Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 13

= July 13 =

05:28:07, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich
The draft was rejected on copyright grounds.

If it's regarding the 3 cited quote paragraphs: Two of the quotes are brief, conveying a cult leader's specific and emotional description of the key events in his teachings. The other quote is from a cult member's description and purpose of group activity which to some would be considered controversial. This quote was made of an end of one sentence followed another sentence. If the cited paragraphs are not the issue, it would be great to know what is so that it can be fixed.

Thank you.

Rybkovich (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those quote blocks are not de minimis as policy requires. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 05:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

06:03:12, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Shalni gupta
Can you please give me some advise
 * This isn't an encyclopaedia article; it reads more like an op-ed. We don't accept opinion pieces. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

06:52:38, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Aegersz
My original draft was rejected and I have no idea about how to create an entry as I can't find any external references to my website despite the large member base.

for the draft, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dopetalk

Aegersz (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you cannot get it accepted because it simply isn't notable - hard to accept perhaps especially when it's your site and you're having to also manage the conflict of interest. You have mentioned elsewhere your site is similar to Bluelight (web forum). If you google "bluelight forum", the first three search results are a perfect example of why that site is notable - they are articles, two of which are scientific publications citing the work of Bluelight, that are reputable and separate from Bluelight. Almost all the search results show you that Bluelight is a widely-know, often referred to Internet resource. That's what notability is, and that's the sort of thing you need to provide to show that your web forum is worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you can't do it, then give up and focus on contributing to the encyclopaedia in other ways. Sorry to brutal. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

11:46:26, 13 July 2021 re-review of submission by DAvidMaila
Hi! could you please help re-review my submission. The initial editor asked that I add more external links, which I have updated. please let me know if the current version works.

10:28:40, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Arvind4seo
Arvind4seo (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added my information as per guidelines suggested by Wikipedia, I do not think I have violated any rules of Wikipedia. It is requested please publish my articles. I will provide additional information in future once it lives.

Thanks

12:32:21, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti
Lathadoocti (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) I have added this article https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/356431/ for notability

Lathadoocti (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

14:03:41, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Dukey42
Cheers!

First of all, sorry for my phrasing, English isn't my native language.

I tried to make sure that when I've re-added this article a few months ago, I was providing sources that fulfill the following criteria for notability 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

Can you help me out why the sources does not count like that? I know there are blogs there as well (mostly to cite interviews) but there are ones with proper board of editors, eg. AMN Reviews, Africanpaper.

Not to tell on others, but one of my guidance for publications was the pinnacle of this niche genre, this artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_Carceri

For contrast, Atrium Carceri's sources are their label's website, their own website, their own bandcamp page, one interview and one short review. BlackWeald's citation's are miles better than this, in my opinion. So, I don't really understand how that page is fine, while this one isn't.

Cheers, Gyula Dukey42 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the long wait. Please refer to the top table here.
 * https://thedungeonindeepspace.com/2020/11/13/eyre-transmissions-viii-interview-with-hungarian-dark-ambient-producer-blackweald/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview.
 * We can't use http://hatredmeanswarzine.blogspot.com/2021/01/blackweald666-minutes-in-hell2021-full.html (No editorial oversight). Random blog.
 * " " " https://www.casey-douglass.com/2021/02/dark-ambient-review-666-minutes-in-hell.html (" " "). There's no indication Casey Douglass is an expert or respected reviewer in this field.
 * " " " https://avantmusicnews.com/2021/01/26/amn-reviews-new-dark-ambient-releases-from-blackweald-and-grey-frequency/ (" " "). This disclaimer is not a good sign for the source's reliability. As such https://avantmusicnews.com/2021/04/03/amn-reviews-various-artists-drone-islands-stellar-2021-eighth-tower-records/ is also unusable.
 * http://africanpaper.com/2020/06/16/v-a-dark-ambient-vol-19/ is useless for notability (too sparse). One-sentence description.
 * https://www.terrarelicta.com/index.php/news/11283-blackweald-released-a-new-album-with-11-hours-of-playtime-available-for-streaming-in-full seems to be a review of one of their albums from an outlet with an editor-in-chief. Serviceable.
 * We can't use https://komakino.blog.hu/2021/02/24/blackweald_666_minutes_in_hell (no editorial oversight). Random blog.
 * " " " https://blackweald.bandcamp.com/album/blackdronehell808fuckery (Streaming website). We don't cite streaming or download websites (and we wouldn't be citing any of the band's work anyways).
 * https://www.brutalresonance.com/feature/whats-in-our-inbox-9-featuring-forma-tadra-the-sea-at-midnight-snog-and-more/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Listicle.
 * As to the WP:WAX argument, that doesn't hold water. You can't use the absence, presence, or condition of other Wikipedia pages as an argument for your own, especially as the sourcing quality, text, circumstances around its creation, etc. may be completely different, even if they're in the same topic area. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

