Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 August 29

= August 29 =

02:19:04, 29 August 2022 review of submission by Jlrosenbloom

 * what is your question? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My question concerns the comments by @Greenman on my draft article HarlBio. @Greenmanasks for "reliable" sources. I'm trying to understand whether the problem is that (1) there are a few statements without citations, or (2) that the citations provided are not sufficiently reliable.
 * If the first, what still needs citation?
 * If the second, can you suggest the kind of sources that would be available in this situation that would be deemed more reliable.
 * @Greenmanalso included a link about COI, but I'm not sure what the concern here is. I am at the same university where the subject worked, but I would not think this creates an  inherent COI. Jlrosenbloom (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

05:39:25, 29 August 2022 review of submission by Radvj
It’s not an autobiography or promotion, in simple words I have mentioned contributions in my subject pharmacology and you can find the podcast on all platforms, nothing to be promoted, it’s already there, so with these two arguments I think this article can be reconsidered Thanks and regards

Radvj (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Radvj: you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. This is not LinkedIn, where anyone can create their own 'profile'. This is a global encyclopaedia, and there needs to be a reason why an article on a given subject should be included. That reason is notability, meaning that either multiple independent and reliable secondary sources have covered the subject extensively; or in the case of people, they have done something so noteworthy that the world needs to know about them. I see nothing in your draft that suggests either. That is why your draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * We can't use IMDb (no editorial oversight).
 * We can't use the PDF (too sparse, connexion to subject). Staff directories are generally terrible sources because they tell the reader absolutely nothing an in-depth source wouldn't already say and are generally put out by the employer.
 * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/is-pharmacology-difficult/id6442457851 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything a subject (or their surrogates) says, writes, films, commissions, pantomimes, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is worthless for notability by dint of the subject (or their surrogates) having a direct hand in their creation.
 * We can't use https://www.mid-day.com/brand-media/article/is-pharmacology-difficult-podcast-and-book-by-dr-radhika-vijay-a-unique-creation-23217708 (unknown provenance). Explicitly labeled as "BrandMedia".
 * https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NI685awAAAAJ&hl=en is useless for notability (too sparse). This source annihilates any possibility of a WP:NACADEMIC claim based off of criterion 1, with six cites total across 7 papers.
 * https://books.google.co.in/books/about/IS_PHARMACOLOGY_DIFFICULT.html?id=zJthEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y is useless for notability (connexion to subject). She wrote it.
 * We can't use https://www.drradhikavijay.com/ (Website homepage, connexion to subject). Website homepages are absolutely woethless as sources in pretty much all circumstances even if the subject doesn't control it.
 * " " " https://www.ispharmacologydifficult.com/ (" ", " " "). " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ".
 * Literally nothing here comes within a country mile of a usable source. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 05:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

09:21:36, 29 August 2022 review of submission by RK808311
I am not at all getting what to improve. I am just randomly changing something to increase the chances of getting this article pass. So I need to, again and again, re-submit the article so I get exactly what to improve. RK808311 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NBOOK and has been rejected it will not be considered again it is not a notable book in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Instead of creating a new section for every comment, please edit the last existing section you created above. This won't change anything, though- the draft was rejected and will not be considered any more.  No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. There is nothing that you can do, you must drop the stick and move on. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @RK808311 Did you read my reply in your first post above?  You ARE being told what to improve.  If you would read my answer, and the others around it, it should become clear what to improve.  Don't just randomly change things.  If the material at the links is confusing, please let us know what parts of the linked material you don't understand.  Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

11:32:47, 29 August 2022 review of submission by KATEWQ
KATEWQ (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not that you ask a question, @KATEWQ, but the draft has been rejected meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have updated the citation that is needed.Please do have a look at it. KATEWQ (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not one of the sources is reliable. And I repeat: this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please tell what are the reliable sources that I need to include? Because I don't have any idea about what url's we can use..I know this is rejected but incase I want to make changes then it would be useful..

