Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 28

= June 28 =

01:04:26, 28 June 2021 review of submission by AgentX50
This is the second time the article draft has been rejected for "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." My second submission stripped down the draft significantly only to include statements made in major U.S. published sources (newspapers, etc.). Can someone help tell me what needs further removed from my draft to make this publishable? I have several other subjects I want to do but want to use a model that works before moving ahead and I'm scratching my head to understand why this isn't getting accepted--it's literally based on several pages just like this subject. Thanks in advance!!! AgentX50 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC) AgentX50 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the issue here is the article as it stands now is more about their works then the actual subject. This is currently not demonstrating how the author meets the WP:AUTHOR threshold. A biography should be about the person and not as much about their works. If no one has actually written about the author they may not be notable enough for inclusion as we probably wouldn't be able to write a verifiable article on their life. Now with that being said some of their books may be notable if you can show with proper referencing they meet WP:NBOOK. For this to happen you will need to cite full reviews of the works from reputable sources as well as proof of any literary awards. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks--you're describing my first draft that the reviewer rejected and I pared back. Note: He didn't reject either of my drafts for WP:AUTHOR threshold, but for sources. If I resubmit the first version about the author specifically--the bio--I expect he'll reject again and for his same reason, again sources, despite my using the very entities that define what is popular or famous literature in the U.S.  The cited sources for each award were/are the very websites of these well-known, national awards. I basically copied the format of existing author profiles on Wikipedia (actually for authors not as famous as this author, which is what initially prompted me to make a list of famous authors missing from Wikipedia but referenced throughout several listings on Wikipedia) so I'm not sure what to do next. (BTW after getting each author's page approved my plan was to add their bestselling works). AgentX50 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC) AgentX50 (talk)
 * The sources are the issue as the one which discuss the author proper only one is considered reliable (The Kansas City Star), the other is a press release and is not really worth anything for us to establish notability. All of the other references are about awards for books not the author. The Kansas State Library also is generally not going to be considered a significant award for notability sakes. Starting with the books may be a better path as if you can prove that the books are in fact notable then the author may then also be considered notable as a creative professional with multiple notable works. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

03:12:09, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Syed Tajamul12
Syed Tajamul12 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , You again didn't ask a question. The draft is completely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

03:49:46, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Menu maharaj
I have created an of a song Vardaan (song) and the reviewer declined the article he says the topic is not notable but the topic is notable because there are lots of source, big news paper talking about the topic

Menu maharaj (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * When the draft was first declined, it was with a comment explaining why each of the eight sources was inadequate, and that the entire draft is written like an advertisement. As far as I can see, you removed three of the poor sources, added six others that are just as inadequate, and resubmitted without doing anything about the promotional writing. "Lots of sources" is irrelevant, if all the sources are useless. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

