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

= March 22 =

00:20:32, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Gprivitera
Gprivitera (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to publish my draft, and it returns ever:

"This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Marco Camisani Calzolari, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

The last version is not as the first one, and i have edited and corrected my draft, as suggested from the admin after the first submission, but every resubmit is useless and admins consider the first draft, and not the last corrected one. Please help me. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprivitera (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, both drafts are created by you. And both are about the same topic. We cannot have multiple articles on the same topics. I'd recommend you to merge User:Gprivitera/sandbox into Draft:Marco Camisani Calzolari.  Hulged  ⟨talk⟩ 04:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

00:24:25, 22 March 2021 review of submission by LittleBriarRoseTeam
I want to promote my game to more people who are interested as well as get feedback. Twitter would like me to have a authorized source so I can verify the game dev team account. I don't want to add spoilers on the page yet because the full demo isn't out. My request was also reject because I'm "too close to the content", but I hoped my description of how the game came to be was pretty neutral.

TL;DR: What do I need to add/change (besides a thorough description of the game and spelling/punctuation errors) to the draft in order to make it neutral and credible?

LittleBriarRoseTeam (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , welcome to the AfC help desk. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or the means of promotion. You seem to be too close to the subject and you might have WP:COI with it. Have a look WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV to learn more.  Hulged  ⟨talk⟩  04:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements Twitter or other social media imposes on you to verify your accounts. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

05:56:19, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Deangelo Snutts
Wanting clarification why 3-4 published articles on a subject does not qualify it to have a wikipedia page? It is a phenomena that exists, is documented, and has sources to back up the claims in the article. Thank you.

Deangelo Snutts (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is little more than a product advertisement. It looks like most of the sources do not mention the particular product described specifically, or only do so briefly.  Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Google The Holy Grail of Cum. There are dozens and dozens of internet forum threads on it on dozens of websites and several articles. It's a well-known thing in many communities. The primary sources provided are from online news and lifestyle outlets that cover lifestyle topics, and are used as sources elsewhere on this website. Do I really have to walk you through why saying 'it needs reliable sources' when that was already in the original decline reason is the pinnacle of tedium and timewasting? Next time can you actually go into the articles and state what is not reliable about them? I don't really want to have to tell you how to do your job. Next time an actual explanation beyond 'well it just seems like an ad' when it clearly isn't and there is literally nothing advertised, and then just reiterating the decline reason that was already given with no elaboration whatsoever would actually be much appreciated. Deangelo Snutts (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. I did elaborate on the reason. The sources you provided mention this product little, if at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject itself by sources.  Forum threads are not considered reliable sources.  Advertising does not just mean soliciting customers or selling something on Wikipedia; merely telling about something is considered promotional here.  The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I never used forum posts as sources. My point on forum posts was to show it is a widely known thing, and the sources themselves, which are reliable journalistic/online article sources back that up/

> The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for.

No it doesn't. What product. There is one line saying that numerous companies have created varieties of the formula. That's literally it. There are probably hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles on actual products. The draft does not tell about any product, it tells about a formula of ingredients used to change male physiology it never once mentions a product. Did you actually read the article I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangelo Snutts (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

11:04:47, 22 March 2021 review of submission by Adiepp
Contrary to common understanding, I want to show that the LCOE definition used by WIKIPEDIA is mistaken. I want to point out the source of the error and suggest the proper definition, using the mean value theorem for integrals. Adiepp (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please edit Levelized cost of energy with correctly cited material. If you intend to make large changes please us the talk page there to seek consensus Fiddle   Faddle  12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

11:38:12, 22 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe
Hi, as the board of the World Federation of ADHD has summarized its strength and collected several new sources, we would like to submit the article again with different references. Please let me know how to proceed, many thanks! VaJaMe

VaJaMe (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , "we" concerned me, Please see WP:PAID.
 * This draft is a sycophantic alternate web page about the org. You need to take the following actions:
 * Make any relevant declaration of WP:COI especially after reading about paid editing
 * Find excellent references
 * From those references exact the facts you wish to highlight
 * Set those facts into a storyboard
 * Write an entirely new, neutral, factual, tightly written draft contaomong only those facts and citations
 * Submit that draft for review
 * The existing draft will not be considered further, It has been rejected Fiddle   Faddle  12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The existing draft will not be considered further, It has been rejected Fiddle   Faddle  12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The existing draft will not be considered further, It has been rejected Fiddle   Faddle  12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

11:43:33, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Petkraw
I read and understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

However, none of the articles in the category of genetics organizations seems to fulfill the notability criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genetics_organizations

I, therefore, need guidance on how to reference significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , no one article sets a precedent for any other article.Thsi means that the others require improvement. Please plough your own correct furrow by providing excellence of referencing. WP:ACADEME may be of some use to you here.
 * We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * These references may include peer reviewed significant papers. Significant in this context means cited often in this arena. Ideally they shoudl not all be under the same authorship Fiddle   Faddle  12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These references may include peer reviewed significant papers. Significant in this context means cited often in this arena. Ideally they shoudl not all be under the same authorship Fiddle   Faddle  12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These references may include peer reviewed significant papers. Significant in this context means cited often in this arena. Ideally they shoudl not all be under the same authorship Fiddle   Faddle  12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the input on this page. Finding "independent" references is difficult in such a situation - human genetic organizations, like the AGD, would probably only be referenced by other genetic-related bodies/orgs, which as I understand it, would then not be "independent"? The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the references also need to be "significant" peer-reviewed ones. This is easy for a scientific subject, much more difficult for an organization. Is there precedent or good examples in Wikipedia from other scientific organizations? Shahmoo (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , it may be the case that the association is one of those entities that is useful but is not notable in a Wikipedia sense Fiddle   Faddle  17:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Timtrent thank you. I am new to this. Would "useful" not make the cut for a Wikipedia page then? Shahmoo (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately people often confuse useful with deserving an article by being notable. An example is a celebrity. Many are useless, but are notable. They get articles. Your local street sweeper is useful, but not notable, They do not get an article  Fiddle   Faddle  13:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:59:24, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfwspc
I would like to clarify if I could not create a new Wiki article under new journal name? Do I have to put the new journal name under the wiki article of former name? Thank you.

