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

= March 28 =

03:40:35, 28 March 2020 review of submission by Pilot333
Pilot333 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The comment left by is really vague and they haven't replied on what part of the Wikipedia guidelines this is failing. I'm assuming it was something they derived from WP:NOT but there's nothing there about press releases, so I can't find more specific info. The article put forward has no events or announcements, but rather just basic history, backed by some media coverage, which basically the bare minimum to get an article started while meeting WP:SIGCOV. I think it's clear the stub has no recruitment, opinions, scandals, gossip, or advertising and maintains a neutral point of view because of that. There's a lot of notable companies in the media that should have stubs (and AFC demonstrates this) but it can be hard to do so when the instructions are unclear.


 * Typically what "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is referring to is an article written in a solely promotional tone. Your article seems to be notable, but would need to be almost completely rewritten to be written in a neutral tone. To be more specific, as that is what you request, the first sentence of the article is good. The second sentence "Founded in 2011 by John Dean and inspired by the street style of Southern California, Renowned LA is worn by celebrities such as Nicki Minaj, Bryson Tiller, Tyga and Chris Brown who wore a T-shirt on the cover of Nylon in 2013," for instance could be changed to "The brand was started in 2011 based off of "street" clothing in Southern California. Renowned LA has been noted in media outlets for being worn by Chris Brown." I only mention Chris Brown here because the article you cited simply says that that person worked with various celebrities, not that they wore his clothing. Even if you could provide verification that it was worn by multiple celebrities, it would be "more neutral" to write "various celebrities" instead of listing them. Hopefully this gives you a starting point. It would also be helpful to expand on the article to not only list the attention it has gotten in the media and provide actual details of the brand (for instance, descriptions of the clothing?). If you have further questions, follow up with me on my talk page. Your article has been rejected which usually means it can't be resubmitted but if you legitimately write it in a neutral tone, I'll review it (again, let me know on my talk page). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

04:26:12, 28 March 2020 review of submission by BharathSD
Added references from cbs19news, parade https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41948184/spark-databox-online-software-training-institute https://parade.com/1014515/jessicasager/free-online-courses/

BharathSD (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

05:11:35, 28 March 2020 review of submission by BharathSD
Added proper categories, few notable mentions about Spark Databox. Kindly review and approve. BharathSD (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has been rejected, meaning that the topic is not suitable for an article at this time. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10:57:13, 28 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Scomic12
Hello, I do not understand why this documentary does not deserve a page while other documentaries by the same director has a page (Fear, Amar Lenin, Ramkinkar Baij). The reviewer mentioned a lack of significant coverage in the references, but the other pages also have similar references or less. The only additional reference that the other have is from a book which does have this film as well but I don't remember the page or have access to it at the moment.Thank you. Scomic12 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not generally good to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years.  We can only address what we know about; feel free to point out other problematic articles that need to be addressed.  Not every film by a filmmaker will merit a standalone article; if it does not get significant coverage in independent sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film, it will not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

15:19:10, 28 March 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1
What can I do to improve this article?

2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They would need to pass one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN to qualify for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

16:44:53, 28 March 2020 review of draft by JLbranch40
In response to the latest rejection of the Wikipedia article submission, for artist Brian Hochstrat, the claim that the article does not meet the “significant coverage” requirement to justify the creation of a Wikipedia page is inaccurate, showing a lack of follow-through research, potential personal/political/cultural bias, and lack of subject matter/industry knowledge regarding the subject matter in which the artist works, on the part of the Wikipedia editor’s/reviewer(s). If the reviewer(s) would do their due diligence, the sources listed under the artist’s name, they will clearly see, the artist has been directly cited in seven “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”, spanning a number of fifteen plus pages that showcase and feature the artist's work, not to mention the venues at which the artist's work has been and is featured in, including several pieces on display in noteworthy museums. The publications and exhibits encompass the industry leaders, there are no higher gatekeepers. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of “significant coverage” as found at the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The artist has received coverage in several objective, industry-leading publications that meet and exceed the objective requirement of “significant coverage” and thus warrants the “honor” of having a Wikipedia page. For example, on the Wikipedia page of Buster Warenski, a well-known knifemaker, only six sources are listed and that Wikipedia page is “notable” enough to have been published.

