Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 18

= June 18 =

07:17:38, 18 June 2020 review of submission by TheBirdsShedTears
I recently moved sandbox to created a new draft, but it triggered filter 869, performing the action. I am still unable to locate the source(s) responsible for this action. Please help so that i can remove deprecated (unreliable) source from the draft in question. Thanks. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . That edit filter number is Special:AbuseFilter/869 You can read the many parts to the filter, but I would first try removing sputniknews.com from your draft. WP:RS/PS says of it: "Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information ... Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation". --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

08:10:12, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Kjogitha
Kjogitha (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

08:10:12, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Kjogitha

Please guide on how to make article better, your comment it sounds like a press release is not pointing out specific problems in the article. She has enough achievements as a local business and more people should know about her work. I have tried to keep the language-neutral based on the information available on her.

Here is a significant article about her which helped me piece together a lot about her work

Kjogitha (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

08:43:43, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Tahagoal
Tahagoal (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

09:02:40, 18 June 2020 review of draft by JosieJosie
Josie 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am confident why I am receiving copyright alerts. I have written this article myself, in my own words and rewritten several times. I have provided articles, periodicals and more. I am coding references. At this point, I need help.
 * Hi User:JosieJosie - to be honest I do not understand your concern - your draft has been rejected because the musician lacks of general notability, not because of copyright alerts (?) - please read carefully the comments the reviewer gave you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the mess for you. The google docs links need to be replaced with reliable sources. From what I can see they appear to be newspapers, so you can cite the newspaper directly using the Template . Offline sources are accepted as long as they are accessible. See Offline_sources. I have seen you now serveral times confusing "declined" and "rejected". For AfC context, "declined" means "Ehr, this draft wouldn't survive an AfD if it were moved to mainspace but could be improved in a way it does" while "rejection" means "Sorry, but this draft cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia standarts" or sometimes "improving this draft so that meets Wikipedia standarts results in revwriting it from scratch". Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, rejected is a synonym for declined in the English language so if I am using either of these words that doesn't mean that I seem to be "confused" :) but I got your point. Thanks anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

09:19:23, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Beyonceluver99
I added sources and citations to the parts that weren't cited.

Beyonceluver99 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Beyonceluver99, welcome to the AfC Helpdesk - what exactly is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:32:02, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Aestheticorange
im wondering why my post was denied the reason given was that social media wasnt a good refrence and if that is the case what are good refrences?

Aestheticorange (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Aestheticorange, to answer your question have a close study over here: Reliable_sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

12:39:51, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Safwanfazil
Safwanfazil (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Safwanfazil - what exactly is your question/concern? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

13:55:21, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Carrieruggieri
Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Is anyone willing to have a look at my revision of accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy before I resubmit? I would love suggestions before I resubmit. thank you. I sent a request before but I didn't get a response. I don't know if its because its in line waiting to be seen, or if there wasn't a person interested in reviewing this article. Thank you in advance. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This was answered earlier at . --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Please see comment at the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this request. I did get a nice reply, but I hadn't seen it. Thank you Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

14:00:35, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Safwanfazil
I created this page for my company, but it got rejected. please twll the reason Safwanfazil (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia may not be used to tell the world about your company. You may do that on your own website. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:46:09, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RINCE ROY
RINCE ROY (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:53:46, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Surface2016
I am request assistance with the submission for Droplet Lab. I am not sure what other sources need to be added to prove that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. There were Wikipedia links embedded into the submission as well as reference to scientific journals. I hope you can help us out, thank you in advance!

Surface2016 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

17:07:44, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Turningworldly
Hi. I'm trying to draft my first biography, for the urbanist Jonathan Manns, which is in the Articles for Creation section. It was recently declined with c.50 references, a mix of books/newspapers/websites, for unsubstantiated significance. I've had another review and increased the sources further to c.65, but worry I may not be heading in the right direction. I would really appreciate some assistance in suggesting where it requires further evidence or substantiation (or indeed if there's any merit in further sources at all, and it's about different sources). I've left a note for the reviewer, so look forward to feedback on that, but it's my first effort and I'd really like to think it's not been a wasted effort if there are some simple fixes....so any help from the wider community as well to help get me where I need to be would be a huge help....

Turningworldly (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good to go, take care not to run foul of WP:REFBOMB, three strong sources can be enough to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

17:13:14, 18 June 2020 review of draft by RINCE ROY
RINCE ROY (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * with rationale on the draft Fiddle   Faddle  19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

17:15:23, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Thekid114
I had this kicked back due to Twitter references, but those are the only sources of information outside of commentary from the actress herself. Furthermore, most of that narrative was edited by the actress prior to being submitted. I understand Wiki's policy on citation, but this seems to be a little unfair for voice actors who don't actively go out seeking press releases or websites to boast about their own deeds.

For filmography, I added an external link for the IMDB, where the data was all collected from. I have no problems doing a single-line citation note at the beginning of each section - but to constantly ibid the entire section for each role is certainly not valid in any writing manual or style.

