Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 22

= June 22 =

04:19:40, 22 June 2021 review of draft by ShravanthiRK
ShravanthiRK (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji --- My submission was rejected multiple times. I have gone through the help pages and guidelines multiple times and have now made some major changes to the draft write up, as well as to the references quoted. Requesting expert opinion and feedback to point out if I am on the right track and if there are any further changes/additions/removals that are required for my submission to be accepted. Please help! Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanthiRK (talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

11:17:34, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 24.14.82.115
My article was not accepted by Devonian Wombat. The reason cited is that my references do not show significant coverage. I cited 14 reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please advise. 24.14.82.115 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

11:23:45, 22 June 2021 review of draft by Segunoloye
Segunoloye (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Please can you help me with the specifics of what to update on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystabel_Goddy

This will help me to ensure significant details are added to the article.

Thank you, Segun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segunoloye (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , more reliable sources are needed to ensure this subject passes our notability criteria for actors. Also, please ensure that the draft has proper in-line citations. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

13:36:42, 22 June 2021 review of submission by ShUSP 01
ShUSP 01 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How to create the side table (right side with abstract detail)?


 * Curbon7 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

17:54:08, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154
The article was deleted so we resubmitted this draft as it was more detailed then the poor article that was deleted

76.240.112.154 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See below. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

18:04:01, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154
Please help - how can I get this approved?

76.240.112.154 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reviewers did not find the subject sufficiently notable with the sources that were provided, per our notability criteria for actors. Also, Amazon and IMDb are not reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

18:35:17, 22 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109
Njinfo10109 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Other articles listed about her on Wikipedia? So I don't understand how you can't justify a rejection? And other articles are citing her on Wikipedia.

Please note another user has indicated this would have failed the deletion process.

Please review articles on Wikipedia citing her and recommend what action to be taken.

Articles citing Mahnaz Malik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_and_publishing_in_Pakistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_R._Harris_World_Law_Institute

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Sharafeddine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njinfo10109 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just because a subject is mentioned in a different Wikipedia article does not make them notable. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just surprised. Mahnaz Malik being the youngest ever arbitrator appointed by the World Bank and also winning the UK Financial Times of the Year Award. That's beyond notable.

Also, I do not understand how the author of several books two of them published by Oxford University press is not notable. All sources are not self published but of third party sources and news.

Further she's been noted as a leading children's writer in other Wikipedia entries?

My question is what I do? It seems quite unfair that someone can reject on whimsical grounds.

Are the articles written about her in Wikipedia are not notable? Is that what you are saying.

Other articles can write about someone on Wikipedia and cite the person but the person whom they're citing isn't notable enough to have an article ? That does not make sense.

Please review it again. Your grounds are completely unjustified by what you've said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njinfo10109 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned or discussed in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to whether she is notable or not. Please refer to the top table here for the assessment of sources below:
 * https://twentyessex.com/people/mahnaz-malik/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). She works at Twenty Essex, ergo it's a surrogate for her.
 * https://www.legal500.com/firms/9333-twenty-essex/9333-london-england/lawyers/694055-mahnaz-malik/ has been discussed and dismissed. The actual useful portion of it is lifted directly from Twenty Essex's website, and it contains no other information worth citing.
 * I cannot assess https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2005-07-31-0507290164-story.html due to a technical error. The page tells me "the server is temporarily unavailable", so the source can't be assessed at this time.
 * https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=6j45H_rTFYAC&pg=PR52&lpg=PR52&dq=mahnaz+malik+cambridge+university&source=bl&ots=XB6gZmmd1Z&sig=ACfU3U1AY_7b3WISNz8Q3osaydDwPxMYfA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI--CIm6HxAhWCRUEAHRD7A5cQ6AEwEnoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=mahnaz%20malik%20cambridge%20university&f=false is useless for notability (connexion to subject). She contributed to the book.
 * https://newslinemagazine.com/magazine/reaching-for-the-stars/ looks fine.
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/393197 is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote and a name-drop, no in-depth discussion of her. In addition, it's of unknown provenance, as there is no byline.
 * https://oxia.ouplaw.com/page/28 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). She is listed as a contributor.
 * https://diversity.wustl.edu/events/event/pilpss-lecture-mahnaz-malik/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The source is indicating she is giving a lecture at the university.
 * https://twentyessex.com/mahnaz-malik-youngest-female-appointee-to-an-icsid-annulment-committee/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject) as it's from her employer.
 * https://ciica.org/mahnaz-malik/ is borderline. Bulleted lists are not favoured compared to actual prose, which is more likely to have information of consequence worth citing.
 * I cannot assess https://globalarbitrationreview.com/icsid-looks-younger-arbitrators because it is walled.
 * https://www.hlarbitrationlaw.com/2013/05/women-in-arbitration-seminar-with-cherie-booth-qc-and-mahnaz-malik/ is useless for notability (too sparse). The article is summarising what they said and doesn't actually say much about her other than that.
 * We can't use https://dailytimes.com.pk/146063/story-time-series/ (Too sparse). Listicle that doesn't even cover the books it's listing in any appreciable depth.
 * https://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99jan09/saturday/aboveall.htm looks fine.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5I9HGjeqXI&t=280s (unknown provenance). Random YouTube videos are either going to lack editorial control or be copyright infringement.
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/178881/karachi-mo-s-stars-a-book-for-children-launched is useless for notability (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIz_3ZM_fT8&t=134s for the same reason we can't use the other YouTube video.
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/594831 is useless for notability (unknown provenance). Role byline, which usually means a republished press release or native advertizing. Who actually wrote this?
 * http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C3604/DS13012_En.pdf is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). NGO documents are at best primary sources, same as government documents.
 * https://www.italaw.com/cases/7841 is useless for notability (no editorial oversight) for the same reason as the World Bank documents above.
 * https://balkaneu.com/albania-wins-sky-petroleum-international-court-arbitration/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no serious discussion of her.
 * https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7b960d03e7f57eb1862 is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). Another court/arbitration case.
 * https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/1457.html has been discussed and dismissed directly above.
 * In short, your draft could potentially show she is notable per Wikipedia's definition, but at present the overwhelming majority of your sources are unfit for purpose and should be removed along with any and all claims they were being used to cite. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Great then, you have agreed this article is of notability then do remove it from the rejected. That's the point this article should have not gotten rejected if they did not like the citation they should not rejected because of person is notable but declined for further editing.

Please do help. Thank you.
 * I said it could meet the notability requirements. I did not unambiguously say that it does. I'm not going to make that determination if there are sources I cannot assess for reasons outside of my control, and I am not a reviewer. But even then the sheer number of unacceptable sources to acceptable ones is an issue for the draft. The draft has since been moved to mainspace since (and for what it's worth, since the technical-issues source has been dealt with and that source is fine, notability has been proven.) —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 07:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

18:49:25, 22 June 2021 review of submission by Adil Bam
Adil Bam (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , You didn't ask a question. Also, this subject fails our notability criteria for politicians. Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

23:50:16, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 2600:1700:E680:1D70:A042:12AC:9740:B0D5
Hello, I have added several new references to meet the notability requirement including sources from news organizations such as The Globe and Mail, the Irish Times and Outdoor Magazine. I have many references that briefly mention GSTC, including several from the New York Times but they are passing references referring to GSTC's website as a trusted source to search for sustainable travel options. Any advice on how to meet this requirement further would be appreciated. Thanks! 2600:1700:E680:1D70:A042:12AC:9740:B0D5 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)