Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 28

= January 28 =

06:31:43, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Pjanderson47
The subject of the page that I write, Joshua C. Dixon, appears newsworthy in that:                       1) the subject (at eight years old) was attacked and brutally mauled by dogs                         2) semi-recovery took ten years, yet doctors are unable to recover his loss of sight in one eye      3) the subject of the article suffered ridicule/loss of self-esteem/depression and continues a healing process through art therapy                                                                           4) the Chicago Tribune newspaper of 8/25/2017 experienced the highest readership of that year        5) Dixon continues on a path of healing through art while pursuing Bachelor's of Fine Arts at School of Art Institute of Chicago                                                                           My original article was deleted due to ambiguous and promotional information. Consequently, I turned to the sandbox to rewrite in a more definitive manner. Yet, because my writing is based on referenced articles, it seemed fitting to utilize quotes in order to lessen ambiguity. Regarding promotional intent, the subject's artwork has earned legitimate honor. Finally, today's entry (in my sandbox) points to the subject, Dixon, as being "NOT SUFFICIENTLY NOTABLE" for inclusion. I understand this likely translates to notability limited over a short period of time. I appreciate your feedback; I continue to learn the site's guidelines, and I appreciate any assistance you might offer. Respectfully Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Pamela Anderson    Pjanderson47Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! I'm afraid this subject isn't notable. This person doesn't rise to the level of coverage we require. Many folks have had serious accidents that have been written about in newspapers. Almost anyone whos been attacked by dogs or been in a car accident has been written up in their local paper. That does not rise to the level of the encyclodedia, as we are WP:NOTNEWS. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

07:16:49, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Sharmila Basnet
I have no any conflict of interest on creating an article on Lyricist Ramesh Dahal. I personally do not know but known a lot about him from his musical work. I created this article only to bring such a popular lyricist out to the world. I am stocked to solve the issue of COI, although I do not have any. This is why kindly please help me to get rid of this problem. Thanks Sharmila Basnet 07:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had tried to advise the user to no end, yet they resorted to deception here and then activated a sock. Consequently, they are now blocked, and all relevant articles and drafts have been deleted. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

08:51:49, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Totempole245
Not marketing any product, or conflict of interest. Quoted reliable sources. Please suggest if it's correct. Totempole245 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Being answered at WP:TH. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

13:32:44, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Amazingboyofrisingstar
Hello! Can you help me to edit this draft in order to publish it correctly, I mean with IT codes way? Cause all the information is correct and I just need some help with presentation of it. Sorry, websites didn't help me

Amazingboyofrisingstar (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires reliable independent in-depth sources. Without such sources, there is no amount of editing we can do to publish it. Being "true" is not sufficient to show that the person is notable to be included on Wikipedia. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

14:21:35, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Ashleylutaylor
Please help with the Draft Forester Life page being approved. Ashleylutaylor (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to add multiple reliable independent in-depth sources that focus on the topic. The article has already been deleted before by consensus and the current sources were deemed insufficient. We can't help you get it approved unless you can provide sourcing. (Also most of the ones in the article give me 404 errors.) — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

15:00:37, 28 January 2020 review of submission by 78.175.49.17
I am requesting a review because i spent 7 hours writing that, if you're going to have f’ing Selena Gomez's step sisters aunts kids moms friends daughter on wikipedia, then I want to be on it as well. Thank you for your help! 78.175.49.17 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

14:11, 28 January 2020 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page User:Jfaoc
Can you please explain the reason why you deleted my page, I have tried numerous times to create a page with original material and the page keeps being deleted, can you please help me? as I cannot see the reason why... --Jfaoc (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you created your user page like a profile. This is against the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to make a draft article about a person, then you have to make sure you have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to support the material. No links to profiles, person's music or anything that they made themselves. See WP:NMUSICIAN. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

20:13:44, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Lauriebreath
My submission Joseph Montague (artist) was declined for the reason: WP:NARTIST. How long do I have to fix the issues cited, before it is deleted? There are a lot of references and images with permissions given that I can add but don't have time right now. It would greatly help me to have a timeline on this. Many thanks!

