Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 1

= July 1 =

02:22:18, 1 July 2021 review of submission by LythPython
Hi! My article was declined, and I'm wondering what I can do to fix the sources within it. As per my knowledge, the sources are from large local websites, and award organizations, as well as from websites with an authors opinion on an esports controversy situation subject that pertained to the brand that I'm writing about. Thanks!

LythPython (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

02:22:37, 1 July 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer
Syedanustanweer (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article template, not an actual article, and was rejected for that reason. Come back when you've actually written an article. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

05:44:11, 1 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:C13F:1A89:7716:B2C3
It meets GNG. The editor rejecting it did not even indicate that he considered GNG .. only the sport-specific guideline, but clearly simply meeting GNG is sufficient. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C13F:1A89:7716:B2C3 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that all of the references are basically the announcement of him qualifying to compete in the Olympics so nothing outside of that which shows why he is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not force one to only consider the sport-specific guideline. If a subject meets GNG, even if all the articles are about them picking their toes, that is sufficient (As the sports notability guideline states: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline ..."). No need whatsoever to consider why they meet GNG, and to then focus only on the sport-specific guideline, and ignore GNG. That's, respectfully, incorrect. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A053:DB60:EEA0:34CD (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How can I get this reviewed now by another editor? I formerly saw a button for that purpose. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:845E:FC6C:A0EA:F171 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 12:10:24, 1 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Peps215
I created the Kellee Marlow page to further pages of rising podcasters and filmmakers. Kellee Marlow is well-known as a podcaster and budding filmmaker. I wasn't sure if a page about the film needed to be created first but the reviewer who declined the article says she isn't notable enough. I disagree. She is well-known in her area and I have added links from others listed on Wikipedia who have mentioned her, along with references across the Internet. This is my first time doing an article but I see entries with less references than hers but I'll keep digging up more articles if that is the final word.

A little more direction would be greatly appreciated especially since I am a newbie. Thank you! I look forward to contributing more articles in the future if I can get this process figured out.

Best, Sarah

Peps215 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in the process of creating a Wikipedia article, not just page. The existence of other potientially inappropiate articles does not mean yours can too, though you are welcome to point them out so that we can deal with them. With regards to the current draft, I am not impressed by the reliability of the sources used and the fact that most are affilated with the subject, IMDB is unreliable, Medium is unreliable too. 14:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

17:03:19, 1 July 2021 review of submission by 65.188.86.76
Hi, I am hoping to re-review this drafted page for Spencer's TV and Appliance. Prior, the text was not properly cited and extremely sales-y, and read like an advert rather than solely informational about the company. Based on this feedback, I have revised the text to remove all sales/advertisement language and included proper citations for each informational fact.

65.188.86.76 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or confirming the existence of something; that is considered promotional here. You don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something.  A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

17:10:32, 1 July 2021 review of draft by Lravisankar
I do not understand why my draft is declined. I have cited the book sources. I would like to know how to cite a book. Lravisankar (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Your draft was declined because your don't have enough reliable sources for verification. If you have a question about references, I would suggest you check out the Reference Help Desk. Curbon7 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

18:18:43, 1 July 2021 review of submission by Hello923
Hello923 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You didn't ask a question. Also, your draft was declined because it doesn't have enough reliable sources for verification. As the reviewer noted, however, the subject is likely notable, per our notability criteria for professors, so once you get reliable sourcing, it should be good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

21:49:18, 1 July 2021 review of submission by Innotivity
The reviewer states: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

Yet the short article has six external links to commercial publications or which half are daily newspapers in South Africa and one is GQ South Africa. This is a brief article about the first black real estate agency owner in South African history and I believe he deserves a mention, and I am not understanding why these references are not "significant coverage" or why these are not "published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this seems like some kind of bias against African sources to me.

Innotivity (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Focusing only on the outlets is only going to bring you tears. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode's top table:
 * https://www.gq.co.za/wealth/entrepreneur-rali-mampeule-reveals-the-next-big-thing-in-real-estate-39691319 is useless for notability (Connexion to subject). Interview.
 * https://www.biznews.com/wef/2020/01/27/modjadji-royal-surgery-rali-mampeule?amp is useless for notability (Connexion to subject). Interview.
 * https://www.dukeintmagazine.com/black-excellence-rali-mampuele-moves-from-street-hawker-to-harvard-and-a-real-estate-mogul-in-south-africa seems OK.
 * I can't assess https://www.businesslive.co.za/fm/fm-fox/entrepreneurs/2019-09-05-entrepreneur-how-rali-mampeule-went-from-hawker-to-harvard/ as it is walled.
 * https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/business/2019-07-26-rali-mampeule-becomes-first-south-african-to-join-forbes-real-estate-council/ seems fine.
 * https://www.news24.com/citypress/Business/new-blood-in-old-veins-20170317 seems fine.
 * We can't use https://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/black-multimillionaires-recipe-for-success/ (Unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
 * As to the article itself, you have external links in the body of the article outside of reference tags - we don't allow this - as well as claims that are unsourced - we seriously don't allow this. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)