Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 10

= February 10 =

02:39:16, 10 February 2021 review of submission by 88.230.169.61
Why is there not a wiki page for Barry Jennings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

Survivor of 9/11 attacks, and he is disappared soon after 9/11. There are pages of other survivors on wiki. Why not him?

88.230.169.61 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have only one source in the draft; Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that how wikipedia is supposed to work? I am not required to put in all the information nor I know much how to. I just take the first step, another person comes along and puts in the next source. Because guy clearly is a survivor, has interviews on the web and is now disappeared along with his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.177.185 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that you do not have to put in every possible piece of sourced information for a draft to be accepted. However, when submitting a draft using AFC, you must at a minimum show that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion by providing multiple independent reliable sources showing that the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person has been met. Most reviewers look for a minimum of three sources.
 * I will add that interviews do not establish notability; Wikipedia is interested in what others say about a subject, not what one says about itself. Please read Your first article.
 * Though I advise against it, you are free to create an account, become autoconfirmed, and directly create an article. However, that runs the risk of being deleted through a discussion or even speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

03:03:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Syent713
How can I fix this to where it gets approved? Syent713 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and as such no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

07:41:05, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Emma Citizen
Please I'm writing about Emma Citizen, Ghana's youngest blogger. There are many people searching for this on Google so I think if you publish this article it might help them get lots of information. Thank You Emma Citizen (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not Emma Citizen, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for this person.  Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

09:56:11, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Enricaferrara
I would like to know where I can find the correct template for an entry about myself, Enrica Maria Ferrara. I am an author, translator and academic (Trinity College Dublin, formerly in UCD), author of 3 single authored books, 2 edited books, dozens of articles in journals and newspapers, etc. I collaborate with the Italian Cultural Institute in Dublin, organising events with writers and academics. I collaborate with the Irish radio. I understand that you don't encourage writing entries about self but I commit to write a neutral, unbiased one. There are far too many entries about myself on the web and not all of them are accurate. Thank you. Enrica

Enricaferrara (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't! Wikipedia only summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, we have no interest in anything else. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I advise you to not attempt this. As people naturally write favorably about themselves, this is not a good idea. While technically possible, in my many years here I have never seen someone succeed in writing about themselves.  You in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you.  Also note that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.  There are good reasons to not want one.  You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it.  Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

11:01:56, 10 February 2021 review of submission by 110.227.222.38
why i am notable to create a Wikipedia page of notable person. 110.227.222.38 (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

12:08:38, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Jenifree
Jenifree (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you wish to ask a question, please edit this section to add your question. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

15:24:19, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Adamcrowther
The article was initially rejected due to my username, i have now changed my username and would like to get this article published. Are there any further steps i need to take to improve the quality of this publication? Many thanks!

Adamcrowther (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't rejected due to your username, it was rejected because the subject of the draft does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves.  A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it is notable.  Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself.  Your draft is sourced only to your company website; multiple independent sources are what is needed.  Those sources cannot be the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business, or other primary sources.
 * If you are a company employee or otherwise represent the company, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a paid editing declaration. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

15:54:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Cullen chronosphere
Hello -- I am requesting a re-review of my submission as I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits here. The page and all information of this page is purely informative. I have also declared on my "talk page" that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits.

