Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 August 30

= August 30 =

00:17:40, 30 August 2022 review of submission by IntrepidContributor
I created this bio on a Russian journalist whose death was the subject of a very extensive investigation by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which was also covered by several other sources. The draft reviewer rejected the submission saying the sources cited don't show "significant coverage", and when I asked about the other sources cited, he said they are "basically more of the same" (isn't that what secondary sources are supposed to be?).

IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

05:55:53, 30 August 2022 review of draft by Karinvanderlaag
Karinvanderlaag (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Good Day I am writing an article on David Wicht and it has been declined due to reliable sources. I have used sources from various publications in the film industry ss well as books where David Wicht has been quoted, so I am not sure why they are not deemed to be reliable. The article has also been declined as regards not being formal in tone. Please could you advise on this. I understand that articles are not to come across as promotional. I felt that this version of the article was stating the facts as to what David Wicht had accomplished. Thank you for your help Kind Regards Karin


 * @Karinvanderlaag: the message "not adequately supported by reliable sources" doesn't only mean that the sources are not reliable; it can also mean that too much of the draft is unsupported. In your case, there are paragraphs without a single citation, the 'Early Life & Personal' section is virtually unreferenced, and a couple of the items in the 'Nominations & Awards' section have already been tagged for missing citations. Please ensure that every material statement, anything of private personal nature, and anything that could be potentially contentious, is supported by an immediate inline citation of a reliable source. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

08:53:31, 30 August 2022 review of submission by Tsl1234
Hello, I would like to understand why the submission of this article was rejected. The reason given is that this topic is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia: could you please develop and explain why so that I can improve it and get it published. That is why I am asking for a new review. Thank you very much for your understanding.

Tsl1234 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tsl1234: because the sources cited are pure churnalism which does nothing to establish notability; and because the draft is promotional, like something issued by the company's marketing department. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

09:01:54, 30 August 2022 review of submission by Isabelhelm
Isabelhelm (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Hi Johannes, thanks for reviewing my entry. Nevertheless, the warm-up technique is an already established term (especially in the methodological research field) and has been used and cited many times by reliable sources (e.g. Hagger-Johnson & Whiteman, 2007; Bernecker & Job, 2011; Lindquist et al., 2016; Roth, 2006; Fleischmann et al., 2016; Naumann et al., 2007; Siuda, 2009; Wang et al., 2015). Only recently it was also included in a review article (Reips, 2022). Therefore, I kindly ask you to approve the article. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
 * Your sources do not mention the technique, the draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

09:05:43, 30 August 2022 review of submission by Isabelhelm {{SAFESUBST:Void| Isabelhelm (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Hi Johannes, thanks for reviewing my entry. Nevertheless, the warm-up technique is an already established term (especially in the methodological research field) and has been used and cited many times by reliable sources (e.g. Hagger-Johnson & Whiteman, 2007; Bernecker & Job, 2011; Lindquist et al., 2016; Roth, 2006; Fleischmann et al., 2016; Naumann et al., 2007; Siuda, 2009; Wang et al., 2015). Only recently it was also included in a review article (Reips, 2022). Therefore, I kindly ask you to approve the article. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
 * See reply above. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