05:10:48, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Ali2351
Ali2351 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please refer to the top table here:
 * We can't use https://www.hungama.com/artist/murtaza-ali/274517964/ (Connexion to subject). Streaming site.
 * We can't use https://www.pandora.com/artist/murtaza-ali/kashmiri-song-trend-fashion-single/kashmiri-song-trend-fashion/TR39jnpkgVkb6hX (connexion to subject). Streaming site.
 * " " " https://open.spotify.com/track/6OMqhGEcIGUcv6GOrDM9mP (" " "). " ".
 * " " " https://www.tiktok.com/music/Kashmiri-Song-Trend-Fashion-6932095407817000961?lang=en (" " "). This seems to be a list of videos made by or with the subject.
 * https://waadinewsnetwork.com/i-am-a-singersong-writer-composer-guitarist-and-harmonium-player/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Article is quite clearly written by Ali.
 * https://kashmirpublication.in/meet-murtaza-ali-a-newly-emerged-musical-artist-from-kashmir/ is useless for notability (Too sparse). Cutting out the stuff he says leaves us with two or three sentences, not enough to help for notability.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aplUo6U1MKM (Connexion to subject). Music video for a song the subject sings. YouTube, as a rule, is only usable as a source if the uploader of the video would otherwise be a reliable source.
 * We can't use https://in.avalanches.com/users/in_1145982 (No editorial oversight). Social media.
 * https://www.webnovel.com/book/murtaza-ali-the-rock-pop-artist-of-jammu-and-kashmir-hailing-from-sopo_20382736605782305 was discussed and dismissed above. The "synopsis" is identical to the Waadi News Network source, and I doubt that this book entry is anything but fraudulent.
 * We can't use https://djookyawards.com/ (Website homepage, no editorial oversight). Not only is it a website homepage, but the awards seem to be based on fan input, and the page actively encourages someone who has a song in the ring to canvass their fans.
 * We can't use https://www.enlyrics.com/lyrics/top-hit-kashmiri-song-trend-fashion-sung-by-murtaza-ali-and-kj-jaffer/ (Unknown provenance/connexion to subject). Lyrics sites, as a general rule, are either inaccurate or a copyright violation (lyrics to songs are still subject to copyright) and in any case at best they're tied to a song the subject sings.
 * We can't use https://www.lyrics.com/sublyric/93852/Murtaza+ali+and+kj/Top+hit+kashmiri+song+trend+fashion+sung+by+Murtaza+ali+and+kj+jaffer (unknown provenance/connexion to subject). See directly above.
 * https://jaxsta.com/release/662f17b5-aaad-5555-b877-8843c8a26250/e0e6ac7d-34ad-5b0a-bf9c-1c8d29918439/overview is useless for notability (too sparse). Liner notes/credits don't help for notability and don't need to be cited unless a particular person either goes uncredited or uses an unusual pseudonym.
 * We can't use https://www.reverbnation.com/murtazaali (Connexion to subject). Streaming site.
 * We can't use https://wynk.in/music (Connexion to subject/unknown provenance). Streaming site; I can't tell if this is legitimate or a pirate site.
 * None of your sources help a whit for notability, and thus the draft has no chance of being accepted without much, MUCH stronger sources that discuss the subject at length, have competent editorial control, and have no connexion to the subject or their surrogates. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 07:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

06:10:39, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Uttarakhandgk007
Uttarakhandgk007 (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Your sources must be in-line, no exceptions. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 07:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

12:04:03, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Deepak Namdeo14
Deepak Namdeo14 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Have changed resources links in the article but still it is not getting approved

Can I use the following links in the article for resource links? In the below links CaseFox is mentioned

https://wardblawg.com/best-case-management-software-for-law-firms-uk/ https://www.capterra.com/legal-billing-software#shortlist https://www.business.com/articles/legal-document-management-software/ https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/milpitas/profile/computer-software/casefox-1216-1298100 https://blog.capterra.com/free-and-open-source-law-practice-time-tracking-software/ https://www.reportsgo.com/legal-billing-software-market-121405 https://www.legalitprofessionals.com/component/mtree/list-alpha/c https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marketresearchintellect_global-conflict-checking-software-market-activity-6811705575504781313-63Mf https://legaltechsociety.wildapricot.org/Document-Management-Software


 * Please refer to the top table here:
 * We can't use https://wardblawg.com/best-case-management-software-for-law-firms-uk/ (too sparse). Listicle.
 * We can't use https://www.capterra.com/legal-billing-software/#shortlist (non-sequitur, online storefront). CaseFox isn't even listed on it, though I am unsure if this is due to user preferences.
 * https://www.business.com/articles/legal-document-management-software/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * We can't use https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/milpitas/profile/computer-software/casefox-1216-1298100 (Too sparse). This is little more than a company profile, and even if it weren't BBB is useless as a source overall.
 * We can't use https://blog.capterra.com/free-and-open-source-law-practice-time-tracking-software/ (too sparse). Listicle.
 * We can't use https://www.reportsgo.com/legal-billing-software-market-121405 (too sparse). Listing article.
 * We can't use https://www.legalitprofessionals.com/component/mtree/list-alpha/c (too sparse). The page only provides a sparse, interrupted summary of what the software on the page is/does.
 * We can't use https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marketresearchintellect_global-conflict-checking-software-market-activity-6811705575504781313-63Mf (Deprecated). LinkedIn is not an acceptable source, full stop.
 * We can't use https://legaltechsociety.wildapricot.org/Document-Management-Software (Too sparse). This is literally just a list.
 * So the answer is no. Mere mentions do not cut it. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

