Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 October 20

= October 20 =

02:51:11, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Dottee
I'd love to know if articles can be published without several independent sources. The article I wish to write does not have many outside sources to reference for information, only the substantial amount in the two available. Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . No, they can't. What an organization has to say about itself belongs on that organization's webpage, not in Wikipedia. We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Multiple sources are generally expected, to show sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and to ensure we aren't parroting a single point of view on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

08:13:16, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xland44
Hi, when editing Draft:Jim Swan, I accidentally included multiple citations to the same site. Is there some way to merge citations? Xland44 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, by using named references you can cite the same source in several places in the article without having it repeated in the list of references. Here is how to do it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

09:27:05, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xiaofeng93
I have made proper changes based on feedback from the editor, but still not sure if meets the full requirment.

Can I seek help to have a pre-review before re-submit?

Xiaofeng93 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Glancing over it, not a single reliable source jumps out, and I see a lot of really terrible ones: wikitia, Crunchbase, prnewswire, and coindesk, for example. Considering this and Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related articles, I think it's safe to say Wikipedia will never publish an article on this subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

10:48:17, 20 October 2021 review of draft by ResetK
To whom it may concern,

I have created the article on PROJECT MOD, which is under development by NEXON KOREA. The article has been rejected three times for the reason the article does not cover significant, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the platform is in its early stage, I took a look at the Project TL article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_TL - as a reference. Should I add more lines to the article? Or do I ask to put more references? Do please kindly revise how can I develop the article to publish it.

Best, ResetK

ResetK (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and low quality ones. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, not Project TL.
 * Businesswire is a press release, so not independent. MMOs.com's three sentences do not constitute significant coverage. Techbeezer.com is incoherent. It reads like a bad machine translation of a press release. YouTube is a generally unreliable source, and material published there by Project MOD is not independent. The Nexon website is not independent. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft referemces zero sources like that. If there are no such sources because the platform is in its early stage, then wait a few years until the platform is more mature. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

12:29:59, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Sucker for All
Am confused by a purported lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It certainly is just not a passing mention in any of the 6 sources (more similar sources are readily available), and she's, in truth, viewed by millions of people for at least an hour a week on the biggest news station in the world. Do we have specific precedents for the viability of the various sources in question? Fox News is considered viable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (she was previously with ABC), whereas the others include 1. allstarbio 2. thewhoisbio 3. thefamousinfo 4. profilespedia 5. factsbuddy. A comment on each sources purported lack of reliability would be in order. others that *could* be used include a. goldencelebrities b. fact-pedia c. marriedceleb d. wikiage e. glamourpath f. starsgab g. factsbio h. bio-peida i. wealthyspy j. chandigarhfirst k. xycinews l. biographyhoses m. arealnews n. informationflare o. celebpie p. marriedwiki q. theparadise r. factualhub s. yankeetv t. b.wikiage u. popcreep v. thecelebinfo w. nypost (in passing @ https://nypost.com/2010/05/10/miss-usa-contestants-in-their-undies/ in 2010) x. thewhoisbio y. muzu.tv z. expioreceleb, in addition to many many other articles. All are independent of the subject matter and, other than the nypost, not one is just a mention in passing. How do we get this published? Which of the above sources is considered more and less reliable than others? All sources here seem to flow similarly to snopes.. Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sucker for All You appear to have a misunderstanding of the term Reliable Sources. The references you have chosen are not considered reliable secondary sources. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both nypost and Fox News are considered reliable. And she's literally On Fox News at least 1 hour per day delivering live news. All 31 sources listed are considered unreliable? More are easily visible in a Google search of her name.. Sucker for All (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All A Fox News bio of one of their team is a Primary Source. The other references you have used are not of any use at all since they are not reliable. Your do not seem to have used nypost as a reference.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RS/PS, nypost is a generally unreliable source. Fox News is sometimes reliable, sometimes unreliable, depending on context. Fox News is her employer, however, so it is not an independent source about her. They have an incentive to promote her. Your list of 31 sources is about as trashy a set of sources as it's possible to name. They're so bad that it's hard to believe you're serious in suggesting them. Being a news anchor, regardless of time on air or channel, does not make a person notable. Being written about in independent reliable sources is what makes one notable. See Peter Jennings or Marjory Stoneman Douglas for examples of reliable sources for information about news anchors and journalists. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you read the article? I don't actually use the nypost link. I use 8 of the 31 mentioned links, none of which are considered unreliable according to official wiki guidelines.. Sucker for All (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She's literally hosting Fox News' Fox & Friends First right now.. It *might* be a question of me not demonstrating notability, but she's clearly notable Sucker for All (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a question of not demonstrating notability, since there is nothing in the draft to show why she would be considered notable. There are six references in the draft. One is the primary source from Fox News, the other five are nowhere near reliable. A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating "Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth" is not going to be a reliable source. In theory, there might be exceptions to that, but these five are in fact useless. You only need to take a very quick look at them to determine that, and if you read the sources more closely you will notice that they even re-use the same phrasing. No idea who churns out these worthless "bio" sites (and that is another reason we can't use them), but I'm guessing it is a lucrative business. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, she's Definitely notable. 5 other sources, in addition to an official bio by FNC, none of which are really very different than, say, Snopes were proposed. I understand that the list of proposed sources was extensive and not explicity mentioned for notability here; however, glamourpath, starsgab, factsbio, bio-peida, wealthyspy, chandigarhfirst, xycinews, arealnews, informationflare, factualhub and yankeestv are just Among the sources that discuss her and her career . The problem I have with characterization of her lack of notability is that people aren't writing about her. All of the people mentioned above are though. "A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating 'Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth' is not going to be a reliable source" does not appear at WP:BIO nor at WP:RS/PS nor at WP:Reliable Sources. Still others include newson, nexttv or either this https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/kmiz-reporter-and-anchor-to-join-fox-news/article_2359c174-5273-11ea-9a22-93909c8ccd25.html or https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/kmiz-tv-anchor-ashley-strohmier-will-join-fox-news-as-overnight-anchor-and-news-correspondent/430603/ . I could ask in more detail at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if that would be productive? Sucker for All (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

