Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 September 9

= September 9 =

05:06:36, 9 September 2021 review of draft by WQFDU
Hi! I have received the same message of lack of reliable sources multiple times and did add more references for the content. I was wondering if you could provide some details about how to revise the draft (Global Justice Index). So far, I don’t have any additional references for that one.

Thank you so much for your time. Wen WQFDU (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no sources that are independent of the subject. Citing the founder's own papers on the topic does not show how notability guidelines are met. -- Kinu t/c 15:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

07:14:05, 9 September 2021 review of draft by MilesRRFC
MilesRRFC (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The reviewer looking at my draft for Rock Camp: The Movie says it still reads like an advertisement and only shows the positive sides of the film. How can I make it more neutral other than just adding negative things about it? Thanks!
 * 86 the cast list from the article. Only the most important roles should be noted, and even then only in the infobox unless there's something notable about the cameos. We also prefer prose to a list. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

09:06:41, 9 September 2021 review of draft by Orgliandino
Orgliandino (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, am a relatively new user so please forgive if I'm not following the correct path. My draft on Bleomycin-Electrosclerotherapy (BEST) was declined due to notability: "There is no indication BEST is notable outside of a very niche set of researchers. In fact, beyond a handful of barely cited journal articles, I could find no other sources for this treatment. As such it would not be eligible for an article at this time. Sclerotherapy is indeed notable and already has an article; perhaps electrosclerotherapy could be briefly discussed there". It is true that there's not many further sources on the topic, but it should be considered that this a recent treatment option for a rare disease (vascular malformations), therefore something with not much coverage by definition. Maybe the reviewer who declined the draft is right and I should just mention the voice within "sclerotherapy", however if you look at other treatment options for vascular malformations mentioned in the "sclerotherapy" voice, like polidocanol or sodium tetradecyl sulfate, the journals cited as sources have comparable or inferior impact factor than those cited as sources for bleomycin-electrosclerotherapy. So my question is: does bleomycin-electrosclerotherapy deserve also a separate page or should it only be mentioned in the "sclerotherapy" voice? Thanks a lot
 * I would add it to Sclerotherapy if you can't otherwise meet the notability requirements for a standalone article on it. Bear in mind that any claim that implicates human health (including medical treatments) is held to much tougher sourcing standards. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Then I'll do as suggested. Orgliandino (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

13:52:14, 9 September 2021 review of draft by New Cap - agence de communication financière
New Cap - agence de communication financière (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello I created a draft "Poxel" to publish an article but I don't understand why it is doesn't work.
 * The user is presently blocked, but the draft remains up. One thing I immediately notice is that the article makes claims that implicate WP:MEDRS - one of our toughest sourcing policies - but does not provide the strong sourcing required. This is not acceptable. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

14:59:26, 9 September 2021 review of draft by Moviebuff000
Moviebuff000 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I change the name of my village from Greek to English so I can continue to write the article in english thank you Moviebuff000 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * changing the article title from greek to english requires (like all other article title changes) a page move. I see did this for you. While populated legally recognized places are automatically presumed noteable under WP:NGEO, this draft would benefit from a few sources to support its content Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both @Theroadislong and @Vctor Schmidt, I am in the process of learning how to do all this

16:51:21, 9 September 2021 review of draft by HelenaCoffea
The article is a translation of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag24. Can I mark the article as translation?

HelenaCoffea (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * please see Help:Translation for things to keep in mind when translating. I have left to the draft talkpage. Please keep in mind that different language versions of Wikipedia are seperate projects with seperate rules, including, but not limited to, rules in regards to what can be included, called  Relevanzkriterien  over there and notability here at the english Wikipedia. All english Wikipedia articles must meet the english Wikipedia's rules for inclusion, wether they are a translation from another language Wikipedia or not. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

17:07:24, 9 September 2021 review of draft by RockTheBlockchain
Hello and thank you in advance. I'm hoping to receive some help and direction on how to improve our sources, specifically if there are any sources or sections we should focus on improving? I was hoping the 2nd submission with 3x external sources would help but it seems that was not enough to get accepted. That said, we're also in support of removing specific sections if that's easier, allowing us to publish while continuing to work on our external sources in the coming weeks. If you have concerns over certain sections, let us know and we'll either focus efforts there or simply remove and resubmit.

Thank you again!!

RockTheBlockchain (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Before we continue, are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you want to continue working in an area under general sanctions? —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

18:48:04, 9 September 2021 review of submission by GeorgeKotsolios
I am confused. The sources I have cited for the VentureFriends submission are all from independent highly credible publications such as techcrunch and Sifted.eu and none of the articles are a result of a press release.Why is therefore the submission not accepted? GeorgeKotsolios (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Content is as important as the outlet, and neither routine business news or "news" commissioned or written by the subject are acceptable sources as far as notability is concerned. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

20:31:58, 9 September 2021 review of submission by Invasive Spices
Hi everyone. I have a question about a page I could create myself. The problem here is that I can't cover the entire subject perfectly. I'd like to think that's fine - that's called a stub - and happens all the time. But I wanted to ask first:

The subject of the proposed biography is an entomologist, insecticide efficacy researcher, and med school professor (really Emeritus, retired). I am familiar with some of that and very familiar with a little of it. (Overall this is an author/co-author who shows up often in WP articles, which I think is another good measure of whether we should have a page about him.)

However the medical part I am very unfamiliar with. I am concerned I would get the basic terminology in that area wrong (what he's done/what he knows).

Question is: Is this page just going to get deleted if I do as much as I can? If people just complain/change things that's normal on WP obviously. But I don't want to just have it deleted. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You would need to demonstrate the subject is notable in some fashion and (if the subject is alive or has recently died) source literally any biographical claim that could be challenged for any reason. The former is usually easy (WP:NACADEMIC sounds like it'd apply here) but the latter tends to be harder to do for NACADEMIC articles since there's very little about their actions in newspapers of record or scholarly books; the focus is almost entirely on their research. —A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)