14:17:58, 13 July 2021 review of draft by 19musicman94
'''Hello! Help is needed getting this artist's Wikpedia page corrected and approved.''' Changes have been made but the reasoning seems to be the same when reliable sources have been added and/or removed. The latest interview of artist Zane Smith was published in a significant newspaper. Does that count towards notability? All three requirements are met for GNG (General Notability Guideline):

1. Independent 2. Reliable 3. Significant Coverage

Here is the article >> https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/mic-check-zane-smith-is-on-an-unconventional-path-to-rap-success/6QXN34A5ZFHNBO2XJ5WR5UCSAY/

The artist has had social media posts and more mentioning his name, songs, and accomplishments. Does that not count? Even as an additional reference to confirm he is a successful musician. (Those social media post links were removed but were used as sources in previous draft versions).

19musicman94 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the wait. By definition interviews are not independent, so I would judge this article by its lede section (i.e. the stuff written by the journalist as an introduction to the subject before the interview), and this one has a somewhat sizeable lede that discusses him at some length. I'd call it usable. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:50:36, 13 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Megaride
Hello. Please, can you help me?

K.e.coffman rejected the Maveryx Framework article because "Does not meet WP:NORG"

I submitted the article after a very long talk with other colleagues of yours. They gave me tons of suggestions to complete the draft according to the WP:NORG, the COI, etc... At this point, I don't understand what I'm missing or doing wrong.

I asked for some help from K.e.coffman, he kindly told me to look for a second opinion writing here.

Megaride (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , take a look at the advice given at Notability (software), but note that it is just advice, not a policy page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the advice. I took a look at Notability (software) again and it looks like the article respects the style guide; moreover, it includes significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subjects and the author...some of the sources are even accademical jobs. I saw some other articles very similar to this one...actually definitely similar. Indeed, I used some of them as guidelines, together with the tips from some collegues of your, to write this article from the scratch. It is totally different from the original one. It was deleted for good reasons.
 * Can you, or anybody else, tell me what is wrong with this one in particular to help me fix the problems and moving on? Thanks in advance. --Megaride (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: the article on the company has been previously deleted here: Articles_for_deletion/Maveryx_(2nd_nomination). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: ...yes, that article was deleted. This is the reason I wrote it again from the scratch following the advice of some colleagues of yours. This new submitted article has nothing in common with the previous one.

15:45:54, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Jase peterson
after creating this article and summiting it for the first time they said it was to short and the second time i summited it they said it reads like an essay, i put more than enough reliable resources and the social media sources that I put in there were just to reference to Jawaun's tweet. I wanted to know if there should be a format I should be writing this in to make it more Article like or should I take some information out Jase peterson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the first thing this draft would need are reliable sources, because we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incodent. You can check on WP:RSP wether a given source is considered reliable. I have only skimmed though the sources in your draft, but most don't look reliable or (in case of source #6) went to a place you certainly didn't mean to link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

16:40:55, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Think804
Think804 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

16:42:51, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Rd50322013
Sorry I'm having a hard time getting my question to post. I am trying to create a page but am having difficulties with the sources I've provided. I cited each source correctly and made sure that they all mention the company by name. I was wondering what I need to do to fix these mistakes, whether it's getting rid of some sources or adding more.

Rd50322013 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally, when you come to a Help desk, you have a particular question or problem. So may we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

17:03:59, 13 July 2021 review of submission by 2blessed21
Can I still edit a declined submission? I'm unsure how to proceed and I need to have the link working please. Please guide me through the tech stuff. 2blessed21 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . If you're talking about the draft in your sandbox, yes. You may continue editing User:2blessed21/sandbox, and when you believe you have a complete encyclopedia article, submit it for review. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may help you find your way around. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance Worldbruce :)

Request on 17:07:37, 13 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by S Tallim
TheBirdsShedTears reviewer of my article has informed he will be away for sometime. He was one of several reviewers, and the last one.

I have a number of issues arising from the review of my article.

Intriguingly, it appears that all reviewer’s of this article are based in South Asia, principally India. This may be because Mahal, the subject matter of the article, has a name indicating Indian origin.

However, Mahal was born outside India and has lived and or worked on five continents (Africa, 19yrs; India, 5 years; South America, 5 years; UK 7 years) and for past 53 years has lived in Canada. He is known for championing of diversity and inclusion in Canada.

Both the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada has recognized Mahal’s community service, knowledge and experiences to appoint him on government sponsored organizations. At provincial level he was appointed on the board of a long-term care facility and on the council of college of physiotherapists. At the federal level he was appointed by the cabinet to serve on a multicultural advisory committee and on a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear appeals for wrongful dismissal and benefit entitlements. His dedicated work on these organizations was rewarded by award of the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee medal. The medal is “awarded to Canadians who made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole.”

