Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 10

= October 10 =

01:43:27, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN
What constitutes an interview? If a subject is quoted in an article, does that count as an interview? Or is it considered a secondary source because the quote was pulled from a primary source?

KellyChristineN (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If a subject is merely quoted and the source otherwise doesn't talk about them in depth, that is not significant enough of coverage to use. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sources, none of them are particularly useful. The vast majority are name-drops/sound bites or press releases. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I note your declaration that you are not a paid editor. Thank you. I have removed the banner.
 * I have examined the draft and left you a substantive comment upon it which I hope you will allow you to make confident progress Fiddle   Faddle  07:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

04:06:05, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA
this page was updated with sources 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have added exactly one source. Still no evidence of WP:NARTIST or WP:NCREATIVE, not to mention WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

07:36:37, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules
I want to delete my Draft page this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Please delete it. i am trying from month

Shahnawaz rules (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to delete the draft. If it remains unedited for six months, it will be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

11:36:56, 10 October 2020 review of draft by AlbusHaversham
Hi guys, can someone help? I am new to Wiki and trying to improve articles on Feline Health. I am writing one on Feline urethral obstruction (it's in draft form atm, not submitted) but I want to change the title of the page. How can I do this?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You may find Your First Article usefull. Your draft currently has exactly zero sources, and therefore fails WP:V. As for changing the title, this would require a move. You can request a specific move at Wikipedia:Requestsed moves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know it has zero sources! That's why it's a draft and not submitted for review yet. The sources will be added once the text has been written. My question was just about changing the title. Moving it seems a hassle. How can I delete it and start again? AlbusHaversham (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . On the hassle scale, deletion is exponentially higher than moving. "Deletion" doesn't actually remove anything, it's just an administrator hiding versions from the view of the average person. The right thing to do in the circumstances is to move the draft to a new name. The plain and simple process is to click "Move" (probably on the "More" menu in the upper right), overtype the current title with the new title, enter an explanation in the reason box, and click the "Move Page" button. Not much to it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a lucid and very helpful explanation. The hassle scale explains things perfectly! AlbusHaversham (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, I can't find the Move Command on my draft article page - there is no "More" menu in the upper right corner of my page. Where can I find it?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

12:34:48, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Samjoka
Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. Further several of the links under "notable articles" in the proposed page are from independent well-known publications with the person's name shown on their sites. Thank you.

Samjoka (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its probbably independent, yes, but at least this particular page on newgeography.com doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not on its own, but in combination with the other independent links provided under notable articles?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

17:07:01, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020
I have made a lot of changes to the page as suggested by the reviewers. But no reviewer seems to be reviewing it for quite a while. Please could you help(Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:30:17, 10 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Digimasters.in
{{anchor|17:30:17, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Digimasters.in {{Lafc|username=Digimasters.in|ts=17:30:17, 10 October 2020|link=

}}

Digimasters.in (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

17:48:08, 10 October 2020 review of draft by Mysteriumen
What is the best practice in reuse of sources cited in an article about a unique subject. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what you mean. Does WP:REFBEGIN help you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I could easily plagiarize WP:PLAG an article by “stealing” its sources, or what is the consensus/stance on reuse of sources from a cited article? I have built the draft mostly on reading one source, quoting other sources. If if I include references to sources quoted in an article, I am hiding the fact that my article Draft:CONARC_(Consulta_National_de_Rebeldías_y_Capturas_/_National_Register_of_Fugitives_and_Arrests)_in_Argentina relies heavily on one source. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Generally we expect an article to be broadly based, not relying in a single source. My normal recommendation for creating an article is to:
 * Identify references that pass muster. WP:42 is a useful guide
 * From the references, extract the facts that the article requires
 * Organise those facts into a storyboard.
 * Write the article, with the facts cited by broadly based references
 * Putting the question back to you, is what you are doing/planning congruent with that concept? Fiddle   Faddle  19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I am.
 * There is the issue of the subject independent sources. Because the subject is a governmental database, the only truly non-independent sources are that of the government operating them, I believe.
 * There is the issue of the article taking the form of an article about the controversy (is this a big problem? as it is not clear if the subject is notable without the controversy), and what are independent sources of the controversy, as such. Because the subject of the article is mostly mentioned as a controversy. From the top of my search I find four sources that each demand scrutiny. (http://technologyreview.com / http://washingtonpost.com / http://onezero.medium.com / http://hrw.org ) without including any of the sources they quote. Two of the sources quoted another (hrw.org) and at least one quoted the earliest mention of the subject of my article (onezero.medium.com) Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , In that case all you can do is your best work. Fiddle   Faddle  19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

