Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 7

= October 7 =

00:38:55, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Jrt1234
Hi and thanks in advance for your help. I have been working on a page for Johnny Rotella, the musician and songwriter. I added citations as requested, however when I tried to submit the page for review with tags (songs, composer, biography), I was unable to enter a draft title. I discovered there seems to be a page already approved about Johnny Rotella on the German Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I should be trying to update there (I'm not fluent in German), or if it makes sense for me to continue creating the new page.

Jrt1234 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to enter a title when submitting. The reviewer will take care of the title for you when the draft is accepted. Please note that seperate language versions are idfferent projects with different rules. Therefore, the existence of an article in one language cannot be cited as an argument for the existence in a different one. As for the current draft, I am not certain that it meets WP:NPERSON. imdb.com, Discogs and Wikis arent a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

04:41:17, 7 October 2020 review of submission by WesternCentral
I am requesting feedback/input on the proper way to submit an article (or stub/sub-section/redirect) for a candidate for a significant California state senate district. I understand the article as-is lacks enough information to be approved, but I would like some guidance on whether:
 * 1) this article would be accepted after significant expansion (though mostly limited to the context of the election)
 * 2) this info would be better inserted as a sub-section of another page, or stub
 * 3) there's very little chance this would be accepted at all
 * 4) other recommendations...

My original talk on the AFC repeated here:

The page on Candidates and elections is ~6 years old and related pages are similarly outdated and/or indigestible so I'm unsure of the ideal process/categorization for this submission, including whether a stub, redirect, or sub-section would be more appropriate. I can add a significant amount of additional material/references, albeit minimally outside the scope of the campaign/election, but I wanted to get the ball rolling just to collect more input on the best way to handle this submission. -- WesternCentral (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Examples of additional references:
 * Kipp Mueller | We Must Protect the Right to Vote
 * Outside funds lead 21st and 28th district races
 * Kipp Mueller | Mueller receives endorsement from California Democratic leader
 * Election 2020: Republican State Sen. Scott Wilk tops primary challenge against four Democrats
 * Meet two very different Democrats who aim to complete a political trifecta against LA-area Sen. Scott Wilk
 * The races to watch: California Senate primary

WesternCentral (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Candidates who are running for a state legislature might be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia) for something outside of their campaign (e.g. being a notable sportsperson, entertainer, author, ...), but their candidature does not give them inherent notability.
 * Every candidate receives some degree of press coverage, proportional to the importance of the office. A frequent argument is that such baseline coverage should be discounted, that it doesn't truly indicate that the person is "worthy of notice", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". On these and other grounds, articles about candidates are often deleted, merged, or redirected to articles detailing the race in question. There is no consensus as to whether there is a measure of coverage, as a candidate, that can make a candidate notable. For example, there is a biography of Ammar Campa-Najjar, but Theresa Greenfield is a redirect. (There is an ongoing discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, but it may be hard to follow for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes).
 * The least contentious path to follow would be to create Kipp Mueller as a redirect to 2020 California State Senate election. If Mueller is elected, then he will be considered notable, and the redirect could then be expanded into a biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough explanation,. I will just create a redirect for now. -- WesternCentral (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

06:48:08, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Rashika Maithani
Rashika Maithani (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask that why Chahat Aggarwal's profile is getting deleted on wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles", Wikipedia has articles on subjects that meet Wikipedia's special meaning of notability, in this case, a noteable person. The draft was deleted two times today, both times for promotion. I am unable to read deleted pages and can therefore not tell you how worse it was. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

07:46:20, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Rotideypoc41352
I'm not the article creator; this draft first came to my attention way back in mid-August, when the creator asked for some minor technical help at the Teahouse. As of my answering of that question, the draft has significant coverage from multiple sources with editorial oversight that are independent of the subject. So I am surprised to see the draft being declined for failing GNG (and tone, but that's a matter of what the sources themselves say...). I open this discussion because Nick Moyes' comment at the linked Teahouse question concurs with my judgement, leading me to wonder what I'm missing. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

13:32:06, 7 October 2020 review of submission by SiClaessens
About article BOGDAN & VAN BROECK

I was wondering why you esteem that architectural office BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is not sufficiently notable.

