Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 24

= June 24 =

02:24:52, 24 June 2021 review of submission by Davidwarrenmusic
Hi. I have submitted the article on behalf of David Warren, songwriter and musician, he just released his debut album, and as you can understand, to publish the album and get verified on stores such as Apple, Amazon, or platforms such as Spotify, YouTube, requires identity verification and check. All the links to the stores and the album were submitted as well as an article from Pop Expresso (www.popexpresso.com) which I can see some users cite for some articles on major artists including Creedence Clearwater Revival or Blondie. Despite not being a famous name, nevertheless, the now published work should be referred on Wikipedia as a reference. Can you clarify? Davidwarrenmusic (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those organisations should not be using Wikipedia for ANY sort of verification, and we will not approve articles because Spotify, YouTube, et al are stupid enough to accept a Wikipedia article for this purpose. You are also obligated to change your username or risk being blocked for impersonating Warren. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (Courtesy link: Draft:David Warren (songwriter and musician))
 * As to your draft, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. We don't link to, let alone cite, online storefronts like Apple Music, YouTube is generally not an acceptable source (and the subject's own YouTube channel doubly so), and Pop Expresso does not appear to have any form of editorial oversight. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

03:14:50, 24 June 2021 review of submission by Marseille26
The rejection comment noted a need for more cited sources. I understand the need for this in more historically significant articles, and indeed, articles that take the shape of many paragraphs like a standard essay would. However, this was for an article to effectively just list the roster, standings, and results of a local USL soccer team. Frankly, I do not know where else to add sources. I have looked at other pages that depict similar information, with hardly any more sources. My ultimate question being: where are sources absolutely required when creating current season articles for sports teams? Marseille26 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to just list the roster, standings, and results of local sports teams. You might be better off looking for an association-football-focused Wiki site if you cannot demonstrate why this season in particular is notable. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 03:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

05:56:49, 24 June 2021 review of submission by KPMahour
KPMahour (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (Courtesy link: Draft:Kanwar Pal Mahour)
 * We're not interested in your boast-rapping. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 05:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

06:18:15, 24 June 2021 review of submission by Lommagubben
I think the subject is interesting enough for an inclusion. Why have I been asked to rework it many times if it is not suitable for publication? I ask you to reconsider this. Kind Regards, Lommagubben

Lommagubben (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , YouTube and Discogs are not reliable sources. Also, all of those YouTube links needed to be removed, as was stated by the reviewers. Curbon7 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is an utter mess and is would not be accepted in any form close to what it is now. It needs to be completely rewritten in a Neutral non familiar tone. Currently it is written like a fan site not an encyclopedia. The references are broken, not reliable (Discogs) or doesn't mention the subject at all. As this is an encyclopedia we require a level of academic accuracy, verifiability and a tone which portrays the facts as written by others in reliable sources, in our own words. If no one has written about this person elsewhere in a reliable source, then it does not matter how interesting you think they are they probably don't meet the threshold of an article in this encyclopedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 07:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

07:14:35, 24 June 2021 review of draft by Oceanwww
What do we need to make this page expectable for Wikipedia? how many things is missing and quantity of missing and what is good?

Oceanwww (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, the only things cited/linked are social media, YouTube, and a list of "fun facts" from a junk website. -- Kinu t/c 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

09:49:34, 24 June 2021 review of draft by Mannan phys
Dear Editor: Thank you very much for your comments on my draft (A A Mamun). It would be nice if you kindly merge new contents to existing page of A A Mamun. However, I am not able to edit that page. Therefore, I would request you for giving me opportunity to edit that page. Please note that A A Mamun's nationality is Bangladesh. I am eagerly looking forward to hear you soon. With best regards. Abdul Mannan Mannan phys (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * His nationality is utterly irrelevant to the decision-making process here. Why not edit Talk:A A Mamun yourself and propose the above, rather than here? —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, looking at the talk page, I'm going to have to make this crystal clear: Stop. Continuing to try to force the article to read exactly what you want it to is a waste of time and is likely to end with a block for you if you allow your conviction to run roughshod over your common sense and the advice of others. —A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

10:02:56, 24 June 2021 review of submission by ArafatHassanSohan
ArafatHassanSohan (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to post a promotional autobiography. It has been deleted. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

11:07:04, 24 June 2021 review of draft by Geo oku
Geo oku (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I resubmitted my draft yesterday and it was declined What can I add or change to make my wiki page acceptable. I read the article but I’m not sure what should I do.

Thank you Geo, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo oku (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of this draft (which is presumably you, based on your username) is not notable, and it is blatantly self-promotional. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 17:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

15:08:51, 24 June 2021 review of submission by Rahman125
Rahman125 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of this draft (which is presumably you, based on your username) is not notable, and it is blatantly self-promotional. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 17:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

15:28:56, 24 June 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid
Davinder bhatti is a famous indian singer. His Fans are unable to finding about davinder bhatti biography& about his songs details, he is verified on facebook, plz approve this request. Now All references are correct. Notable and verifiable is also done correctly. Sidhudiid (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This person is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, being verified on Facebook confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

17:31:26, 24 June 2021 review of submission by 216.174.65.187
216.174.65.187 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The reviewer is right - this article really isn't about its subject, but about one aspect of the battle. There's no "there" there, and the sources are of no help. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

22:51:23, 24 June 2021 review of submission by 108.170.91.210
Hello,

I just want to understand what is wrong with this article and how can I improve it. I also can't see an option to re-submit. Please guide me on the way forward. Thanks.

108.170.91.210 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no option to resubmit because the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

23:17:26, 24 June 2021 review of draft by Zandra Ever
Hello! I reviewed the guidance on references/citations and am still not totally clear on why my submission was rejected on those grounds. Is it because I cited the organization's own website and should seek more outside references? It seemed strange to cite other websites that were just quoting what was on the organization website, but I can find alt sources if need be.

Zandra Ever (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes; the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. It doesn't matter if you are citing the organization website directly or through a third party, as it's still the organization's words. Wikipedia is only interested in what others completely unconnected with the organization have chosen on their own to say about it.
 * If you are associated with the organization, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)