Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 16

= May 16 =

04:12:43, 16 May 2021 review of draft by 2409:12:9060:B00:E57C:C699:1117:70C2
I wrote an article about "Echigo yoita uchihamono". However this article have been declined by "requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. " I had added some secondary sources in "reference" before last submition. I coudn't understand why it was declined. Is it a mistake the way how to write an article? Or, Isn't it enough number of references? I can put other references such as https://kougeihin.jp/en/craft/0705/, https://nippon-kichi.jp/article_list.do;jsessionid=5F8186FF37E54664969E960B23F7DDE9?p=5522&ml_lang=en , https://www.japaneseknifeimports.com/blogs/news/63928965-regional-knife-makers. Please tell me how to currect it.

2409:12:9060:B00:E57C:C699:1117:70C2 (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

08:34:52, 16 May 2021 review of submission by Mikecameroon
I have reviewed the references and drafted new article (not the outdated article deleted earlier). Kindly advise if more work is required. Mikecameroon (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources boil down to one connected to the subject and two too-sparse sources. None of it helps for notability a whit. You would need third-party sources that discuss IP2Location specifically at length, and not just as an addendum to WikiScanner coverage. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request on 10:40:32, 16 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Msp7com
Msp7com (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is screamingly promotional and would need rewritten pretty much from scratch. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

11:40:40, 16 May 2021 review of submission by Askadvice
Hi, I would like to ask for an advice on how to expand consensus gathering. In my humble opinion the article has been rejected and shut down by a small dissenting group and the previous AFD discussion on the topic is not based on a logical basis. I just would like to know if there is something wrong with the sources being provided and what it needs to be done to eventually improve the article. Many thanks Askadvice (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. That, combined with the AFD, means that this person likely does not merit and will not get an article at this time. He has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability and no amount of editing can change that. If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . The previous AFD discussion was based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so you are unlikely to convince Wikipedians that it was illogical. There are many problems with the sources. Examining a handful of the provided ones at random:
 * Elle and La Voce di New York are passing mentions, not significant coverage of Morassutti.
 * Letteral Mente has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. It says its information is "tratto liberamente dal Web", and mentions Wikiquote.org specifically. In addition to not being reliable it is likely circular.
 * Il Piccolo, Messaggero Veneto, and comingsoon.it are independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Morassutti. However, Il Piccolo and Messaggero Veneto have the same publisher and what they say is very similar, suggesting that although the pieces were published two weeks apart and nominally have different authors, either the second borrowed heavily from the first, or both used a common source, such as a press release. They won't count as separate works towards notability, so pick just one so it doesn't look like you're trying to game the system.
 * If the rest of the draft's sources are like the sample, then half to two-thirds of them don't suit your needs. Get rid of them, and make heavier use of the independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of him.
 * The previous article was deleted, and the draft rejected, for the topic not being notable. If that can be overcome, the draft's promotional tone will need to be fixed too. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the General Notability Guideline and still isn't clear to me what's missing. TV Guide and Rotten Tomateos which are listed here along with Messaggero Veneto, and comingsoon.it aren't enough to meet the criteria for WP:GNG ?--Askadvice (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

15:07:31, 16 May 2021 review of submission by Official TusharSahu
Official TusharSahu (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and your username is unacceptable. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

18:11:15, 16 May 2021 review of submission by Threesingh
Threesingh (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You have not done yourself any favours. You had to show he passed WP:NBOX and failed. You have also uploaded a copyright picture to Commons and your draft has been rejected. If you wish to try again please read WP:YFA and work carefully to prove the boxer is notable  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

19:30:18, 16 May 2021 review of submission by 72.68.49.212
72.68.49.212 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)