I am happy to provide you with some arguments to try to prove otherwise:

- BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is the architectural office of former Flemish Government Architect Leo Van Broeck ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Government_Architect|Flemish Government Architect). The Flemish Government Architect is an important governmental organisation for promoting architectural quality and the built environment in Flanders. Leo Van Broeck was appointed as Flemish Government Architect for 4 years in 2016. He is also involved in the Climate movement. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Van_Broeck

Leo Van Broeck, Founder of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK, has recently been admitted to the Club of Rome (this is not published yet), as soon as it is published we will add this to the wikipediapage.

Founder Oana Bogdan (partner of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK) is a former Secretary of State of Romania (2016-2017) and a much sought-after international speaker in the public debate. She is amongst others a winner of the international architecture competition Europan.

Bureau Bogdan & van Broeck was also nominated for the EU Mies Awards form The EU Prize for Contemporary Architecture in 2018 with the project COOP in Brussels. The EU Mies Awards are considered to be the Oscar of architecture.

BOGDAN & VAN BROECK has previously worked together with the British Architectural company Sergison Bates Architects on an architectural competition.

There is quite some international interest in the architectural office with publications as you can see in the references of the page. I can add more?

I think it is very important not only to have star architects in Wikipedia but also architectural offices who advocate for a qualitative urban space and qualitative architecture.

Since both Leo Van Broeck and Oana Bogdan are very active as partners in the architectural office, I thought it logical to start by adding the office to wikipedia and then add the two founders with a personal page. I planned to add 1 article on the Belgian architecture scene every month. I am, of course, prepared to make adjustments. It would be very nice if you could review this.

SiClaessens (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is very promotional in nature("BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is in for solidarity on a global level, born out of hope for a common future that offers new possibilities for mankind"); things like "mission" and "vision" are wholly unencyclopedic as they are impossible to independently verify.  Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have only cited things the company has done- when we are looking for more in-depth coverage.  For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article because many independent reliable sources have written at length about the history of Ford and it effects on manufacturing and automobiles, not because trade or other publications mention that Ford has released a new model.  Please see Your First Article for more information.
 * If you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, you must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

14:38:54, 7 October 2020 review of submission by 91.184.79.127
91.184.79.127 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

15:16:30, 7 October 2020 review of submission by MisMurphy
MisMurphy (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed and fact checked all the points in this article. It warrants review because every fact now has a reference link which can help verify all the information. Glossy language had been removed and the style of the article streamlined and polished.

I appreciate your input and hard work.

Thank you!

MisMurphy (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What we are telling you is that you have essentially posted a resume. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone and their accomplishments; this is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You have just told about what Mr. Dadich has done in his life- what we are looking for is what people unaffiliated with him have decided to write about him with in depth coverage. If you work for or represent Mr. Dadich, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to review the paid editing policy and formally declare that status.  If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

17:31:26, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Anya Kurkina
Hi, thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. I have made significant edits in claims, tone and overall direction of the article. I have disclosed that I was hire by Mr. Dadich's PR representatives to help with improving the article. I have added multiple recourse to prove the claims made in the article. I would really appreciate your help if we could go over together on what is preventing the article from being published.

Thank you. All the best, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion above by the person who paid you, whom I have blocked for not disclosing they are Mr. Dadich's PR person. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

21:31:06, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Martin Nordstrom
I am not understanding why exactly my article "An Early history of Sprague, Manitoba" does not fit within an acceptable entry on Wikipedia. I have seen many example of this nature that add to the infromation that makes Wikipedia special. Did I submit something wrong, I added references that speak about Sprague and mrs. Emes. What do I need to change?

Martin Martin Nordstrom (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists; other poor articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it's possible to get inappropriate articles by us. If you want to point out these other articles, we can address them, we could use the help.
 * You draft is an essay, and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. We cannot accept a personal interview as a source, only published sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

22:20:47, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Xolo500s
This article is about a spotify verified music artist who already has his music on major audio platforms and is a public figure. and refrences updated too Xolo500s (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This person must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Merely having music online is not sufficient, as doing so is not difficult for any person to do. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)