Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 20

= January 20 =

02:45:56, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 122.177.98.206
I little bit confused because the source and references which I had attached are reliable, independent and reputed media houses. But my draft was declined by giving these reasons. Please advise 122.177.98.206 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No draft specified. – robertsky (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

04:12:33, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 157.46.115.246
157.46.115.246 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

11:29:48, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Sanjith kanth
Sanjith kanth (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatant advertising. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:56:35, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Jontickner
Hello. I'm having trouble with this draft, as the sources previously didn't make the credibility/reliability grade. I've made some minor changes to a couple of sources, and believe the article to be "based on reliable, published sources" now. I've also ensured all the information in it is properly covered by those sources.

The article will involve closer scrutiny, of course, because it's a biog for a living person. All the sources used are independent, in no way self-published, do not involve trial/court transcripts and so on. Many of them are sources to back up something that physically exists - books, in the main. I've also made clear what information/facts they are referring to.

Although the subject makes an appearance in plenty of other wikipedia pages, I have not used these as sources or references.

But I may have miss-judged, and I wonder whether there is a particular source (or sources) I still have in the most recent edit which is not considered high enough quality.

Can you point me to the specifics? Once I know which one(s) I'll address either by sourcing new information or deleting that content.

Huge thanks for your help on this - it's really appreciated. Jon Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:57:05, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Dwightkomproe

 * You need to disclose your paid editing status before editing further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:57:37, 20 January 2022 review of submission by ShinexStar
I need a re-review as I have done the needful. Please check it now ShinexStar (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

16:13:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ajayjagtap1632000
I have quite a good number of citations in this article, so all the information I am writing is true and trustworthy. If it's about notability, Dr Shridhar Pandya is a notable person with several review articles and research papers online by his name.

If it's not enough, let me know if there is anything I could do to get my article published on Wikipedia.

Ajayjagtap1632000 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

16:54:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 831n
Since the initial submission, the variety and number of sources has increased. Is this ready for submission now?

831n (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

17:36:08, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Cvu27
Hi, I recently got a wikipedia submission rejected due to the following

''This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.''

I am wondering if I can keep passing mentions in the submission as well as include significant coverage in my submission? Thanks.

Cvu27 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , most likely you can. AfC reviewers are mostly focused on WP:Notability and WP:GNG which require independent secondary sources.  Once notability has been met the bar moves to WP:DUE for inclusion of material.Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * E/C Sure you can keep passing mentions, but they do not contribute to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 17:44:24, 20 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CyrilPul
I am a member of a choral society and have tried to produce a Wikipedia page showing the history.

I have checked the design with and got approval from the Chairman and the person responsible for the web page.

My history on the Wikipedia entry, that I am trying to submit, does contain some phrases from the URL of the society.

I have looked on the website https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and found a template containing:-

To: permissions-commons  at wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I choose one: [am name] or [represent copyright holder's name], the choose one: [creator] or [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work][1] or [the work depicted in the media][2] or [both the work depicted and the media][3] as shown here: [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons],[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name] [Sender's authority (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)] [Date]

If I get this signed and sent off, will I then be able to use some of the wording from the Society's webpage?

Thanks

CyrilPul (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject.   Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject. Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * (ec) You are putting the cart before the horse in that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have said about a topic, not what it says about itself. Put another way, we don't want to know what the society considers to be its own history, but what independent reliable sources report to be its history. The society's website is where it may tell about its own history. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

20:00:24, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Smith216
Come Out Fighting (2022 film) is an American war film.

This film is centered on history meeting with changes will include as of the historical "being" mention that a "war film" includes Wikipedia affirmation.

Smith216 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Smith216
 * Wikipedia is not here to affirm films or any topic. To merit an article, this film must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film. Unreleased films are generally not notable unless some aspect of the production of the film is notable(such as the recent on set shooting at Rust (suspended film)). Your draft has no sources at all, even if the film was released. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

20:31:17, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Avi Sindhu
Avi Sindhu (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Pretty much all your sources are the subject themselves and do not help for notability as a consequence. It's also written as if to try an attract an audience; we do not tolerate advertizing masquerading as an encyclopaedia article and neither does Wikipedia's readers. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

22:09:03, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ebates01
This is written from an neutral point of view. Ebates01 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heck, no! It was hopeless promotional, a shameless advertisement with a side order of brown-nosing of the family who donated the money. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)