Sfwspc (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Instead, please edit Journal of Computational Biophysics and Chemistry Fiddle   Faddle  12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 12:17:23, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Maria Inês Figueira
I just wanted to know what is the update on this article. It has been resubmitted and is part of Woman artists project, but for weeks no reply regarding is acceptance or not. Kindly let me know, will be glad to provide any further info you require. Thank you!Maria Inês Figueira (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for three weeks. There are 5,275 other drafts in the pool, the oldest of which has been waiting 4-5 months for a review. There are many ways you can help improve Wikipedia while you wait. See Task Center if you are not sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 13:25:41, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ArthurRobertRobert
How is the article not neutral? I do refer to many published, independent sources in the article, actually. How, specifically, is it too much like an ad? The draft article contains factual information and points to neutral sources, like the Globe and Mail and IMDb.

ArthurRobertRobert (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IMDb is never a reliable source and www.frontrowinsurance.com clearly isn't independent. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:05:22, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SeanRMull
I am wondering what it will take to get this page published? I have seen pages with similar content matter get published and I feel as if it offered the same or less infomration that is being offered on this page. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to get a better understanding of how I can contribute more to wikipedia. I have read the suggested artciles about page creation as well. Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:OSE. The existence of other poorly articles does not mean we need more. We need less actually. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

18:49:30, 22 March 2021 review of submission by TonciJajic
The article was completely redone, would like a review if it fits the posting policy now. TonciJajic (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy: Article had been rejected 2 years ago, missing AfC Submut now, new Editor=COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. Added AfC Submit. TonciJajic (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Charin
Dear all, I have been working very hard on improving my article and I followed good feedback from many moderators to improve the article. It was on the live pages for some time and I also contested the deletion and it was approved. The advertisement flag was taken off by one moderator as well once I made improvements to making the article to be more neutral sounding. However, now once again it has been sent to the drat pages by another moderator and my review has been declined and flagged. Can someone please help me understand what's wrong. I am a Sri Lankan citizen who wants to help the Sri Lankan music community and I believe this artist has a notable body of work, both in his academic musical achievements and the milestones he has reached as a Sri Lankan musician in the international market. Please help me. Appreciate the help. Thank you!--Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The first cleanup tag says, "This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism". Let's examine the first paragraph.
 * "He began gaining attention in the music scene in 2016 after releasing his cover of Coldplay’s “Clocks”." For this you cite an interview in which he announces the upcoming release. The source cannot possibly demonstrate that he "began gaining attention" after the release, so don't cite it for this statement. It is a primary source in which the musician talks about themselves and promotes their work, so it does nothing to help establish notability. Is the statement supported by anything in the body? You write that the cover made it onto two iTunes charts. Record charts says that charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Writing about where the cover placed on a bad chart, such as iTunes, is promotional, and should be removed. After that, the body lists nine more releases, but there's nothing - no reviews, charting, sales, touring, awards, prizes, rotations, etc. - to support the "gaining attention in 2016" claim.
 * "He is a voting member of the ‘Songwriters Hall of Fame’ (New York)." For this you cite two reprints of a press release from 5TRAWBERIFIELD5, a creative collective founded by Mendis. Anyone who is a music industry professional and pays $50 can be a voting member, it's no big deal. You make him look like a chump for gushing over it, although more likely he was taking the newspapers and their readers for chumps by doing so. Nonsense like this doesn't belong in a Wikipedia biography.
 * Skimming the rest of the draft, there are more interviews, such as the one in Cosmopolitan Sri Lanka, and more press releases, such as the one reprinted by NewsWire and The Morning Leader, none of which do anything to establish notability, and all of which contribute to the promotional tone. There's more nonsense around the Grammys. Being invited to them is not the same as being nominated for one, or even performing at them. Being invited to the ceremony is insignificant enough that no reliable source tracks the nationalities of invitees. The draft shouldn't mention the Grammys. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce (talk) Thank you for all your pointers. They were truly helpful to understand the areas I need to work on. I will work on it. Also just one other question regarding the Itunes charts..Is it really not allowed to put iTunes chart info? I have seen many articles such as Ed Sheeren's own wiki article that has iTunes chart info. Also I have used the Whales report to cite this chart info. Whales report in an international industry report, is it not? So is it not notable? Can you please clarify this. Thanks!--Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Record charts is clear that single-vendor charts cannot demonstrate notability through charting, and, barring special circumstances that don't apply to Draft:Charin Mendes, are unsuitable for inclusion in article prose. Ed Sheeran appears to violate this guideline. That an article violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is a reason to clean that article up, not a reason to create additional unsuitable content. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. I don't know whether the Whale Report is notable, but it does not appear to be a reliable source. Being in it does not help establish notability of a musician. For sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music, see WikiProject Albums/Sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce (talk) Thank you. will go through these. best regards, --Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)