Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 4

= January 4 =

01:45:39, 4 January 2021 review of submission by Xander Wu
Hello!! This draft was first created in 2016 but was redirected in 2017. I undid the redirect and moved to the draft space for further development. 2016 version of that draft lacked citations for verifiability (ruled in October 2016), and another unspecified problem on being incomplete (ruled in November 2016). I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft.

Outside of this request, I want to ask a question. Because I removed the redirect for the draft article for improvement purposes, would there be any consequences to occur in violation of any of Wikipedia's regulations?

Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a conflict of interest or the book was redirected after a formal discussion, I don't see the problem. If it was ever up at WP:AFD under any title or if it was the subject of a formal discussion elsewhere, then there could be a problem getting it back into the main encyclopedia.
 * The usual rules apply - if you can't convince yourself and readers that the book is notable, then you are going to be wasting your time and the page with its history should be put back, then it should be turned back into a redirect.
 * Now that I've updated the left-over redirect at, you'll need to go to WP:Requested moves when you move the page - either as a real article or as a redirect-with-history, back.
 * If you have a conflict of interest you will need to submit it for review through AFC. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

01:49:10, 4 January 2021 review of draft by MirachBeta
Is prabook.com considered a reliable source? I haven't seen a consensus

MirachBeta (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "This is an open-source project that accepts biographies by anonymous submission. Definitely not a reliable source." - Simonm223
 * Hi . For future reference, the place to ask about the reliability of a source is WP:RSN. Past discussions of Prabook, with a few choice comments, are:
 * Archive 191 - "User-created content. Not RS." - AndyTheGrump
 * Archive 211 - "Prabook should never be referenced ... random websites of no authority whatsoever." - Mewulwe
 * Archive 229 - "Not a good idea to use it. Anything it says should be traceable to the original source, and an assessment can be made about that source's reliability" - Sitush
 * Archive 268 - "Obvious unacknowledged copy/paste from Wikipedia is a clear sign of unreliable source. This certainly should not be used" - Pavlor
 * Consensus is clear that it should not be cited as a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

01:59:27, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Xander Wu
Hello!! This draft was first created in 2018 but was deleted in 2019 for being under sourced. I asked that this draft be restored in 2020, and I made further improvements. For this purpose, I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft. Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

02:05:49, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RedstoneFox
Hello, the new Wikipedia page for TUF was just declined for not needing its own article. We are wondering why. TUF is a decently sized community and we were planning to put tons of edits and information into it. For a while now we have been wanting to make a Wikipedia page to put in all of our lore for new people to see and learn. RedstoneFox (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources to show notability. In this case, the notability of TUF would most clearly fall under the WP:GNG (the default if no other specific notability guideline applies), though WP:NORG and WP:NWEB may also apply. Regardless, it seems that TUF is not notable by any of these measures. Neither of the sources currently on the draft show notability, nor are they particularly reliable (See WP:PSTS for more on primary sources and reliability). I hope this helps, please either WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak 💬 02:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

02:15:30, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Birdielea
Birdielea (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Snakes_and_Hawks_Card_Game Can someone please tell me what I should edit to make this article publishable?
 * Wikipedia has a number of notability guidelines that are used for evaluating whether or not a subject is notable enough to qualify for an article. the WP:GNG, which is the applicable guideline in this case, relies on significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. The only source on the draft at present which might show notability is the BGG page, though it's unlikely. "Directories" or "registries" of subjects (in this case, board/card games) do not show notability. Primary sources are also not useful for showing notability, as anyone can publish information about them. My advice to you would be to be patient and wait - This card game is quite new. If it picks up steam and is covered in multiple reliable sources (ideally something like game reviews or news articles of some kind), go ahead and add those to the draft. If and when the draft meets the WP:GNG, it will be accepted. WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak 💬 02:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some research and found that it's extremely unlikely that this topic is notable at this time so I rejected the draft. Please do not submit a new draft about this topic until such time as it's been covered in-depth by reliable, independent sources.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  02:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

07:49:44, 4 January 2021 review of submission by 2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10
2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

08:08:10, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RESHU IND
RESHU IND (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

08:12:10, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RESHU IND
Added More information with citations. RESHU IND (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Crunchbase is not consiered a reliable source and is considered depricated by the community. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

12:06:15, 4 January 2021 review of draft by SwanComm13
I am checking in on the Status of my Wikipedia Submission for Artist George Gadson. It has been in Review since September 2020.

SwanComm13 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You may check the status by examining the draft itself. As the yellow submission notice states, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,683 pending submissions waiting for review."  You will need to continue to be patient.
 * If you represent Gadson, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have rejected the draft because of undeclared paid editing and sock puppetry see User:SwanCom707. Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

17:31:35, 4 January 2021 review of submission by Tmreborn
Hello! I understand why he may not have been "notable" enough and I apologize for my lack of experience. I added a few more sources and cleaned the article up a bit. He is mentioned in a Yahoo Entertainment article for the 2015 Grammy nominations. Also he is quoted and has a small feature in a Rolling Stone Magazine article on Mariah Carey from 2018. Please let me know if that is sufficient! Thank you! Tmreborn (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Brief mentions and quotes from the subject are not acceptable for establishing notability' what is required is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

19:27:57, 4 January 2021 review of submission by 186.96.210.100
I am seeking advise on a Rejection of Article for George Gadson. Is it because the subject is not Noteable? Or is it because there is no Disclosure. And Can I still make a Disclosure? The subject has forty-five plus references.

186.96.210.100 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was rejected, meaning the draft will not be considered further. It was indeed rejected because it appears that Gadson does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional.  If you represent him, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to declare that relationship irrespective of what happens to the draft, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I rejected the draft because of undeclared paid editing and sock puppetry, please do not edit whilst logged out either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rajveer90/sandbox/Samreen Kaur
I have submitted the draft of actress Samreen Kaur and provided good media links but it has been around three months since the draft is not accepted yet. I have sent requests many a time but haven't received any response from editors. Rajveer90 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft here User:Rajveer90/sandbox/Samreen Kaur has not been submitted for review yet? Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How to submit the draft? Can you tell me?

Sorry, my mistake. I haven't added submit on the top of the draft. I just submitted two drafts for review. One is for actress Samreen Kaur and the other is for a best-selling novel titled "WHY DOES A MAN RAPE?" Can you cross-check them?