Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 October 8

= October 8 =

00:05:34, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Stephanie.thompson
Pat Allen is a prominent art therapist in the field of art therapy who has helped pave the way for art therapists such as myself. Her work has influenced the way art therapy is practiced and to exclude her from your website is taking away from the Art Therapy/ Art Therapist page as a whole. I hope you will reconsider your decision. Stephanie.thompson (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You offered only primary sources, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

01:30:57, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 65.128.57.17
I wanted to do this as a hobby and show them why is this happneing. 65.128.57.17 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No sources? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 03:14:04, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JBWPpw
Good Day I am working on my first sbmission (Barry Rumack). The inital version was rejected and I corrected the issues that were brought up and resubmitted it in early August. It has been acknowledged as resubmitted but noting has happened since.Is it typical that it takes this long or should I be doing somethign else. I am hesitant to try a second article until I figure out this process.

JBWPpw (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, please be aware that "rejected" and "declined" have different meanings on AFC context. "declined" means "Eh, this is not yet ready for mainspace, please improve it" while "rejected" means "This cannot be improved to be suitable for mainspace. Please stop wasting everyone's time." Your initial version was declined. Reviewing process takes a while, it is not uncommon that it takes a few weeks. As for the current revision, I am unsure if it meets WP:NPERSON. Imdb.com is not considered a reliable source. While you are waiting, you can theoretically do other stuff. Have a look at the WP:Task Center for ideas. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

04:51:22, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Philandrews04
Hi, I tried to ad project tags to the draft page called "Origins Science", but the box for "Enter draft page title:" does not have the page called "Origins Science" as an option but it does exist, see the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Origins_Science.

If you could please add this page to the project tags box that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Philandrews04 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * that input box was coded badly. It expects from you that you add the "Draft:"-prefix for things to work, i.e. "Draft:Origins Science". I have already added 1 WikiProject tag for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philandrews04 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

08:19:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 39.41.15.245
39.41.15.245 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 11:05:08, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Crystalcommunication
This is practically my first article on this person who's work already features on Wikipedia, but when I am trying to like those work as reference or any other website as reference article why it's not been accepted as reference. Since the person is a filmmaker most of his articles are on websites which are more of PR driven websites, in such case the IMDB is only reliable option left, but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't even accepts IMDB, in such case how would one can verify the person to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia.

The reason why I am asking this question is because there are 2-3 other interesting people I wanted to write about, they are still beginner and does not have much to talk about compare to the person I am writing about here, for such articles how do we get really deserving people featured on this platform.

Your guidance will me improve my work and will make contribute more frequently. I am quite stuck on this one article for a while to understand how to correct it and should not repeat the same mistake again in future articles. For reference you can google the persons name to understand the available source of information on web space about him, maybe that way you will be able to guide me better that which reference to take and which one to avoid.

Thanks.

Crystalcommunication (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's funny you should mention PR when your username happens to match a business that does digital marketing (that or this one), which is a violation of the username policy and suggestive of serious violations of our terms of use. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

12:35:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Spotify1451
I have a problem submitting my draft to the article. Can you explain to me how to do it. Spotify1451 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the current state is "Submitted for review" whcih ought to be what you woudl like. Is there any further help you need? Fiddle   Faddle  12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , because there are no 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  12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:39:46, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Silverline03
Silverline03 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Traditionally a help desk is where you ask a question and receive an answer. Perhaps you might like to ask your question? Fiddle   Faddle  12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

13:31:49, 8 October 2020 review of submission by 103.12.120.194
{{Lafc|username=103.12.120.194|ts=13:31:49, 8 October 2020|page= Draft:Amanat Ali (born 1987)

Hi Volunteers and Administrators

First, let me make it clear that i have not been paid and this is voluntary work, else I would have disclosed it if i was getting paid. This artist Draft:Amanat_Ali_(born_1987) won music award and participated in SaReGaMaPa 2007 and was a 2nd runner up. He has sung more than two songs for bollywood movies and launched his debut album in 2009, so he is passing WP:NMUSIC and article is made on neutral point of view. My question is, there are four Amanat Ali (including him) and an editor suggested a date of birth along with his name, but i think instead of a date of birth can editor rename this page to 'Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) or Amanat Ali (Popstar) because he is not a classical singer but Pop Singer and yes he is from the family of Sham Chaurasia gharanaa musician family who has this artists Amanat Ali Khan Ustad Amanat Ali KhanShafqat Amanat Ali as Mr. Amanat Ali is a fourth generation somehow as his father Nazakat Ali was also a notable musician.

