Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 30

= March 30 =

00:46:28, 30 March 2021 review of submission by 49.204.219.193
49.204.219.193 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

05:36:31, 30 March 2021 review of submission by 36.80.4.88
36.80.4.88 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello IP, the draft you are talking about has been rejected by . It will not be considered any further because it is said that the draft is not notable. Thank you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 06:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

07:31:43, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Islimfit
Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} I would appreciate assistance in helping me to revise my draft article to meet the Wikipedia policy so that it can be published. I did not intend to promote myself with the article and would therefore be grateful if necessary revision is made on it for speedy publishing. Islimfit (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , welcome to AfC Help Desk. I'm sure you are talking about Draft:Wale Adetona. As you can see the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered any further because the subject doesn't meet our notability policy. I'd recommend you to read WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. The reason was well explained by . –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 07:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

12:19:21, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Sickminecraft45
Sickminecraft45 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not interested in promotionalism or a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. This is a hard requirement and is not up for debate. Any YouTube channels he controls are not third-party, and random YouTube videos do not have the editorial oversight necessary to be usable as sources. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 23:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 12:24:21, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Uma1704
My draft was declined and I would like to know what was the reason and what specifically do I have to fix. 12:24:21, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Uma1704 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uma1704/sandbox

Uma1704 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

12:26:48, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Rasalghul1711
Hello, the article I mentioned above was rejected for not being notable enough even though my article is about the Indian journalist Manisha Pande who is quite relevant as she was awarded the Ramnath Goenka award; one of the most prestigious awards in journalism and she has her own show on YouTube: TV Newsance which gets a lot of views. So I do not see why my article was rejected; I used all credible sources for a notable person. Please rethink and re-review my article

Rasalghul1711 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . None of the things you've listed here or at reviewer Hatchens' talk page as reasons you believe "she is 'notable' enough", have anything to do with notability as Wikipedia defines it, except the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. The bulk of any article should come from arms length sources, in other words not things she or her employer have said/written (not 6 of the 7 sources the draft cites). Furthermore, sources used to demonstrate notability should be independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources. The brief mention in The Indian Express in connection with the award is a start, but is insufficient on its own. If more hasn't been written about her yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON, and you should wait until more is. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:46:48, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 168.69.254.40
uh i did not make this

168.69.254.40 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

15:58:07, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Pilotmichael
Dear Articles for Creation help desk,

I was referred to you by Wikipedia's regarding the Exploring Wine Regions article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pilotmichael#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Exploring_Wine_Regions_%28January_31%29

Here is my email to which should explain why I am requesting your assistance, and why maybe you should look into what new reviewers are doing, and not doing...

Dear ,

I don’t know what to do. I have followed your instructions and received input from several new article reviewers. I have been meticulous to be sure I have followed their advise and met (exceeded) the Wikipedia requirements.

Yet, the article got rejected again. This time I thought it would be best to ask the article reviewer who did the rejecting. I have written him four times over two months and he ignores me. This reviewer is new, he claimed only one year, and two months ago he brags about editing over 4000 articles. That is over 400 edits per month!! Clearly going that fast there can be no quality to anything he is doing. And being new, he is just whipping things out without out much time to put in any thought to what he is doing.

He says: "If you have any queries, you may ask me at my talk page.” Well, I have written him on his talk page four times over two months and he simply does not respond. I can imagine he has no time to respond if he is whipping out 400 edits a month. Don’t you think he should act responsible for his edits and rejections?

I cannot imagine this behavior is what Wikipedia wants for its quality. And it is affecting many people (I see others writing on his talk page and he ignores them too), not just me. I have been diligent to get it right. I know I have exceeded the requirements.

What do we do?

Michael

So, I am both reporting this reviewer which i hope you do something about, and i am frustrated getting this article approved when i have received much feedback and have been meticulous in going above and beyond in exceeding Wikipedia requirement.

Please help, Michael

Pilotmichael (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Pilotmichael (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Helpdesk - since I assume that you refer to the latest reviewer of your draft (three reviewers rejected it) I give a Courtesy Ping to @Eternal Shadow . CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Commander Waterford. Yes, the problem is with Eternal Shadow. Thank you for pinging him. However, what do you think of him ignoring inquiries about his actions for two months?

I worked with the Teahouse to get everything correct and compliant after the rejections. There should be no reason this does not meet the requirements now.

Pilotmichael (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pilotmichael, I did not a full review of your draft but on first sight a reviewer will notice that 80% of your sources are self-published ones (all PDFs) - what is needed per Notability (books) is coverage by independent, reliable sources Reliable sources. Please take a close look at WP:BKCRIT, especially paragraph 1.  CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Commander Waterford. NONE of these sources are self published. They are ALL independent reliable sources. They are PDFs to memorialize the articles because they are all independent sources and there is no control over their deletion. In each of the PDFs are the actual links to the original articles where they were published.