I do no understand how my sources can continue to be rejected. I am not a fool. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism. I know what published, reliable sources are. The most recent rejection also details that I have not added any new sources since the last rejection. It's simply not true. I added "Turpin, Tom (Outdoor writer). Modern custom guns : walnut, steel, and uncommon artistry (2nd ed.). Iola, WI. p. 160. ISBN 9781440236440. OCLC 825734074." The three main sources are published books by industry experts. Here are the Amazon links. Someone, please explain to me how these are not sufficient.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Engravers-III-Masterpieces-Engraving/dp/1936120739/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=american+engravers&qid=1585412574&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Custom-Guns-Uncommon-Artistry/dp/0873414993/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=modern+custom+guns&qid=1585412917&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/American-Engravers-Edited-Fjestad-Bleile/dp/1936120070/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=american+engravers+the+21st+century&qid=1585413041&sr=8-1

The other sources are published professional magazines and official websites. I am increasingly becoming concerned that the article is being rejected because of the editors' personal feelings toward the subject of guns. Please, if that is not the case, enlighten me as to how these are not reliable sources.

JLbranch40 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hochstrat hand engraves collector-quality firearms and knives using gold and other precious metal inlay, featuring extensive fine bulino and scroll coverage"... content like this would be fine on his own website but sounds too promotional for an encyclopaedia article. Are any of the awards notable? You are a single purpose account do you have a connection with the subject by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

21:08:51, 28 March 2020 review of submission by Gtrebg
Gtrebg (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

23:35:24, 28 March 2020 review of submission by WriteIncunabula
Hello! I was thrilled to receive a message that a page I'd created, Dan Lam, made it into DYK. When I went to check it out, I noticed that more photos than I had remembered were removed from the gallery section. I can't seem to get a handle on what stays and what doesn't. I also know that a photographer who took some photos of the artist's work, posted some of them, but they were removed, too. My question is, can someone help? Not only are there many articles with pictures of the work, the artist's own flickr gallery has some that, as far as I can discern, have been tagged as open rights, within wikimedia commons guidelines for inclusion. Is there something relatively easy and obvious I'm missing? Any advice or help putting some images back in the gallery section would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi WriteIncunabula, it's certainly impressive that your article made it to DYK. I believe there was already a dense conversation that you participated in on the talk page to remove the image in the lead. That image was moved to another section because it didn't really contain a picture of the artist but really of her artwork. Looking at the history of the page, two images were removed because "the source of the derivative work wasn't specified." That is, because there was an inclusion of other content in the work not covered by its license, the source of that copyrighted content must be specified for the image to be kept in Wikimedia Commons. Then, once those files were deleted on commons, a bot came through and automatically removed them from the article. If you specify the source of the derivative work ensuring that the source allows free-use then you can add the images back to commons and use them on the article. I'm assuming (from the article) that the source of the derivative work is her artwork. If so, you must find reference that the artwork is free-use(I would be surprised if it was though). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam, thanks very much. You're right about the lead image, but I managed to move on from that. My first, only, and accidental foray into an edit war and I learned from it. :) As to my current question, I did notice at one point in the history it mentioned specifying the source, and was confused because I thought that the photographer had done that. If I understand you correctly, it's not only that the photographer has to list the image as free-use, but the original artist of the piece in the photograph as well. That does pose a difficulty I hadn't expected. Frankly, I was considering contacting a gallery or journalist with a polite note encouraging them to post just one or two images to wikimedia commons so that they might be included on the artist's page. It's not something I'd normally do, and I'd prefer to just work on pages without too much real-world interaction in an article's sphere, if that makes sense. Not sure if that gives you a specific question, but I think at this point it's probably best if I drop it and move on. I'm extremely pleased the article garnered some attention, and will watch to see what more experienced editors do with it as time passes. I really appreciate you taking the time today. WriteIncunabula (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend asking more questions on this over at Wikimedia Commons as I'm not the most knowledgable in this area. There actually is a process to get permission from artists. How it works is you tell them to contact via WP:OTRS giving proof that they are the artist and give permission to release the art under a free license. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the guidance, and I'll dig into it more than I have. I probably should have found that on my own, but someone pointing one in the right direction is a huge help. Thank you again. Fascinating stuff and I'll get more on top of it. WriteIncunabula (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * sure thing! Glad I could help! And don't worry too much about making mistakes. Most mistakes can easily be fixed due to the extensive edit history available on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)