I have not seen any musician or artist whose name comes with the date of birth, as three Amanat's Ali are classical singers and this Amanat is a pop singer so the best name should be Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) as suggested by the news references.

103.12.120.194 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been submitted yust 2 days ago. There are {{PAGESINCATEGORY:AfC pending submissions by age/2 months ago}} submissions waiting for two months already. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not asking for a review basically but requesting title change information.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am getting you rightly, you want Amanat Ali (pop singer) to be the title of the mainspace artice after this draft is accepted. I would suggested it be only Amanat Ali (singer). I would've made a draft move to the request but I will leave it on normal AfC process. Thank you ─ The Aafī ({{sup|talk}}) 15:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Aafi yes you are right all 4 amanat ali are singers (two died), two are alive one is Shafqat Amanat Ali and second is Amanat Ali, while Shafqat is also a singer but he is a classical singer while this Amanat is a pop singer. so i the (singer) should be ok too.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

13:57:27, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Samjoka
Samjoka (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Not clear what kind of info and reliable sources the reviewer needs to see. The information provided is neutral and factual and would be known in the aggregate only by the creator of this page. In addition the linked articles are verifiable through the links. Please help. Thanks.
 * Please review WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia articles should be mainly based on what reliable (no user-generated content) independent sources (no interviews or press releases) with some coverage of the subject. This submission's sources seem to fail the independent part. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