KATEWQ (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @KATEWQ: the decline notice in your draft has two grey boxes (inside that big pink box). The text in the grey boxes contains a number of links to relevant parts of the various guidelines. Click on those links, and you will find out what sort of sources are required.
 * And please don't create a new section with every message; you can just add your comments to your earlier thread, this makes it easier for everyone to follow the discussion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

13:21:09, 29 August 2022 review of submission by Philippe Martin Art
Hello !

Would love an insight on why it was rejected.

I wasn't paid by the gallery nor by anyone to make that article. I'm a big fan of the gallery that I've been following for a few years, as they represent designers I love. Everything was sourced with important journals in the field and I tried to be as neutral as possible, despite the fact that obviously, as the subject is of interest to me, being completely neutral is always hard, but it was edited after the first refusal to be as neutral as possible ! They are currently one of the most important galleries in contemporary design, so clearly deserve a place on Wiki. You can check yourself, it's a recognised international gallery...

Philippe Martin Art (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Philippe_Martin_Art Too many Peacock words, which makes the draft read like an advertisement.  Also, this is not encyclopedic language: "...artists, intellectuals, and designers willing to manifest a perspective about different facets of the contemporary design scene".  We don't  manifest perspectives very often here at Wikipedia. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted on this, will rewrite that part, except that one, most are paraphrasing journals, but will take out all those kind of words. Philippe Martin Art (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes done, would it be possible to review the article again ? Philippe Martin Art (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philippe Martin Art Unfortunately, the draft was rejected, which means it won't be considered further. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

17:09:44, 29 August 2022 review of draft by LegalActionCenterWiki
Hello! We recently submitted an entry for consideration to Wikipedia for our organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Legal_Action_Center) and it was just denied for lack of reliable sources. I'm hoping to get a little more clarity on which sources are problematic! I assume the sources that link to our own content is part of the issue, but we've also included media articles and some government documents. Can you please provide some guidance on what kind of information would be typical of a nonprofit Wikipedia page that could get us moving in the right direction?

Thank you so much!