15:01:40, 28 June 2021 review of submission by LilyHawkins97
I am requesting a review on the Wikipedia page for Intimacy Coordinator Vanessa Coffey. She is notable within her industry, which since the #MeToo movement is of increasing importance. Actress Michaela Coel recently praised the work of Intimacy Coordinators in her BAFTA acceptance speech, bringing the role to the forefront of the media and securing an abundance of press requests for Vanessa to explain more about Intimacy Coordination.

Her credits span a number of notable projects for screen and stage, and with other professionals holding the same position in the industry being granted a Wikipedia page, including the likes of Ita O'Brien, it is only fitting that Vanessa's page be re-reviewed. LilyHawkins97 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , The subject is not notable, per our general notability criteria. Many of the sources that are cited are not reliable sources, as they are primary sources. Curbon7 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

15:14:56, 28 June 2021 review of draft by DamesnetV
I've now added references so that there are only two short paras without references. This article seems to have more references than some that have been published so I hope it can be approved for publication now. Many thanks.

I note that one of the links in the references is very long, and would welcome your advice on shortening it.

Many thanks DamesnetV (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

15:47:51, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 117.196.175.129
117.196.175.129 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I added more informations in this draft Draft:Traditional Malayalam months.And the Article 'Malayayalam calender' does not contains detailed informations about Malayalam months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.175.129 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is completely unsourced. As was mentioned in the draft, you are welcome to add such information into the duplicate article Malayalam calendar; however, any additions you make must be supported by reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

15:57:38, 28 June 2021 review of draft by Gihan Jayaweera
Hello to everyone. I have seen that my Draft has been declined by some admins. But, I can assure that the person is notable. Also, all the important things are given. Promotional tones and wording are removed. He has won several international business awards. Also, he is a similar character to founder of Dilmah tea brand, Merrill J. Fernando. So, his article is saved. But my article has deleted or rejected. I don't get that. Most of you are telling it is not encyclopedic. But I have added some notable awards and other prose, but later you said they are under promotional. So, I am confused. Also I have given several reliable primary and secondary sources, in local language, English language. Some are newspaper articles, which are purely reliable. So my point is, why we cannot improve the article and just accept it. There are many useless single sentence articles in Wikipedia on biography. But in my article, I have provided all the necessities to accept the article. But, you are keep deleting and refusing it. I hope you will understand. Thank You.

 Gihan Jayaweera   TALK  15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

16:03:29, 28 June 2021 review of draft by 103.25.251.243
103.25.251.243 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above draft was marked by the author for [WP:G7|G7 deletion]]. Curbon7 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

16:06:52, 28 June 2021 review of draft by AliMehboob22427
AliMehboob22427 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

17:31:20, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Sxnnyy
I believe this is sufficient enough to be posted because the representative is very popular in massachusetts and his children receive enough attention to have a wikipedia page/ Sxnnyy (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Inherent notability is not a qualifier for an article on Wikipedia. Every article must be notable per our general notability criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

18:14:56, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1895:FEC2:B65E:536D:C5EB:2158
2402:3A80:1895:FEC2:B65E:536D:C5EB:2158 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please follow the advice of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

20:31:51, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:3051:1294:A65E:EB48
Please advise whats going on and why we cant approve this?

2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:3051:1294:A65E:EB48 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, as it appears the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

22:19:05, 28 June 2021 review of draft by Goldstriker
Goldstriker (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but you have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)