14:12:57, 8 October 2020 review of submission by EmanuelB2019
Hello! I am writing to kindly ask you to re-evaluate publication of the Carmen Harra page. I built this page step by step over the course of six months, during which time I received Sulfurboy and MurielMary's valuable guidance. In the end, 1292simon decided unilaterally that the page was a "promotional article" without arguing his point of view in any way. MurielMary mentioned that she does not share the same opinion about the page being a promotional article. She stated, "I disagree, I don't think this article is promotional. It's actually very factual and objective. However, I don't think that the draft shows sufficient notability for Harra to have an article on WP. Writing books and appearing on TV/radio shows doesn't equal notability." I can understand that we are all subjective but I hope I am not dealing with a case of gender discrimination. I checked the sources that certify notability and I've studied Wikipedia's criteria to publish a page dedicated to a public person. Carmen Harra meets this criteria and I invite you to check as well. Here are some mentions of the name "Carmen Harra" in the databases indicated by Wikipedia to check notability: 1. The New York Times (NYT): "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims." https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/style-change-your-life-boost-your-aura.html 2. Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek): "Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-06-18/books-that-matter 3. Fox News: "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG." https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/08/19/how-many-types-of-relationships-are-there/ https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/05/20/how-to-know-if-you-and-your-partner-are-a-perfect-match/ 4. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 148, Number 357, 22 December 2004, Page 17: "Carmen Harra's Jewelry" show at QVC. Indeed, Carmen Harra had her own jewelry line at QVC. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS20041222.1.17&e=---en--20--1--txt-txIN-carmen+harra---1 5. The Hollywood Reporter (THR) "There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-psychics-are-new-have-520837 6. http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2006225405/2016-06-17/ed-1/seq-21.pdf In addition, for the correct evaluation of the page, keep in mind the following aspects: 1. Carmen Harra has written six books that are found in the Library of the American Congress. 2. Carmen Harra appears in the Central American press, in newspapers such as the New York Post, and on television stations such as NBC New York and CBS Los Angeles. 3. Carmen Harra currently hosts her own radio show on an American station named OMTimes Radio. I have browsed many pages published on Wikipedia in recent years, about all kinds of people who have performed in their fields of activity and who deserve to be included in the most important online encyclopedia. In doing so, I noticed that this writer, who is on the same level as other public figures on Wikipedia, does not have a page. There are many similar pages already published about: Romanian beautician Anastasia Soare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Soare Romanian singer Andreea Balan, who has no appearance in the US press and whose career is known only in Romania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Bălan Romanian TV presenter Andreea Esca, whose career does not span in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Esca American psychic Colette Baron-Reid, whose page is devoid of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid Many of the pages I listed do not meet the notability, neutrality, and documentation of the Carmen Harra page. This is why I'm so surprised that this page--which was built according to the moderators' instructions--was rejected for reasons that cannot be objectively argued. Wikipedia also indexes many people who have "stood out" publicly by committing abominable deeds or for being famous by association; in their case, notoriety over notability. But this sort of information is normal to appear in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia groups information from absolutely all fields of activity. Even though it is normal to be subjective, we must recognize the professional merits of others. I call on the fairplay of the Wikipedia community to apply the same rules to all published pages. The "Carmen Harra" page reached its present form after six months of editing and assistance from moderators who lent their precious time to help correct and verify presentation of information. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback! EmanuelB2019 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid that was tl;dr but please never use other articles as exemplars of why an article should be treated the same way as they are treated.
 * An approach, and one I dislike, might be to accept the draft and expose it to the will fo the community, but that can be a salutary experienece.
 * ,, , you all declined or rejected this draft. You probably would wish to be alerted to comment Fiddle   Faddle  15:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Fiddle Faddle. I strongly dispute the suggestion by EmanuelB2019 that gender discrimination has been a factor in the draft being declined by 3 separate reviewers. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I apologize for the comparisons, in the courts it has become mandatory to refer to the solutions offered in other similar cases. My intention was just to show you that it should be decided using the same relevant arguments. Wikipedia's rules must be applied equally and non-discriminatory. I worked on this page for 6 months with two moderators and it was declined with concrete arguments, I solved the problems and then it was rejected without arguments by a third moderator. I came up with counter-arguments to which I did not receive any answer for almost 5 months. I know that moderators do volunteer work and have limited time. So are the contributors, as I strive to be. I understand the dispute with arguments, but I cannot understand the final verdicts without justification. It's like being sentenced to death without being told why your life is being taken. I think Wikipedia works on the right principles. I'm just a contributor requesting a re-evaluation of his page and I should get this within a reasonable time. I ask that other moderators than those involved so far evaluate my work and decide whether or not this topic is worth a Wikipedia page. Thank you!EmanuelB2019 (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved observer, it is unclear to me what the subject is supposed to be notable for. For singing? For being a psychologist? For being an author? For being an "intuitive counselor", whatever that is? Merely existing and having multiple jobs/hobbies doesn't make a person notable, it has to be clear what the person is widely known for, and then that has to be amply established in the article, supported by reliable secondary sources that go into detail talking about the subject and their work in that area. If I mention J. K. Rowling, you know what she is notable for, and you know that there are ample news articles that go into detail about the subject, her life, her efforts writing the Harry Potter series, her charitable causes, her provocative social media posts, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , your comparison that this experience is "like being sentenced to death without being told why your life is being taken" is unwarranted. Regarding the timeline, there are approximately 3600 other drafts also waiting review, and I don't see a reason why yours deserves special treatment. 1292simon (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you can not compare her to J.K. Rowling, who is a literal household name. Let’s take several other authors as examples who do hold the privilege or having a Wikipedia page but who may not be as famous as the creator of Harry Potter: Zora Neale Hurston, Sarah Osborn, Edith Wharton. Have you heard of these authors? Unless you’re a literature major, I’m willing to bet you haven’t. And yet, they are on Wikipedia because they have been published, just as Carmen Harra has. Secondly, you are picking apart the different aspects of Carmen Harra’s career, which should be taken into consideration together. Many people don’t have only one job. Or, they have a job that leads them to another one, in this case, writing books based on her work as a psychologist and counselor. Carmen Harra may not be a household name, but she is still widely known: she has written seven books that have sold internationally, she has been a successful singer since her teenage years (in fact, she was/is a very famous singer in her birth country, Romania), a host and guest on many major TV and radio networks, and a respected psychologist/therapist. The fact that she is also intuitive doesn’t entitle you to dismiss her credibility, but adds another layer of notability to her career: entire articles have been written around her intuitive abilities by national and international magazines. Might I add that Wikipedia boasts a plethora of pages built for self-proclaimed intuitives: Colette Baron-Reid, Thomas John Flanagan, James Van Praagh, and many more. In Romania, Carmen Harra is a household name. And in America, she has gained enough recognition to be deemed well-known and reputable. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Praagh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Flanagan EmanuelB2019 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow I gave off the impression that you and I were having a debate. We are not. I offered my opinion on why I think the article is problematic. You can take my opinions and use them to improve your draft, or you can disregard them. I don't care. Fighting with everybody, however, is not going to make your draft go live any faster. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not demand a privilege, but only a correct attitude and an equal application of the Wikipedia regulations for all subjects. You can decline a page because it does not comply with the rules and say what needs to be added. It is not fair to reject a topic because it seems to you that it is promotional, without arguing it in any way. said she didn't agree with you. Somewhere you have to be objective and fair. In your opinion, if a court has 3600 cases to be solved, it must sentence a man to death by mistake, just because there are still cases that need to be solved.EmanuelB2019 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, dear editors of Wikipedia! I am writing here because I am badly impressed by the fact that you do not give an international personality like Carmen Harra the "right" to have a page on Wikipedia. Why? This is the question. I read many of Carmen Harra's books, saw her on TV in America and Europe and listened to her music for over 40 years. I don't know who decides on Wikipedia and if there are other interests in the middle than the notability you claim every time. And I would agree with this harsh policy if the moderators who cut the meat and rejected the page would have arguments in the case of this decision. If a man who is an American citizen, has been singing for a lifetime, has written so many books, appeared in TV shows of some major US stations, he has no "notability", then Wikipedia seems to have lost the correct meaning of this term. I wanted to leave this comment for the moderators who "forgot" to offer arguments for their decision. I think that the moderators of Wikipedia are in an error and as a simple user of Wikipedia, I ask them to reanalyze this page. Even if you only use Google searches, you can tell if a person has "notability" or not. I am waiting for an answer that also contains arguments because what I read above from some moderators is incredible to me, it seems ambition without cause. You feel strong in relation to the page of a public person who has absolutely no guilt to be put in the corner on Wikipedia. I do not understand this attitude and this case should attract the attention of major moderators who should take all measures to ensure that the rules are applied correctly and not discriminatory. It's about the prestige of Wikipedia after all. Thank you insofar as you will be able to be equidistant and give to Caesar what is Caesar's.AndreiT2021 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

