Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 3

= January 3 =

11:15:33, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23
The article is current and reliable. Please clarify why it is being rejected 46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Forbes, YouTube, blogs and Vimeo are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

11:20:24, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23
46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Answered above.  Mario Jump  83!  14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

18:57:25, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Footlessmouse
Hi, I got a request on my talk page from Fergyman about the draft article Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan and wanted to raise the issue. Note: I previously created a draft that I never completed: User:Footlessmouse/Nancy Thorndike Greenspan. I just have no good experience with bio articles. I have created both Atomic Spy and The End of the Certain World, which are both authored by Greenspan. I had also previously had this conversation with User:David Eppstein here. I am under the impression that, per WP:AUTHOR criterea 3 and 4, Greenspan is notable and the draft should not have been rejected. If it was not an oversight, could I get more details on why it was rejected and what needs to change? Thanks. So I was just wondering where to go from here, and wasn't sure what else to do but ask for help. Thanks all! Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (3): The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (plenty of reviews in both books)
 * (4): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (both books won "significant critical attention")

Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

18:58:12, 3 January 2021 review of submission by Doo271
My request for a page on this document was rejected citing a lack of reliable supporting sources. The problem is the document has never been published online so it is impossible to find it in an internet search. That is why I felt it was important to create a page on it so it would be preserved and searchable. Having said that, over the years since it was written, there are several newspaper articles citing it. In my article, I included one such article AND a photo of a poster of the pact that hangs in the office of the Connecticut Parks & Forests Association. I am new to this! Any suggestions are welcome! Doo271 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * offline sources, such as newspapers are accepted, as long as they are published, compare Offline sources. When citing offline sources, please make sure to include enough offline information to find it. Primary templates that can help assiist you are and . When citing books or anything that is way longer than a couple dozen pages if I were to print it out, remember to give page numbers or an equalivent. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

20:05:06, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Medeopedia
Hi, I submitted the page SciLine to Wikipedia and it is waiting for review. If you search SciLine, it currently redirects to the AAAS Wiki page. Would anyone know how make sure that it now does not do that and goes to my page if it is accepted?

Medeopedia (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the reviewer will take care of the redirect for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:09:47, 3 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DynaGuy00
I recently submitted a draft for Rod Dreher's book The Benedict Option for review and it was rejected. I am just looking for clarification on why that decision was made, since the justification given was "Needs Critical reception and acknowledgement from news sources, magazine reviews, journals, etc." It also stated that the subject was not noteworthy enough, and may have received passing mentions. This was despite the fact that I provided links to multiple articles in reputable news sources (though not academic journals) that were focused on the book, not just referencing it once. Additionally, the Rod Dreher page lists The Benedict Option with a link, despite no article being created. I took this is a sign that there was enough material for an article to be created on it, it just had not happened yet (though this may have been speculation on my part). I have not gotten an article through, so I am very new to this and am not looking to prove myself right, just looking for some more feedback on what the exact specifications are. Thanks! DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . The existence of a red link means that at least one person thinks maybe an article should be created on the topic, but doesn't necessarily mean anything more.
 * Reviewer AngusWOOF is correct that the page should describe how the book was received. Plenty of reviews of it exist, however, so I believe it is notable and would not be deleted if discussed at Articles for deletion. I don't see a major problem with inline citations, either, only the last quote is missing one. Therefore I've accepted the draft as is.
 * If it is not rapidly expanded, however, it will likely be merged/redirected to the biography of the author, Rod Dreher, which already contains several meaty paragraphs about the book. On Talk:The Benedict Option I've added 14 reviews that could be used to improve the article. You may also copy from the article about the author, so long as you follow the rules in Copying within Wikipedia. The new article needs to be significantly longer/better than the section about the book in the author's biography to justify continued existence as a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

20:15:26, 3 January 2021 review of submission by KaimkhaniKamal
KaimkhaniKamal (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell some good reasons why Amir is not notable for Wikipedia. Amir is the FIRST Pakistani born wrestler, the FIRST, to be in World's 1st wrestling company WWE, he is a trainee of former famous wrestler Lance Storm, he took was one of the first wrestlers of WWE NXT UK, he took part in the 2018 NXT UK Tournament, the first tournament of NXT UK and see the sources, the citations, references on the page which include WWE's official website, wrestling's #1 website CageMatch, Wrestling Inc. If you compare this Amir Jordan page and Kenny Williams (wrestler)'s page, they both are literally the same, actually Amir's page is much bigger than Kenny's than why does Kenny's page get accepted while Amir's doesnt? And how is Amir not notable
 * Hi . He isn't notable because there aren't multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of him. The WWE webpage is neither independent (they have a vested interest in promoting him), nor significant coverage. Cagematch is an indiscriminate statistics database, so not significant coverage. Maintained by 30+ volunteers, it isn't clear how reliable it is either, since the degree of editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking and accuracy are unclear. WikiProject Professional wrestling classifies it as "marginally reliable." The Express Tribune is a primary source interview, so to the extent that it's Jordan talking about Jordan, it isn't independent. Wrestling Inc is tabloid gossip. WikiProject Professional wrestling warns that it is an unreliable source.
 * What makes you think Kenny Williams (wrestler) was accepted? Because it exists? It never went through the Articles for creation process. Anyone can write anything in Wikipedia, so there's an awful lot of crap out there. Ideally it gets noticed and removed quickly, but if no one notices it can linger for a long time. That doesn't mean it meets the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and it isn't a good reason to fill the encyclopedia with more unsuitable material. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)