14:40:56, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Ethixgrrl
Following comment by Wingwatchers have updated the article, but would appreciate guidance as to where the peacock terms are and to improve tone so it meets requirements? Previous comments had not mentioned inappropriate tone so would be grateful for assistance. In response to a previous comment, more references have been included from independent and reliable sources including national media and the UK government website. Many thanks in advance for your help!

Ethixgrrl (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

15:34:06, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Will Morland
Will Morland (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

16:52:54, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Kulasperes
Kulasperes (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Kulasperes The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Watch this space. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the top table here and get some coffee. This will take some time.
 * https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2016/07/19/1604208/tnt-gives-gidget-chance-shine is fine - provided you cite the original article from the Philippine Star. We prefer not to cite content aggregators.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgBLFtz0z24 (connexion to subject). Any footage of her performances is going to be unusable as a source except to cite that she performed on (foo), and YouTube as a source is dubious. We only generally accept YouTube videos that are from outlets which are otherwise considered reliable and that are uploaded to the outlet's own verified channel.
 * I cannot assess https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxsxIg9hkPE (geoblocked), but if it's similar to the video above than this video can't be used as a source anyways (connexion to subject).
 * We can't use https://ent.abs-cbn.com/videos/2422716-mary-gidget-dela-llana-is-the-new-champion-of-tawag-ng-tanghalan-164718 (connexion to subject). I am going to make a blanket statement here: Any video that is merely her performing for a talent show is completely worthless as a source. Any further sources on that front shall thus be summarily rejected.
 * We can't use https://news.abs-cbn.com/video/entertainment/02/27/16/laguna-lass-snatches-tawag-ng-tanghalan-belt (too sparse). Extremely short article.
 * " " " https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/03/01/16/laguna-singer-earns-third-tawag-win-with-dadalhin (" "). " " ".
 * " " " https://news.abs-cbn.com/video/entertainment/02/29/16/laguna-singer-defends-tawag-ng-tanghalan-belt (" "). " " ". I will make another blanket statement here: "Articles" which merely consist of a few sentences aren't usable sources full stop, as they can't provide any sort of depth. Any further sources of this nature will also be summarily rejected.
 * https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/03/05/16/vice-ganda-pulls-a-steve-harvey-at-tawag-ng-tanghalan is useless for this subject (too sparse). The main thrust of the news story is a judge's gaffe; Gigi is only mentioned in passing.
 * We can't use Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 1) (circular reference). We do not cite Wikipedia, sister projects, or mirrors of Wikipedia.
 * https://starcinema.abs-cbn.com/2020/12/2/news/gigi-de-lana-signs-with-rise-artists-studio-66154 is borderline at best (and more likely useless for notability (too sparse)). There's very little about her in the piece that she doesn't say herself.
 * https://www.abante.com.ph/gigi-de-lana-pinabilib-si-charo-santos/ is likewise borderline at best (and more likely useless for notability (too sparse)), for much the same reasons.
 * https://mb.com.ph/2021/10/11/iqiyi-reveals-6-new-korean-filipino-shows/ is useless for this subject (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/09/26/21/gigi-de-lana-binalikan-ang-hirap-ng-buhay-noon seems fine.
 * The bulk of your sources are to her appearances on Tawag ng Tanghalan/It's Showtime and disrespectfully perfunctory summaries of same. This in and of itself tends to be an argument against notability, on the grounds that a person who is only really notable for appearing on a reality show or talent competition is little different from a person whose only claim to fame is they videotaped a Black man being beaten by police, and thus the article on the person should redirect to the article on the season they appeared in or (if that doesn't exist) to the article on the show proper. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

17:12:33, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syafikrie
Syafikrie (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Syafikrie The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

19:45:22, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Djscamper
Hi, I just change the wording on the page to help avoid any copyright issues.

I also linked in articles about Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation.

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

21:12:27, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer
Syedanustanweer (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)