Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 April 11

= April 11 =

05:56:36, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Arrecife
RE:  Draft:Tapovan, Sri Chinmoy Peace Park I wish to modify the article so it is encyclopedic, and I have made some efforts in this direction. Please tell me what else I need to do so that it does not seem like an advertisement. Arrecife (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer, you must appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:12:03, 11 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MikeTimesONE
Hello. My draft was unfortunately rejected for being WP:TOOSOON, and the reviewer suggested to incorporate any additional information to Dr Disrespect. What do I do now? I've been working on this draft since February, and I am very frustrated. I don't want any of my work to go to waste. MikeTimesONE

MikeTimesONE 12:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

14:13:53, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Basilic25
Hi ! I just submitted a draft and realized that I made a mistake in the title of the page... The page should be called "Gallia Préhistoire" and not just "Gallia". I can't find how to change the title for a draft. Thanks for your help!

Basilic25 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Renaming any page is accomplished with a page move, but Don't worry about it, other than to make a note on the draft talk page with the title you intend. If and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

15:35:21, 11 April 2022 review of draft by DamesnetV
This entry has been rejected for not having enough citations, but I note that it has more than many of the biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. What is needed specifically over and above the ones I already have?

Many thanks

DamesnetV (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

18:03:52, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Euaanmill
Hello

I submitted a question about this previously, but the replies I received did not help me reach a conclusive answer so I'm posting again - hope that is OK.

My query is regarding notability, for which my article Draft:The_Portraits_(music_duo) has been rejected most recently.

In the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), in the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", it states that:

"Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

It then subsequently lists a series of criteria, and states that the claim to notability must be "properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."

Of these criteria, the following are true of the subject of this draft Wikipedia article:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

I have backed up, through multiple revisions of the article over the period of more than a year, in line with [note 1] under the above criterion, the coverage with specific examples of independent, published articles referring to the music duo covered by this proposed Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as major, reputable UK newspapers and radio/televisual sources none of which are blacklisted in Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

These are the stated reasons for rejection under point 1 above, NONE of which are true in the case of this draft article: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

And:

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

This has been shown, with reference to the UK's officially recognised national music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, as listed by Wikipedia, as published on 25 December 2020.

I sought advice on the above in a previous post, asking for pointers on what exactly your editors remain sceptical about regarding notability, as I am totally confident that the subject of this draft article does fulfil the criteria to merit such an entry.

The reply I received, rather than responding to my defence of the article in terms of its notability, seemed to suggest disbelief that I'm not personally benefitting financially from writing this article. This would seem to be a separate issue from notability, but let me state unequivocally that I am not being paid to write the article in money or kind and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

I am therefore left rather confused as to the reasons for rejection, which seem no longer to be related to the officially stated reason for rejection, i.e. the notability criteria, but instead to my own character as a contributor.

Could I respectfully request further clarification in light of my above points?

Many thanks in advance.

Euaanmill

Euaanmill (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , Notability is not inherited. Your sources can make an argument for the song being notable, though I believe other reviewers have highlighted that many/all are interviews which do not establish notability(I have not reviewed the individual sources, only the titles). For the subjects themselves to be notable, you should find WP:THREE independent sources that discuss them in depth and establish notability. If you believe three sources already meet this (or have 3 additional), then you should share them with the reviewer who rejected so they can re-consider.Slywriter (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do believe the sources already submitted do meet this, so I shall attempt to resubmit to the reviewer. Best wishes. Euaanmill (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

18:12:45, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Abhijeete18
Abhijeete18 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about the image
The article is not yet written in English. This is about the image taken from the Persian version in wiki_farsi. I just wanted to know if the picture according to the explanation (old picture) can be in my sandbox or not? Arbabi second (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether it does or not is academic. Images don't help drafts what-so-ever. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

20:09:19, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Krishnadahal12
Krishna Dahal (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about specific reason why this article has not been accepted yet. There are at least reference from four independent sources. Please look into it again. Thanks.
 * Not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

21:42:27, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Irishkiwi007
You state that This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this movie has now won a category at an international film festival. What more do you need? Also, how is it contrary? Thanks

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Irishkiwi007: Award notability. Notability is the extent to which a subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources; see the general notability guideline for more information.  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

21:43:33, 11 April 2022 review of submission by ARodgersEditor
Hello, I have removed promotional "fluff" from the article, and I also added independent sources under a new Reference heading. I believe the citations are all done correctly and the sources are sufficient to prove the notability of the subject. I would appreciate if you could please review my article again. Thank you. ARodgersEditor (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to @S0091. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

22:08:42, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Jairocugliari
Dear editor, I am asking for advice since precedent editions were considered insufficient to meet wikipedia standards. Specifically, I would like to check if the information box contains relevant information, if the sources are alright, and finally I need help to update the logo file.

Best, JC Jairocugliari (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Regarding images, fair use images (like logos) cannot be in drafts. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)