11:38:32, 30 August 2022 review of submission by Raptapmap
Hi, I do not understand how a cited article from the Independent news paper and actual video footage from Thames TV could not be considered a reliable Source. I wish to be clear, are you saying that you could watch the video of the event and say that it is not real and it never happened and that the Independent went along with the lie and made the story up. Thank You. I am so looking forward to your explination because I do not think there is any way I could come up with any better evidence. I do thank all the People on wikipedia and Wikimedia who have been so helpful to me getting the page this far, even the one that gave me the Html cobe for the independent citation on wikimedia.Thanks again Raptapmap (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Raptapmap,
 * I don't think anyone is saying that The Independent isn't a reliable source (or at least wasn't, back in 1992), but rather that there is information in this short draft which does not appear to be supported by that source (and I for one cannot see any reference to a TV programme).
 * For the same reason, this could equally have been declined for lack of notability, as a single source isn't enough to establish that, per WP:GNG.
 * Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, are you saying that you click on that link to the independent and can not read the article and that you can click on the video and can not see the event with your own eyes. And you do not notice its Thames TV News. The best part of your reply is the the bit about the independent, LOL That was funny,  But darn it I do not belive anything I read in the papers anymore, I do not even read them lol. Have a great day Raptapmap (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A commissioned Portrait Of Lady Thtcher that appears in the National media and on TV, is not notable. Thanks again. Raptapmap (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Raptapmap: I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, or what you find so amusing, but I will try to assume good faith.
 * I can find, and read, the short article in The Independent.
 * I can see a mention of, but no link to, a video.
 * The portrait may be notable, but you need to provide more sources to help establish this. A single source isn't enough, as I've already explained.
 * Quite happy to proven wrong on any of this.
 * Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that when you wrote (or at least wasn't, back in 1992) you were joking and I thought that was funny. lets meet in the middle on that one and call it Dry humour.
 * You can read the Article in the independent, so you know that the event happened,
 * there is a link to the video on the page :Covarage Margret Thatcher Portrait reveal Thames News, when I click on it I go to youtube and the Video of the event with me the portrait and Lady Margaret thatcher unveiling it, the Video is 1.19 long and details everything. I see that may be a problem if that is not on the page you are looking at. Its on my sandbox version. so that would be 2 sources.
 * And I do assume good faith, because other pepole who have replied on wikimedia on the ask a question have actualy sent me the html code for this page The independent citation, which they said is good. I know how dedicated the people are on here. And I thank you for your Reply Raptapmap (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking You only remember Thames Tv news, if you lived in London, and are old like me, they were on ITV, when only 4 channels were on the Box.Perhaps that is why the guy from Australia, did not click on that link. Raptapmap (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The guy from Austrailia being the guy who rejected it Raptapmap (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Raptapmap: ah okay, now we're getting somewhere! You're talking about your sandbox draft, User:Raptapmap/sandbox. (That hasn't even been submitted for review.) I was looking at the submitted and declined draft at Draft:Portrait of Lady Margaret Thatcher By Russell Bradley.
 * Yes, I can now watch the video. So that makes it two acceptable sources.
 * I can also now see the photo of the Daily Mail article to which the draft refers. Alas, the Mail is a deprecated source (per WP:DAILYMAIL), and cannot normally be used to establish notability, although one might argue for an exception given the subject matter.
 * These additional details will need to be inserted into the submitted draft, of course. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can not thank you enough, I have re copied the sandbox in to the draft and submitted it, it looks the same page as the draft this end, so maybe with all the kind help you have given me, it will be seen by someone the same way that you can now see it. Thanks so much Raptapmap (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not submitted the draft but there is nothing there to suggest that this is a notable painting and Wikipedia has zero interest in anything that The Daily Mail says. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, one reference is "nested" at another reference? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

11:59:39, 30 August 2022 review of draft by 007Ranjeet
007Ranjeet (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but the draft has been declined. The reasons are mentioned in the decline notice. --bonadea contributions talk 18:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

17:48:48, 30 August 2022 review of draft by Magnatyrannus
I've got all the sources I need, so is my draft ready?

Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 17:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Magnatyrannus The draft is now published as an article. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Request on 17:58:48, 30 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Waterbucket123
Can someone please look at EZRA (televsion series)

I believe I've added all the new correct links :)

Thank you!