Cullen chronosphere (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for your declaration regarding paid editing. If you want people to find it, move it from where it is on User talk:Cullen chronosphere to the end of section User talk:Cullen chronosphere and indent it by starting with a colon. See Help:Talk pages to better understand Wikipedia's idiosyncratic communication mechanism. Alternatively, place your declaration on User:Cullen chronosphere.
 * It's obvious from the draft that you have a close connection to the company. It's important to declare the general nature of that connection, regardless of whether or not you are being paid to edit Wikipedia. You might disclose, for example, that you are "a non-executive employee of Chronosphere, whose job duties do not include marketing or publicity", if such is the case. Not being forthright and transparent about it will poison your interactions with other Wikipedians. Also see WP:BFAQ.
 * The draft was rejected because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia, not because of your paid or unpaid status. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to "get the word out" or inform the world about things of which the world has not already taken significant notice. When measuring how much notice has been taken of a company, Wikipedia explicitly discounts trade press like The New Stack, Kubernetes Podcast, InfoQ, and theCube. Trade press generally has a too-cozy relationship with the companies they cover. All four of these are interviews with the co-founders of the company or investors in it, so they lack independence. Greylock and the company website are also plainly not independent. Inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 50", "fastest growing" or similar lists, is also excluded, as trivial coverage. The bottom line is that the draft cites zero sources that demonstrate notabiliy (suitability for inclusion).
 * No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If you want to write about your employer, you may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, in which to do so. Volunteers do not intend to review this draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Worldbruce (talk) - thanks for your feedback! I've added my statement to the suggested location on my user "talk" page. I chose some of these references due to what I've seen pages for similar companies, like Data Dog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datadog). They use a lot of "trade press" as references. How is that different than this case? Cullen chronosphere (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it is welcome. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. Datadog is a bad article, not something to be emulated. I've marked it and a number of other tech company articles for improvement or deletion. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

16:18:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Here for the snacks
hello, my draft was deleted for being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I highly disagree with this, considering that the Flamingo youtube channel currently has 8.49 million subscribers, and also because several smaller YouTubers, such as CGP Grey, with only 4.65 million subscribers, Tom Scott, with only 3.51 million subscribers, and Extra Credits, with only 2.49 million subscribers, all have Wikipedia articles. the fact that you delete my draft for not being notable enough is not only highly hypocritical, but also makes it look like your deliberately attacking the YouTuber in question, and the person submitting the draft. sincerely, Here for the snacks (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of subscribers is not what determines notability. What matters is whether there are reliable sources, such as books and newspaper articles, that discuss the person in detail. Your draft didn't cite any reliable sources, so it cannot be accepted. While our notability policies may seem frustrating at times, they are absolutely necessary to preserving a usable encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ok thanks, but is it possible for me to fix up the draft and resubmit it? sincerely, Here for the snacks (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , First, determine whether it is notable by finding 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.
 * If it is notable in Wikipedia terms then there is nothing preventing this from being created  Fiddle   Faddle  16:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Flamingo (YouTuber) was rejected not deleted, it has zero independent reliable sources, which are an absolute necessity for a draft to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is notable in Wikipedia terms then there is nothing preventing this from being created  Fiddle   Faddle  16:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Flamingo (YouTuber) was rejected not deleted, it has zero independent reliable sources, which are an absolute necessity for a draft to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:27:50, 10 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TheGreatestWikiEditorEver
I am trying to write an article, yet I cannot find enough coverage, or sources for it to be accepted

TheGreatestWikiEditorEver (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that tells you that it failed to make the cut, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  16:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

16:35:00, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Rajarajan2409
Rajarajan2409 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Does India Today Article is not an reliable and trusted sources for getting approved?


 * Hi . The article in India Today is a start. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. India Today is light on coverage, not saying much more than that he was in the film and stung by 200 bees (and even that is based on what he told them, so it isn't arms length). Try to find deeper, more independent pieces from the list of reliable sources at WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. His role in Penguin appears minor. An actor who hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films is unlikely to have generated enough press for an encyclopedia article to be written about them. It may be too soon in their career. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Novice editor? There separate rules? What you are implying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarajan2409 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to Wikipedia's "rules" each of the five times the draft has been declined. Yet you don't follow them. You continue to submit a draft that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted for publication. One possibility is that you don't understand the rules. There's no shame in that. They are insanely complex, and none of us was born knowing them. When experienced volunteers help novice Wikipedians, it is often useful to present a simplified overview of the rules, rules of thumb, tailored specifically to what the requester is trying to do. If you don't find that helpful, you are welcome to refer to the full and formal rule set instead. There is a rule against tendentious editing. If you continue to submit the draft without radical improvement, it is likely to be deleted and you are liable to be blocked from editing. --Worldbruce (talk)

snowball's chance in hell? Flying Pig??? Now, I clearly understand your intention. Insulting, degrading, threading other publisher. I don't need your help, I can get approved on myself. Stop replying me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarajan2409 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

