Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 14

= July 14 =

04:20:44, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Wikibtalpha
Do I need external sources? Wikibtalpha (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! Verifiability is one of the core principle of Wikipedia. Without reliable independent sources that cover the subject in some depth its extremely unlikely that a draft would be accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 04:21:22, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 199nah
199nah (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * if you are talking about Draft:Saimon Karki, perhaps it was not a copyright infringement, but it was full of puffery and reads like an WP:advert. Wikipedia is not for advertising yourself. You have been requested to read WP:Autobiography. It is best to let someone else totally unconnected with you create the page without any motivation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

04:28:34, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mfaakeef
diamondrainwear 04:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have moved your draft to User:Mfaakeef/Sandbox because you root userpage isnt intended to prepear drafts (WP:FAKEARTICLE). Your draft currently has zero reliable sources. Verifiability is one of the core rules on Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 05:41:06, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Deadwyler74
I would like to edit and repost the article for article Lonnie Deadwyler

Deadwyler74 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please dont ask the same question on multiple places. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

09:48:52, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Diwashpant816
I've only limited resources. The other refernce which I ca use have a lot of ads that could hinder Wikipedia rules. I've got only3-4 reliable resources but my article is being declined time and again. Diwashpant816 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ I have based my acceptance upon a probability in my view of it being edited positively in main article space and having a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process.  Please continue to work on referencing.
 * You will see that I have trimmed two lists of names. While they ,ade the article longer they add nothing Fiddle   Faddle  11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You will see that I have trimmed two lists of names. While they ,ade the article longer they add nothing Fiddle   Faddle  11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

10:04:56, 14 July 2020 review of submission by PapirusUK
I have changed my edit can it be reviewed again? or why will it not let me submit it again?

PapirusUK (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , This appears to be your autobiography, and does not show that you pass our threshold. You were asked to check Notability (music). Please ensure that the subject of the article passes the threshold clearly, demonstrate it with good references, and then make your case here for further review. If you cannot achieve that at present then you may need to await your career moving forwards
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, 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 person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, 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 person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a fan making it for my favourite artist and I have changed it so can you review it again? and I have just copied it of other wiki pages its near enough exactly the same as others I found. I did do a more detailed career one but you mentioned refferences I then got better refferences and made it short just to submit it? I dont know why you are being so akward for just a wiki page? I have made them before with no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapirusUK (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is no awkwardness here, simply a determination to keep standards high. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  11:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please check it again now I have changed it? I just want to standered submission for now so I can add more after etc... Its just I have checked some otheres and they have not put much etc? let me know if not I have another I could show you now to see what you think but I thought keep it short for now.
 * References that meet the answer I gave you above are the only thing that will work. I looked. Perhaps another host woudl like to take a look? Fiddle   Faddle  14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked too, I agree with the rejection, there is no indication whatsoever, that the artist passes WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

10:47:13, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Dereena
My submission is rejected. Please advise me how to get it right. Dereena (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The only thing that will move this forward is the location of good referencing and a genuine notability. Many companies exist with no articles here and with no hope of getting articles because they miss out on notability. When you find it and assert it then you have to prove it with references.
 * 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  11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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  11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

11:15:38, 14 July 2020 review of submission by 90.253.176.60
Hi, I don't understand why my article has been rejected: I've used plenty of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and clearly demonstrate that the subject (The Hardy Players) was of contemporary and historical interest. One of the sources ('Thomas Hardy on Stage', by a respected professor at Ottawa University) devotes most of the book to the The Hardy Players. The Hardy Players are also the subject of numerous newspaper articles, as well as a BBC programme. I've linked to some of these, in particular this book: Wilson, Keith (1995). Thomas Hardy on Stage. The Macmillan Press. ISBN 9780333598856 which devotes more than 60 pages to The Hardy Players. What more can I do to make this article work?

