thing, then the press releases are unnecessary.
 * For the manifesto, if you talked about it, you'd need to overhaul the section. You probably shouldn't mention their manifesto unless a reliable secondary source has talked about it. The current wording is too promotional. Also, the only important part seems to be the discussion in parliament, but I note that claim is unsourced. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the manifesto, if you talked about it, you'd need to overhaul the section. You probably shouldn't mention their manifesto unless a reliable secondary source has talked about it. The current wording is too promotional. Also, the only important part seems to be the discussion in parliament, but I note that claim is unsourced. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , how about now? I've tightened things up... removed Manifesto section... moved more to the introduction. What do you think? MortgageGuru23 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , A few things. For one, a small nitpick: references go after punctuation, not before. Also the langauge is still too promotional. The lead is also too long and detailed. A lead should summarize the article and not have any original info. Most of the info needs to be put into a section such as overview or something.
 * Also, before we go any further, I would like you to state clearly whether or not you have a conflict of interest or have been paid for these edits. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, before we go any further, I would like you to state clearly whether or not you have a conflict of interest or have been paid for these edits. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , Okay, I will make some more tweaks later today/tomorrow. No, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. I got a mortgage from Trussle about 2 years ago. But I have had mortgages arranged from other brokers too. I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible but will tone it down more. thanks! MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * - hey again. I've made some more tweaks... think it's ready to be re-reviewed?! Thanks for your help. MortgageGuru23 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The entire paragraph starting with "The company states that its mission is to make mortgages fairer for everyone" still strikes me as quite promotional. The last sentence seems odd to be connected to the rest, and looks like a case of WP:SYNTH to me.
 * At this point, now that the promotional sources have been cleaned up, I see a lack of quality sources that give the subject significant coverage. Some more quality sources are needed. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, now that the promotional sources have been cleaned up, I see a lack of quality sources that give the subject significant coverage. Some more quality sources are needed. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)