17:15:12, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino
Draft SADAS

Hi, I received the review result of my draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sadas). It has been declined due to not neutral point of view and some references to modify. I asked for more details (such as which text is not neutral or which references to change) to improve my page and I am waiting for an answer from those who declined my draft's submission. I need to improve my page in order to publish it. as soon as possible. Really thanks so much for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello please help me to complete my first article draft:junaid_bhat

 * boxed material moved here on behalf of  (moved by Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC))



Hello,hope you are doing good, i'm new here on wikepedia, i'm trying to contribute some articles on wikpedia,i have just started contributing to wikipedia and a day before i went through a draft of Draft:Junaid Bhat who is basically a known photojournalist of Kashmir India. I collected all the info about the said person from internet and then i started working on that incomplete draft as it's complete for now, i request you have a look on this draft ; help me to get my first work published thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , hopefully the good folks here at AFC will note your request, and respond here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

19:46:42, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Prakrutiprajapanti
Hello Admins hope you all are doing good, i'm new here on wikepedia i don't have too much knowledge about the rules of wikipedia , i have just started contributing on wikipedia as someday's before i went through a Draft:junaid_bhat which was declined because it was totally incomplete and there were not enough supportive url's in the draft , so while checking this draft i went through internet and collected the information regarding the mentioned person and took this draft as my first contribution on wikipedia so i started recreating this draft which is complete now and has been sent for submission : please i request you to help me to get my first work published thank you. Prakrutiprajapanti (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Took the liberty of repairing your Lafc template, so it links to your Draft:Junaid Bhat. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

21:20:08, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Thespiansapien
I made an update on this article. The yellow banner that usually shows up on the bottom about submissions for "review is pending" is not longer visible. How can I check if it was submitted for review? Thanks!

Thespiansapien (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to click the blue "Resubmit" button first. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

23:10:19, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Nwachinazo
Nwachinazo (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why Draft:Nyerere Ogbonna fails to be accepted after including more than 9 third party independent sources which give the subject enough coverage to show his notability? I am beginning to see some gang up against this article and it is unfair to me. I have read and re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability and I have tried my best to improve on that issue, even seeking professional advice from senior colleagues, yet someone can walk up to decline the article for a flimsy reason. Can the editor just prove to us that no three or four sources are not enough to make the article's subject notable? This is disappointing!Nwachinazo (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You criticize that "someone can walk up to decline the article for a flimsy reason", but you have been asking for a review for days. So you get one, but don't like the result.  The sources you offered are not significant coverage of the subject, but just routine announcements of what this person does.  Significant coverage must be in depth and substantial. Since the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything has its time. So is everyone. It is not the end of life. Time and chance meet everyone. I am very busy right now. Nice meeting you my brother. It is not a mortal combat as you think. Good day!Nwachinazo (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

23:40:16, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Rebner
Hi, what was wrong about the literature/references cited in this draft ...? (BLP of Thomas Ried, the invetor of spectral karyotyping ...) Thank you, R. Ebner Rebner (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . The problem with the draft's references is that it doesn't cite any. In a biography of a living person, basically every statement you make about them should identify the source where you got the information (reviewers are a skeptical bunch, so you can expect that almost every statement will be challenged). If multiple consecutive sentences came from the same source, you only need one citation at the end of them. If you can't cite a source for a fact, you can't include it, even if you're certain it's true. See Citing sources for more information, and Help:Referencing for beginners for help with the mechanics of citing.


 * The draft has a long "Selected Literature" list of journal articles written by Ried. Wikipedia does not commonly list large numbers of an academic's articles. Use selection criteria that produce a short list, and make the criteria explicit. You might, for example, list his five most highly cited articles. Perhaps some of his articles could be used as references, but the bulk of any Wikipedia article about him should come from independent sources, things not written by him. See WP:PROF to get an idea of what sort of sources might be used. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)