90.253.176.60 (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a link to the draft-one can help you. This is the only thing this IP address has submitted here Fiddle   Faddle  14:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about Draft:The Hardy Players. I dont have an Idea on this. Mabe ping as the reviewer. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , To me this looks like one of those drafts that, after a copyvio check, might take its place in article space and take its chances. I will do that check and consider doing that for it. Thank you for finding it. I'll wait a decent time for Eternal Shadow to have an opinion, first. All it has too have is a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process, after all. We don need review to perfection, just to acceptability. Fiddle   Faddle  16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems decently notable but needs a little more work. I’d be happy to help you find more sources and make it rely less on the source Thomas Hardy on Stage. As for the close call on notability, I think we could let it slide, although the chances of surviving an AfD might vary depending on who you ask. Eternal Shadow   Talk  18:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unless you disagree I think it may take its chance as an article. In theory, even with poor sources, notability alone out to prevent deletion at AfD Fiddle   Faddle  18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s best to be bold then! It could probably survive an AfD but some AfD people are extreme deletionists so it depends. Eternal Shadow   Talk  19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , some are, some are protectionists. Mostly the middle line is trodden. Fiddle   Faddle  19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I try to be moderate when I’m at AfD, but AfC is a mess of non notable drafts and close calls that are at best barely passing. I accept only about 10 percent of drafts, most of which are close calls.  Eternal Shadow   Talk  19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , most drafts are wholly in need of huge work. They get sent back without a qualm, sometimes rejected. The community here often surprises me both ways with improving vs deleting. I never get close to a draft, just choose what to do with it. Before we had AFC new articles were deleted too early every few minutes. Now they stand a chance Fiddle   Faddle  19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Considering AfC is decently tough with close calls multiple times a day, it makes sense why AfC has a huge backlog, mainly due to reviewers being semi active. Eternal Shadow   Talk  19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only way to actually Know for sure if something will pass a aFD Is to take it there and see what the community says. AFD is not consistent enough then any AFC reviewer can really tell. That's why the criterion for passing AFC Is merely that it is likely to pass AFD (I think that for most of us "likely" is >80% or so, to the extent such guesses can be quantified). Our job is not to insist on high quality articles, but to screen out the junk.  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

13:25:52, 14 July 2020 review of draft by 185.166.116.3
My article got declined because i wrote about myself and i submitted it as well. So it doesn’t let me to publish it. What can I do about that?

185.166.116.3 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not declined because you wrote about yourself(though discouraged, it is not forbidden), it was declined because you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. An article should only summarize what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

13:40:58, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mgoldenbarnes
I updated this page according to the feedback quite a while ago and I just wanted to know if everything was ok with it and when it might be published. Or if there are any issues, what needs to be done to sort it out.

Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think reviewers are put off by Articles for deletion/Nic Fanciulli, which means, broadly, that a reviewer who is also an admin needs to look at the deleted version and compare your version with it. I am not so can not. I avoid Music drafts because it is a blind spot for me Fiddle   Faddle  14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this - how do I go about bringing it to the attention of an admin reviewer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoldenbarnes (talk • contribs) 10:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So, apparently this needs to be reviewed by an admin reviewer. How can I bring to the attention of such a person please?

Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for review. As noted in the yellow box at the bottom, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,625 pending submissions waiting for review", so you will need to be patient.  Reviewers and administrators are two different groups; only a reviewer needs to examine your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused by your comment. You are looking for someone who is both an administrator and a reviewer; one should eventually see your submission. If you have further comments, please place them in this existing section(click "edit" in the section header) instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

16:25:49, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Raymondr1877
Question because of the rejection of my draft article about Ken Rockwell: Hi, why is Ken Rockwell - one of the prototypes of the later so called 'influencers' (he started 20 years ago and had his peak 10 years ago...) - not important for Wikipedia, where are far too many articles about the later 'influencers' and bloggers, e.g. Chiara Ferragni?

Ken Rockwell (born 1962) is an American influencer and photographer.

Rockwell, one of the first influencers, started at the end of the 1990s with publishing information for personal use on his private webpage, which developed to be one of the most influential independent sources of reviews of cameras and lenses and reached 6 Million readers by 2010.

Raymondr1877 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OSE for why its not a good Idea to cite the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article for the existence of others. Wikipedia requires multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Interviews arent independent in most cases. Blogs and other user-editable sources (that includes Wikipedia) arent considered reliable either. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the answer, why is a print article of an established magazine, a TV broadcast and a radio broadcast not enough as sources for an wikipedia article about an "prototype" "influencer", meaning for someone who exists only inside the internet?Raymondr1877 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, "Influencer" Is such a vague term that I tend to distrust any claims of that nature. It's PR-talk, and any source no matter its reputation that  uses it Is likely to be publishing PR.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

18:04:40, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mscelebtv
Will this draft be approved? I have provided additional references to this draft. I also included a wikipedia page that he has for another film: Zen (2007 film). Gary Davis (director) directed this film and it is already on Wikipedia. Thank you

Mscelebtv (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have left a comment on your draft. Fiddle   Faddle  19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 19:52:48, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rajkumar5609
Rajkumar5609 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

20:28:43, 14 July 2020 review of draft by Jamoh91
Jamoh91 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

i want to ask what i can do to publish my article i don't know what i can do to publish please help me
 * The recent comment from Calliopejen1 on the4 draft is very apt:
 * None of the curently cited sources seems to be an independent and reliable source o0ffering significant coverage. Several suh sources would be needed. Mush of the curent draftrs is mere lists of bullet points with not details, these are of little value. Much of the prose is highly promotional. Such text as would not be acceptable even if supported by sources.
 * In short, start over from a blank page if at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)