Waterbucket123 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I restored the notices and templates from your previous submissions of the draft – please don't remove them. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 18:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * What do I do now to get it confirmed? Waterbucket123 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some sources – I have not evaluated them so I don't know if they are reliable – but no footnotes, so there is no way to tell which information is from which source. Have a look at this guide. --bonadea contributions talk 19:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a TV series that is "set to air" but it hasn't happened yet, which can be (but isn't always) a problem. It depends on the sources,  which need to be done the way bonadea mentions. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

20:04:36, 30 August 2022 review of draft by 174.23.144.210
Hello - I am interested in getting some external help to have my boss' wiki page built up and reputable enough to be published (it is currently in draft). We were trying to work with a company that claimed they could accomplish this, but they have been less than helpful for the money paid. Can you refer me to someone or a team who can help? 174.23.144.210 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In a word, no. This help desk isn't a marketplace for hired guns.
 * In any case, if your boss isn't notable by Wikipedia standards, nobody can magic notability out of thin air. And if the sources currently cited in the draft are anything to go by, that's probably what we're dealing with here.
 * Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed; you and your boss have some common, fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia. It isn't a mere database or directory of people, or a place for people(or their representatives) to tell the world about themselves. Please read WP:PROUD and WP:YFA. Since you are editing for your boss, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Allow me to lower your boss' expectations. Make sure he sees this page, as my comments here will be aimed at him specifically.
 * I cannot assess https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/1455657 (walled). Bloomberg requires a registration to view profiles. Profiles as a general rule are worthless as sources (too sparse, connexion to subject).
 * https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/Awards/Institutional/DEA/DEA_2017/Elmore is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Your alma mater has a direct relationship with you, and is therefore not independent of you. Anything a subject or their surrogates says, writes, films, controls, commissions, pantomimes, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is unusable for determining notability as we define it.
 * https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q3/venture-capitalist-elmore-gives-25-million-to-purdues-school-of-electrical-and-computer-engineering.html has the exact same issue as the source above.
 * https://foundationcapital.com/member/bill-elmore/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). See my comment on the first Purdue source.
 * What we're looking for are in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources about you that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. Discounting the Bloomberg source, all of these sources are from organisations connected to you. An online search returns absolutely nothing that meets all five of those criteria (string: "william b elmore"), so barring offline sources (books, newspapers, magazines) that meet all five criteria above, notability is not proven and an article is impossible.
 * And while we're here, we need to talk about your actual expectations for this article. You will not be able to dictate its content, you and anyone you hire would be required to disclose their connexion, and you cannot interdict sourced information that reflects badly on you. We are not social media, we are not needed for social media per those websites' own verification standards, and we are not interested in anything you have to say. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my gpoodness, thank you so much for these explanations. This is more detail than we have heard, ever. I am not editing for him, by the way. We will work to build his notability through all proper channels and sources. Very gratful for all of you answering, thank you so very much. 174.23.144.210 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no way you or he can "build his notability". Commissioning a piece automatically makes that source worthless for notability (connexion to subject), and we're pretty keen at noticing if a source is black-hat SEO, commissioned, a press release, etc. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't 'commisioon a piece', that's what we are trying to avoid from the outsourced team that seems to want to scam us and wikipedia with their 'process'. Which is why I jumped in here to ask how to accomplish, because they seemed sketchy. We will consult with his peers who have successfully had their wikipedia pages published and sollow their paths. 174.23.144.210 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely they will be of much help to you, and in fact some of them may be oblivious to how their article came to be. Ideally, a Wikipedia article is written by someone with no connexion to the subject, without any input from the subject, based on multiple sources that meet the criteria described above. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. I appreciate everypne's input and help. Thank you. Butopian (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ack. Sorry that you paid money. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the people you paid, who created the draft, were supposed to declare that they were editing for money. Since they didn't disclose that, they are dishonest. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So far good to know! They did seem sketchy and dishonest, so we have been workgin to get untangled from the,. Thank you. 174.23.144.210 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, they never edited the page at all. Butopian (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

21:23:25, 30 August 2022 review of submission by Jeffbob101
Jeffbob101 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC) How am I suppost to review a Wikipedia page that is in review and decline it?
 * , unless approved as an AfC reviewer, you can not decline a draft article and you really should stop moving articles out of draft space as you do not have a good grasp of notability policies. Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for letting me know. Jeffbob101 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)