Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 18

= June 18 =

02:37:05, 18 June 2022 review of draft by 96.82.201.213
I'm confused why this movie isn't be allowed to have a page

I can look at bruce wills's page and I see like 15 movies that are direct to video that all have their own pages. But this movie with major actos is not being allowed? Seems like its just 100% a bias

96.82.201.213 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying this film "isn't be allowed to have a page"; the draft has only been declined, not rejected. The subject's notability has not been demonstrated, as the sources do not provide significant enough coverage to meet the notability criteria.


 * Accusing reviewers of bias on the basis of a single (and entirely justified) decline is neither appropriate nor helpful. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

06:47:05, 18 June 2022 review of submission by ActressVenba
few reference links are removed, and kindly advise what exactly you need to approve this article ActressVenba (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @ActressVenba: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Request on 10:02:58, 18 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Asdrubalissimo
I am requesting assistance for a page I am trying to create Draft:Mitchell Green. I work in academia, and Mitch Green is a well-established figure in his field. Yet the entry keeps being rejected, for reason that I can only suppose are purely formal (since prominence in the field is beyond doubt)

I checked the WP:NACADEMIC route. Again, being a professional academic working in the same field, I have no doubt that Green meets the first criterion (impact for the discipline). In fact, much less prominents academic from the same field (and same Department), like Dorit Bar-On, have a dedicated wikipedia page. As an explanation for rejection, I got this pre-made message: "[references] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And yet I have cited web of science (which tracks impact and citations), book reviews (compiled by independent sources), a special issue of a prominent international journal dedicated to the work of Green, and so forth. It seems undeniable that the references meet all the requirements stated in the rejection. On top of this, I have inserted links to academic articles and books from the most prominent publishers in the field (Oxford University Press, etc.). I am really puzzled by the decision to reject the article – there are so many pages for pseudo-experts and vanity entries for minor academic on Wikipedia, so it's really frustrating to not be able to create a page for a recognised expert in the field! I hope you can help.

Asdrubalissimo (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Please read other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and the existence of other articles is immaterial. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate and have simply not been addressed yet by a volunteer editor.
 * It could be that this person is notable, but the sources do not demonstrate that. You have done well to cite what the person has done, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them. What are your three best sources here? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping, @331dot. I understand the point about OSE. As for my three "best" independent reliable sources, as I mentioned, I have:
 * - book reviews
 * - a special issue that celebrates the work of the author
 * - literally thousands of academic articles that discuss Green's work (referenced indirectly, through Web of Science) – some only in passing, but over a hundred of these articles extensively engage with his work Asdrubalissimo (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are your sources generally, I meant more specifically what are your three best sources? To pass this process one only needs to summarize three independent reliable sources, so I would start there. The draft does not need to be 100% complete. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Based on the number of citations to Green's work, they are likely notable. They've got three articles that are cited by over 200 other scholars and an h-index (which I know is an imperfect measure) of 23. Pinging who is more expert than I. valereee (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see DGG may be taking a little break, so @Asdrubalissimo, I've pinged you to the draft talk and will be happy to discuss with you there. valereee (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not disappeared completely. Certainly notable on the basis of the books. The article needs trimming--it should list only the most cited peer reviewed articles, not misc. publications. Some of the above comments are in error: the standard is WP:PROF, which is independent of the GNG.The usual way of meeting it is the criterion of professional influence sas shown by citations. If one wants to think  (incorrectly) of it in terms of independent secondary sources, the sources are the citing articles. That was one key part of the  argument by which we established the concept of WP:PROF 15 years ago, to satisfy those who thought the GNG was universal policy rather than just one of several guidelines. (and I note that the occasional attempts to make it policy has failed without exception)   Since then there have been occasional challenges to it of the nature shown here, all of which have failed. I  shall accept the article tomorrow after I've done the trim.
 * Additionally, I think it may be necessary to reexamine articles declined by those reviewers who think GNG applies ot WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

19:56:56, 18 June 2022 review of submission by WikiMrBadger
First, a couple of caveats: I posted this question in Teahouse, not sure if that was the right place so I'm re posting it here. If that is in error, apologies.

Also not sure if the page name is supposed to include the "Draft:" part. But here's the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Revelatory_Theory_of_Atonement

I recently submitted an article on a very old but recently revived religious viewpoint: Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement. It was promptly rejected because of NPOV problems. I can see that it was written with the point of view of someone wanting to support the view. However, I'm unclear as to how much I need to do to make the tone more neutral. I've done a superficial (I think) revision in which I replaced what were statements of fact with references to this being the theory's point of view on it. I'm not sure if that is sufficient or if it needs a rewrite almost as if it was an adversarial viewpoint, i.e. pointing out everywhere that alternate viewpoints disagree and why. That would seem to me to be taking the NPOV to the opposite ditch. But I'm uncertain where the middle of the road is. I've thought of just resubmitting it but that seems like it might be wasting some reviewer's time just to tell me "No, that's not it." I've also looked at other existing articles that have been flagged as having NPOV problems and I'm not sure I see it in them. I've read the available articles on what NPOV means and am still not sure if the article is still going to have a problem. Advice on how to better understand NPOV and what needs to be done to this article would be much appreciated. WikiMrBadger (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about neutral tone, but the draft has zero reliable, independent sources, is largely unintelligible original research and is extremely unlikely to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

23:53:05, 18 June 2022 review of submission by Paris.Parello
can you tell me what to change to be accepted?? Paris.Parello (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing, what you wrote was blatant advertising. If you are associated with this topic, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)