Pilotmichael (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * had I reviewed it I would have also declined it as advertising, content like "The book series delves into the discovery of wine in different regions of the world. The books are finely detailed narratives, photographic eye-candy, coffee-table quality, and easy-to-read travel guides complete with maps and insights about tourism hot spots." is just blatant promotional marketing and has no place in an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong, that is word-for-word exactly what the independent journalist said in their article. So, you are saying, you want to change what reliable independent sources say? That would have no place in any reliable encyclopedia.

Pilotmichael (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to be formatted as a quote with correct attribution. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pilotmichael I have left you a full comment in your draft detailing some of the obstacles between the draft as it is today and acceptance.
 * I take grave issue with your " reporting this reviewer ", because we try very hard to work collegially. This includes expecting that you will do so, too. There are mechanisms for making reports about unwelcome behaviours, but this is not the forum. Before making such a report please note than the reporter is not invulnerable to criticism once a report is made.
 * I have no idea who Lawrence is, nor any interest. I refer you to POSTEMAIL and suggest that you desist from posting your email correspondence here
 * I note your declaration on your user page of a conflict of interest. If you are the author then Paid-contribution disclosure applies instead. I will leave that formally on your talk page in order that you may answer it there, formally Fiddle   Faddle  22:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong, the comments you left on the draft page are very helpful. Thank you very much. I will make these changes and resubmit.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong, if you have a problem with reporting the user here, then you should take that up with Lawrence, one of your associates, who specifically told me to do such here and gave me the link to do such. I am only following instructions. Rather, I would think you would find it important to take issue with the reviewer for his actions instead.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pilotmichael what @Theroadislong said was Just blatant advertising whcih was both correct and helpful. The longer comment came from me as did the disquiet about your behaviour "reporting" someone who does not appear to me to have a Wikipedia account. And no, you may not link that name with an account. Please see WP:OUTING. Such an error is likely to lead to your loss of editing privileges, certainly for a period. (0.9 probability). Fiddle   Faddle  22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle, well then I should have thanked you for the comments. These are very helpful and I am appreciative. Regarding reporting someone, I was told by one of your associates to bring that matter here. So, again, I am following instructions from one of your associates. And regarding their having an account, they are the one who did the comment on the draft page, so how is that possible without an account. They have a personal page as well which I mentioned in my letter. One again, this person has an account and I was told to bring the issue here. If all that is incorrect, then it would be more fruitful to bring this up with them.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pilotmichael Please understand that you have just wilfully doubled down on OUTING which is a matter taken very seriously. I have made a report to our oversight team to request that they remove these references of yours. Others will judge any remedy.
 * I have no further interest in assisting you, precisely because of this act. Fiddle   Faddle  22:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Doubled down? Doubled down on what?

Pilotmichael (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clear something up (hopefully), the correspondence that Pilotmichael posted above was with me, via OTRS. Pilotmichael wanted to know where to raise issues with the AfC process, and I suggested this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mention this because I think 's comment about doubling down was based on the assumption that was linking the e-mail to my user account here, whereas the account Pilotmichael was referring to wasn't me, but the reviewer (as far as I know, Pilotmichael wasn't aware of my username). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cordless Larry The redacted apparent legal name could conceivably have referred to someone sharing what appears might be your forename, and revealed a family name as well. Since it was not obviously linked with a review, nor with comments on the draft it appeared to me and still appears to be an insistence on revealing the real legal name of a contributor here who has chosen the anonymity of a pseudonym. Thank you for your clarification. I hope the editor now understands that this was an error Fiddle   Faddle  07:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cordeless Larry for clearing things up. Glad to see the anger messages have been deleted. Hopefully now the anger and assumptions can stop and we can get on with the original query and concern.

Pilotmichael (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 17:17:00, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Lleeeooo
Lleeeooo (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You do not ask a question, @Lleeeooo. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 17:25:45, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 6SyXx6
Hey there, I have submitted this twice, the first time it was knocked back because I forgot to add citations and references. I fixed that. Then it was knocked back a second time. Now, if you understand pro wrestling, you will understand why this article needs to be made. Mike Moran aka Mean Mike aka Killer from The Texas Hangmen was a professional wrestler that wrestled in the AWA, WCW, WWC. As apart of the Texas Hangmen, he had a team with Bull Pain and eventually Tough Tom. He achieved more in the wrestling business than his tag team partners, I added the EXACT SAME references Frank and Tom have on their articles, plus more, and it still got knocked back. Can somebody please do a Zoom call with me and help me figure out what exactly it is that i have to do, and walk me through it? Its ridiculous that its been knocked back the 2nd time considering as I mentioned it has the same and more references than the aforementioned tag team partners.

6SyXx6 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @6SyXx6 I do not need to understand pro wrestling to push your draft back to you because the referencing is poor. With regard to the other articles, no precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle   Faddle  22:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You were told exactly this above. We're not responsible for your inability to accept legitimate criticism. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 23:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

-Its not an 'inability to accept criticism' - I am just asking for help because I'm having a hard time understanding. Sometimes when I read something it just doesn't make sense in my mind and I need to hear it out loud in order to understand what I am doing. There's no need to talk down to me, and I hope in future you think again before you talk to people condescending like that 6SyXx6 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)