Lauriebreath (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no deadline. If you don't edit the draft at all for 6 months, it will be automatically deleted. But you can always get it restore even then. Basically, if you or anyone else is editing it at least sometimes and as long as there's any potential for an article and it's not deemed to fail Wikipedia's purpose, we don't have any reason to delete it. Our draft review queue itself is several months long. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

20:38:42, 28 January 2020 review of draft by DriverSafety
Last year, I submitted my first article about the company where I work, with the appropriate declaration of conflict of interest. The first submission was declined because it was too commercial. With some help from a Wiki member, I revised and resubmitted the article. Recently, it was declined a second time, due to lack of notability. Since then, I have found one more reference to add that provides more evidence of notability. With the new addition and a careful rewrite, my next submission will cite four (4) references to in-depth feature articles in print that focus almost 100% on the company and its activities, with photos and interviews and some product descriptions. These features appeared in 2008, 2009, 2013, and 2018. The first was in a university newspaper serving 15,000 students. The second in an English language daily with 115,000 readers, and the last two in a French language daily serving 205,000 readers. I believe that all these feature articles meet the criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Three are in French and the English article is unfortunately behind a firewall.

I have four questions: 1. Is the fact the references are in French a barrier for reviewers? 2. Can every reviewer bypass the firewall? The second reviewer seemed to have not looked at the article mentioned above. 3. Are four (4) references that satisfy Wiki's notability criteria sufficient? 4. Are there any tricks to writing the article that will make it apparent that the references are in-depth coverage features? The two reviewers to date both held the opinion that the three feature articles I had cited were insufficient evidence of notability. However, I am not sure they read them.

Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. Please reply to my talk page, if possible. Thanks.DriverSafety (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DriverSafety (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please list the four sources your are talking about here? — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

21:12:30, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Gettinetteglutenfree
I edited the content of the page, and I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia guidelines because I would like for the Amy Myers, MD page to be reviewed again. I believe the information is valuable. Thank you. Gettinetteglutenfree (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Whether information is "valuable" or not is not a factor that Wikipedia uses to determine whether an article should exist or not. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of promotion or advocacy. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the draft is fundamentally unacceptable. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

22:17:21, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Brittvansloun
I have added a photo of Raúl Marroquín to the Wikipedia page and today I have received a response from the owner of the photo who gave permission for the use of it on Wikipedia. The owner is LiMA and they have also already send an email in which they give permission to Wikipedia. Now I am wondering which tag I have to use and where I can add this tag in order for you to see that this photo can be used? Is this the correct tag?

Thank you in advance.

Brittvansloun (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Template GFDL-self would be acceptable. Other options are listed at Donating copyrighted materials. File:Raúl Marroquín.jpg already bears a template PD-author, so no further tag is necessary. Now it's just a matter of waiting for OTRS to work through their backlog (sometimes several weeks) and adjust the status of the image. If the image gets deleted in the meantime, OTRS will automatically restore it when they get around to processing the permissions email (assuming everything is okay with the email). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

23:05:51, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Ylevental
My book article submission was declined because there was no "Reception" section. However, another admin said that a "Reception" section was not necessary for a book article to be accepted. Should I add this section before resubmitting?

Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ylevental#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Where_We_Go_from_Here:_Two_Years_in_the_Resistance_(January_28)

Ylevental (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this isn't really AfC criteria. I don't think the reviewer should have declined the draft on this basis.
 * As for the content. The problem is that the content isn't using sources to cite anything about the book, but rather just lists what is in the book. The purpose of sourcing about works is to discuss the work from all angles, not just summarize it. So stuff like a reception section is basically expected for any work. Sources generally should answer questions like: is it good/bad across a variety of criteria? did it elicit public opinion? did it get nominated or receive awards? was is a good seller? did it reach any rankings? etc. Basically, a large portion of MOS:NOVELS applies. Currently, you could remove all the sources from the article and it would not need any citations, because everything can just be verified to the book itself. That's a bad sign and means there is no actual content by the sources. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)