18:05:30, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN
I found new articles and got rid of the press releases, but I'm just trying to see what I can and can't use. And I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question. So, I'm asking again, does the subject being quoted at all in the article negate the article as an interview? Or does the subject just have to be mentioned multiple times and not quoted ever?

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

KellyChristineN (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , where there is significant comment about the subject in addition to interview quotes, then there is a broader balance. 'Significant' tends to mean 'in excess of three normal sized paragraphs'.
 * As a personal choice I discourage interview pieces entirely, if the article relies on them. If you have three (see WP:THREE excellent references outside any of the more commented upon interview pieces then my attitude relaxes. Fiddle   Faddle  19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be easier for people to help you if you'd stop creating multiple discussion threads about the same issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

18:05:48, 10 October 2020 review of draft by UKArchaeologist
May I please request a review of the previously-declined draft?

IMPROVEMENTS:

I was advised that the article read like an advertisement: I was advised that the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability: Thank you for your time and consideration. Regardless of your ultimate decision, any further help/advice/feedback is always appreciated.
 * I have made significant NPOV edits with the aim of achieving an encyclopedic tone.
 * Added newspaper articles discussing work done by the company. The articles contain significant, independent coverage of John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS), some of which are also reliable, secondary sources.
 * Added reference to reliable academic journals which contain very significant coverage of JMHS. Many pieces in academic journals are primary sources and therefore do not prove notability. However, I have included the Oxoniensia chapter from Hugh Coddington and Richard Oram who are not (and have never been) JMHS employees, who provide a synthesis and interpretation of the work done by JMHS in 2013 (similar chapters appear in many of the more recent Oxoniensia volumes, but not all are available online so I thought this would be a nice one for reference).
 * The other references included in this draft are significant, independent, reliable, AND/OR secondary, and may or may not prove notability (I’ll leave that to you who has more experience than I do).

UKArchaeologist (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and what they do; it must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.   For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article not just because they exist and sell cars, it does because multiple independent reliable sources have extensively written about the company and its effects on manufacturing and assembly lines.  331dot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

19:15:59, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA
updated bio of living person

2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable musician. Just linking to their "mixtapes" is not sufficient, as it is not difficult for any person to post their music online. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

23:25:42, 10 October 2020 review of submission by FrankCarlotta1
I don't understand why this got rejected and I'm looking for assistance. Here was my response to the editor: Draft talk:VING Organic Vodka From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Contested deletion[edit source] This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Ving Vodka is an extremely important spirit to be notated on Wikipedia for the public in regards to how the industry is changing to organic spirits in the alcohol business. Ving has affected the industry globally. As stated in the text, Ving provides education and clean consumption options that didn't exist before. Please reference the articles, awards, and press the brand has garnered. Also, there is no other spirit in the world that is focused on wellness and health in the spirits industry. There are many, many other brands on Wikipedia that have similar or, less education attributes that can clearly be misconstrued as advertisements pages for the brands eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%27s_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_(vodka), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Head_Vodka, etc. In addition, it's very important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date on women-owned businesses and how important they are to American economic growth and to inspire young women to start their own businesses. Vonge, LLC, Ving Vodka, and Flo Vinger have been certified by the WBENC, which is the most respected women's business certification. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or address any Wikipedia concerns. ) --FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

23:29:06, 10 October 2020 review of submission by GehrigF
I was wondering why my sandbox page is going to be deleted. It's about me, I'm an artist, and wanted it to be published since I don't have a Wikipedia page about me GehrigF (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROMO and WP:MUSICBIO. You are not notable.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)