Canada has recognized the significant contributions made by Mahal, which a Canadian reviewer will have also recognized.

S Tallim (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer is of a particular nationality. If reviewers are doing their work correctly, their nationality should not matter.  People are also not required to be truthful about their nationality. In looking at the draft, I see no problem with what the reviewers have said, please heed their advice. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia “information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and if no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.”

In the case of Mahal’s appointments by governments, provincial and federal, on boards and councils of four different organizations such information is not available on internet. These appointments are made at cabinet level from shortlisted candidates from those recommended by political leaders of all persuasions who in their opinion will well serve their communities. The chosen candidate will have a letter of appointment and in other cases a letter from the respective minister thanking the person for public service. In some case the person may have been awarded a medal of recognition by the organization. Mahal has in his possession letters of appointment, letters thanking him for services rendered and in some case photographs of his association or awards. How can such information be made verifiable?

Wikipedia on notability states “ determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity”. Mahal was awarded Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee medal that the government of Canada awarded to “Canadians who have made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole.” This should satisfy the notability criteria. But the reviewer’s think otherwise.

So please indicate what I need to do to satisfy Wikipedia. S TallimS Tallim (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Six different reviewers from at least three different continents have taken the time to review the draft – one of them (who, according to their user page, is Canadian) has reviewed it three times. In your posts here you seem to be unaware of the fact that almost all the declines explained that the main issue is to do with the promotional tone which is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I would have declined the draft for the same reason, had I reviewed it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

18:19:43, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Alexander Vison Perdue
Alexander Vison Perdue (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This page was deleted as an advertisement. Please let us know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

18:22:57, 13 July 2021 review of submission by UJSchoepf
Hello, I tried making a Wikipedia for a physician that I work with. He is an extremely renowned cardiac/vascular research radiologist that is known around the world. I created this account under his email so that he would have access to the page in the future. Someone with contributions as extensive in medicine as Dr. Schoepf deserves a Wikipedia page.

UJSchoepf (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not Dr. Schoepf, you must change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. You cannot use his name as your username if you are not him.  You also many not grant others access to your account; Dr. Schoepf is free to create an account himself(though he should be aware of WP:AUTO)
 * Please understand that Wikipedia is not a way to honor someone for their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article exists only to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You only offered two directory/biographical listings, which are not independent and do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article.  If you just want to tell the world about your colleague, there are other websites with less stringent inclusion requirements, or you may use social media. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

18:42:06, 13 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4
Draft:Itay Shanny was considered only under NSPORTS. But he meets GNG. Please resubmit for review. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

19:30:32, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Falcone181
Hello, I am trying to publish a translation of a wikipage I created in the Italian wikipedia. I published the translation, but it is shown as a draft since June 2nd. How long does it take for the page to be openly accessible and visible?

WikiUser181 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not formally submitted it for a review; I will add the appropriate information so you can do so. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have two versions of this draft here Draft:Paolo Ruggiero and here User:Falcone181/sandbox neither of which are currently submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

20:09:21, 13 July 2021 review of draft by RJalan
I have been to the Teahouse twice today (13/07) in order to leave a message there requesting help from an experienced editor, but on both occasions I lost connection with the internet the moment I clicked 'Publish Changes' by attempting "to connect with a non-existent server", and lost my message. Please, are you able to tell me what I was doing wrong? And/or, could you tell me how to find a volunteer editor. I would be very happy if TSventon was willing to do it, but I don't know if the rules allow me to ask him. I could ask Unitedstatesian, but he reviewed my draft unfavourably and I don't know whether it is right to ask a reviewer to help. RJalan  Alan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Alan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

21:43:06, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Jackydonld100
PLease don't reject this,you can help me by editing some details or my boss will kill me.Thanks --Jacky Donld Jackydonld100 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you are speaking figuratively, but if you think your boss will harm you physically, you should contact your local authorities. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.  Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone.  A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person.
 * Since you are editing for your boss, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID for more information; you should also read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

22:19:49, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Marley3Liz
I am unsure why my page for Wolf Entertainment is not being accepted. Imagine Entertainment's references are nearly identical to Wolf Entertainment's, yet I am being told this is not enough? Also, I am unsure why the references keep publishing under External Links section, when it is showing as references in the backend?

Comments show brand is notable and references prove what is drafted is accurate.

What else is needed to push this live?

Marley3Liz (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read other stuff exists. You have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage; just announcements of routine business activities, which do not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. It's likely that the company is notable, but you still need sources.
 * If you work for the company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)