15:45:55, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Tuxxego
hello,

I created an article of Darkscrolls a few months ago. and it was rejected. I edited everything and it looks more like a wikipedia page now. if you can may you review it again?

tuxxego

edit: I have removed the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxxego (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Tuxxego (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Based solely on the information in your draft I think WP:TOOSOON applies. Notability is not yet established Fiddle   Faddle  16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

16:03:55, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Céideadh
I have been that my article (stub) on Dario Dzamonja needs more references. I understand the reasons for this request. But what I was trying to do here was merely to translate the original Bosnian-language Wikipedia entry and make it readable for native English speakers. I did not planning on adding to the content. Here is the page: https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_D%C5%BEamonja So I am just wondering how the BS original made it through the review process - since it contains exactly the same set of references as my version. Maybe different standards apply to EN and BS versions of Wikipedia? - if so I understand. Please let me know. Céideadh

Céideadh (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Every language version of Wikipedia has subtly different acceptance/deletion criteria, because each is independent of the others, albeit broadly the same Fiddle   Faddle  16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

18:07:28, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Eswnav
Eswnav (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Review this page and move to an article.
 * you have added exactly 'one source. I am no going to ping who rejected the draft if the addition of https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/natpadhigaram-79-review/article8346415.ece/amp/ changes anything about notability. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

18:23:10, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Necirvanyousif
Necirvanyousif (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC) I requested that because all my information is correct and this person is very famous in Iraq now because of his songs and he wanted me to add him to Wikipedia
 * We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim made in the article must be sourced to a strong secondary source. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * this submission lacks any form of verification. As such, it currently fails WP:BLP and WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

19:14:46, 8 October 2020 review of submission by XavierWilliamson101
I wasn't trying to do plagiarism. Can you help me make it not plagiarism??XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)XavierWilliamson101 XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea of the draft being rejected for plagiarims issiues. Draft:Acer_Chromebook_Spin_713 was rejected for failing the purpose of Wikipedia, as we don't host reviews. If you want to make a serious attempt at creating an article about that topic, this guide may help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

20:20:17, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Anya Kurkina
Hi, I was hoping you could provide guidance on how to submit this article for re-assessment since it has been edited. I have disclosed that I was hired to edit it and I would love the community's input on my edits and what I should be fixing further. Thank you for your help.

Best, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer has not changed since you asked earlier (see above). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

20:54:18, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Starrlightmighty5
What should I add to make this acceptable?

Starrlightmighty5 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , evidence of notability. 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  20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

22:46:44, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 66.75.0.28
Why are interviews not considered reliable if they are on reputable news outlets like Bloomberg, fox business, and business insider?

66.75.0.28 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources. We prefer secondary sources for most content, and as it pertains to demonstrating notability, we require independent sources. An interview is dependent on the responses of the interviewee, so it is not independent, and does nothing to assert notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)