Judging from similar articles scattered all over wiki, this page was hardly the worst in terms of citation. I find it oddly peculiar for this one to have been kicked back, regardless of the use of Twitter statuses as citation. I understand that Wiki has been attempting to repair it's image with academia, but this is ill the way to do so. I implore the editors to review the latest edition of their various writing style guides, as per at least the 2009 revision for Chicago Turabian, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media outlets have since been marked as valid citable primary sources for information. (See sec 17.7.3, Social Networking Websites in Author Date Bibliographical Data, Revision 8.)

So - if it's good enough for academia, then what is good enough for Wiki? Explanations would be appreciated, please.

Thekid114 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Your challenge for this draft is to find references which cite the subject's notability. If the other pages you have found do not assert and verify notability then they are likely to be subject to one of the deletion mechanisms.  The AFC scheme is intended to save article authors from false hopes.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So is the implication here that the section isn't relevant or noteworthy because Wiki arbitrarily decides that Twitter posts are not valid sources? Your response doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You cite notability, but you ignore specific reach of individuals either by their choice or by their limitations. Again, the argument for shutting down the submission was the sources are not credible or valid - which is fundamentally false.

So, what I interpret here as the options are is: 1, Totally remove the section that references Twitter citation (which there-in-turn ignores an entire suite of primary sources), or; 2, arbitrarily cite a page that aggregates the social media content into a narrative statement - for Wiki to also turn down because it'd be a copyright violation. I understand Wiki being scared of having bad information out there, but this is going from one side of the spectrum of legitimacy to the other - neither are good.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning here, because it just does not make any sense to me. The feedback is excessively vague, and seems to be more stacked against people making contributions based on primary sources.

Thekid114 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If the perosn is notable then it is to to you or others to assert and prove that. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge that is referenced from reliable sources. These are not primary sources, and never can be, though a certain amount of reference to those sources is permitted. Self generated sources fail that test.
 * That ine can be enthusiastic about a draft topic is wonderful, but there is a point when lack of reliable references means that the person is not yet notable in Wikipedia terms.
 * The answer to life, the universe, and everything may be more help to you. Fiddle   Faddle  19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Then, what the implication seems to be here is that this specific set of information - The charity section in this case - fails Wikipedia's standards because it only exclusively references Twitter. Am I reading you right?

Thekid114 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Twitter is not, and will not ever be, a reliable source. There is a lot of hard work involved in establishing the notability of a living person.
 * 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.
 * There is a deal of reading matter here, all of which has been developed over many years. Fiddle   Faddle  19:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this eventual clarification, but the statement of Twitter *not* being a source is factually false. Again, I cite Sec 17.7.3 in Revision 8 of the Turabian style guide, and literally just about every style guide and academic profile that exists after 2010. Wiki does not set the academic standard for sources - it only does so within it's area of influence.

I'll consider revision of this, but at this point, I'd rather be contributing to other research opportunities that base their guidelines on research integrity, neutral composition of sources, and equal weight of resources that are recognized, rather than deal with arbitrary guidelines that are ambiguous at best - such as what Wiki seems to have.

What a frustrating and annoying experience...

Thekid114 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Every project you choose to contribute to will have different rules. There are discussion boards where you may seek to change the rules here, which may succeed since the rules are built by consensus.
 * I stated that Twitter will not be a reliable source. It is most assuredly a source. But it can not ever pass WP:RS Fiddle   Faddle  19:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:18:59, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yankeejess
Here is the Update that still needs to get done right away On The Web Site at www.en.wikipedia.org On The WNET Page The Old Red THIRTEEN PBS Logo needs to be replaced with The New Black & White THIRTEEN PBS Logo MEDIA WITH IMPACT thats On The New Web Site at www.thirteen.org thats on the top left needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to go On The New Web Site at www.thirteen.org The New Black & White THIRTEEN PBS Logo MEDIA WITH IMPACT is on the top left needs to get put on right away & don,t forget to take care of it right away & don,t forget to let me know when its all set & done with & don,t forget to get this problem fixed big time right away & don,t forget.

Yankeejess (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please use fewer words, add a link to the draft you speak of, and clarify what you wish to happen Fiddle   Faddle  19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

19:32:20, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Thamizhselvan007
Thamizhselvan007 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Keprevos has been declined, with rationale given by the reviewer. What additional help would you like, please? Fiddle   Faddle  19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

20:59:06, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Hllywd415
I would like to ask if the following entertaiment related article with Spanish references would have issues being accepted. The issue I face with this is my first article entry for entertainers and I am unaware of any challenges this may face. I have included as many articles I deemed necessary to establish a merit of entry. Please let me know what do you think and provide feedback on what it may need some consideration.

One article in which I found some good info has some type of subscription. Therefore I fear that part of the article may get some kind of push. But the rest has multiple. Luckily it has english and spanish articles in countless media outlets.

Thank you for your help. Any help or guidance is welcome or even alter the code if you want. You are welcome to.

Hllywd415

Hllywd415 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ commented on the draft itself. Non English language references are not a problem, but do need to be validated by a Spanish speaker Fiddle   Faddle  21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)