LegalActionCenterWiki (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @LegalActionCenterWiki: firstly, it would seem you did not submit this draft — could you elaborate, please?
 * Secondly, when you say "we" and "us", that implies there is more than one individual associated with your Wikipedia user account. If so, that's against policy, FYI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't have "nonprofit Wikipedia pages" here, not a single one. We have articles about organizations, regardless of profit or nonprofit. Those articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. They summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Any article is not for the benefit of your organization in any way. There may be benefits, but those are not our goal.
 * Government documents are primary sources and do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is written like an investor-fishing press release, not an encyclopaedia article. The sourcing isn't the only issue here, but, to remove all doubt I'm going to subject it to the Bastard Helper From Hell treatment.
 * https://www.lac.org/about/our-team is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The same applies to anything else on the LAC's domain. Anything a subject controls, writes, says, films, commissions, pantomimes, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it.
 * We can't use the IRS forms (gov't document). Government documents - especially tax information - are written with direct input from the subject, and what few aren't generally involve the government's interaction with a subject in some way.
 * We can't use the Vera Institute PDF (connexion to subject).
 * We can't use the New York Bar PDF (connexion to subject). This is about the equivalent of citing the Seattle Seahawks for Pete Carroll.
 * We can't use https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/132756320 (routine coverage). As a general rule, any website that facilitates donations as a third-party is not going to be considered a usable source.
 * We can't use Twitter (no editorial oversight). This applies to all other social media links - Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc.
 * We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8shN2DFrsaY (unknown provenance). I know you're saying to yourself, "shouldn't this be connexion to subject instead?" YouTube as a source is only usable if (1) the video is produced by an outlet we'd ordinarily consider to be credible (i.e. has a history of fact-checking) and (2) the video is uploaded to their own verified channel. The lack of the verification checkmark has a lot more implications than just verifying it belongs to the uploader; it also implies that the copyright to the video is well-established and everything is above board. We are not allowed to link to websites or videos which may contain copyright violations themselves. This applies to any other YouTube video on the LAC channel.
 * https://www.fairfield.edu/news/press-releases/2006/march/awardwinning-documentary-filmmaker-rory-kennedy-to-speak-and-screen-film-at-fairfield-university.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). Coverage of LAC staff is not equivalent to coverage of LAC.
 * The Columbia University archival PDF is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drops in lists, no actual discussion of LAC.
 * We can't use https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/475732-candidates-take-note-strong-bipartisan-consensus-on-criminal-justice/ (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it would be useless for notability (connexion to subject). Op-ed written by one of LAC's principals. Unless the author of an op-ed is a known subject matter expert and they're speaking in their field of expertise (and thus unlikely to be materially wrong) we do not cite them.
 * We cannot cite court documents (gov't document). This applies to every cite which directly includes or transcribes court proceedings.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/18/nyregion/girl-scouts-settle-bias-claim-of-girl-with-hiv.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/26/archives/postal-service-lifts-ban-on-exaddicts-transit-authority-sued.html " " " " (" "). "-".
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/27/nyregion/885-take-police-oath-as-94-decide-against-job.html " " " " (" "). "-".
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/07/nyregion/judge-rejects-broad-testing-for-drug-use.html " " " " (" "). Yet another name-drop.
 * https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/beckett-v-aetna-no-217-cv-03864-js-ed-pa-january-16-2018-settlement-agreement " " " " (" "). " " "-".
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/02/nyregion/cuomo-signs-bill-on-aids-confidentiality.html is a non-sequitur. A source that doesn't even mention the Legal Action Center is obviously going to be completely worthless as a source about it.
 * http://www.fedcure.org/information/FedCURENews2.shtml#.Yo--UpPMJmo is useless for notability (too sparse). Yet another name-drop. I'm also not convinced Federal CURE would be a viable source to begin with; advocacy organisations generally aren't.
 * The ACLU-NY PDF source is useless for notability (too sparse). Yet more name-drops, plus citations to work the LAC has authored. This is meaningless from a sourcing standpoint.
 * https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Other-Insurance-Protections/mhpaea_factsheet is useless for notability (Yet another gov't document).
 * https://www.thekennedyforum.org/vision/parity/ is useless for notability (name-drop). Yet more fucking name-drops.
 * We can't use https://parityat10.org/ (website homepage). I will note you screwed up the citation here, but it is clear you're citing the homepage. A homepage is never an acceptable cite for anything on Wikipedia; you need to be linking specific pages on that domain.
 * https://www.cssny.org/programs/entry/champ is useless for notability (too sparse). Yet another fucking name-drop.
 * The ATI/Reentry Coalition PDF is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The LAC is part of the group.
 * https://scienceandsociety.columbia.edu/events/no-health-no-justice-dismantling-systemic-inequity-criminal-justice-health is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Columbia University is hosting the event.
 * The Senate Finance Committee PDF is useless for notability (Yet another gov't document).
 * https://nicic.gov/national-hire-network-resources-information-and-assistance-2018 is useless for notability (yet another fucking gov't document).
 * We can't use https://www.probono.net/oppsguide/organization.53863-Legal_Action_Center (too sparse). Profile.
 * Nothing you cite in this article is anywhere close to usable, with the bulk of the sources being name-drops with no further detail, LAC itself, or government documents. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jéské Couriano You are probably right about tax documents not being usable (at least not for notability; they are primary), but a U.S. Form 990 for a nonprofit is interesting.
 * You might know this, but any member of the public can walk into any non-profit's office and ask for a copy of their recent Form 990s. The IRS encourages non-profits to post their form 990 on their public Web page.  It gives some useful information about the organization.  It won't contribute to notability,  but it will give some indication of the size and efficiency.
 * For example, this nonprofit had contributions of 8 million, and salaries and expenses were 6 million, leaving 2 million to do "good work".  I'm not sure that's a good ratio.... but the form 990 is where you find this.
 * I like your examination of sources--it must be a lot of work. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

22:41:42, 29 August 2022 review of submission by Stupac88
I believe the sources and citations indeed meet the guidelines. The level of resistance I've recieved, including accusations of being paid and blocking, for a bare bones, neutral, well cited article, as my first attempt at a new article has been frustrating to say the least. Is there a third party who can assist? I am not a paid editor. Stupac88 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)