Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 5

= June 5 =

03:41:49, 5 June 2022 review of draft by SimonUpNorth
Hi, it is my first time adding a new article. Am just checking I have done it correctly so far to allow it to be accepted, or if something will cause it to be rejected that means I'll have to go to the back of the queue. I have not been able to add an image yet (the league's logo), as it rejects it due to the article not being added yet, so presume that will need to wait till it is live? There is still info to add to the article with regard to the Divisional Honours from 1930s to present, and also the cup winners.

SimonUpNorth (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @SimonUpNorth: you may struggle to establish notability of this subject. Most of the sources cited are primary, club websites and the like; the book appears to be self-published. You need to show that independent and reliable secondary sources have discussed this league in sufficient extent. You also need to support every material statement with a citation to a reliable source. As it stands, I personally would not be accepting this draft.
 * And just to explain a technical point: if your draft gets declined, it doesn't go to 'the back of the queue', because there is no queue; if anything, there is a pool, from which drafts are drawn more or less randomly for review. Whereas if your draft gets rejected, it doesn't go anywhere — that's the end of the road for it, as far as the AfC process is concerned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and advice. I should be able to find newspaper articles etc that discuss the league and also secondary sources such as FCHD that displays some of the later details, and I'll reference everything as discussed SimonUpNorth (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

04:06:08, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Thiagotsn
Thiagotsn (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Fakescientist8000

I don’t get it, just two out of eleven references are from primary sources and this article was rejected anyway.


 * Hi looks to me like there are more than two primary sources cited. (Only two cites are to the organisation's own website, but that's not the sole definition of primary.) Note also that merely having secondary sources isn't enough, they need to cover the subject in sufficient depth (as well as being independent and reliable, of course). If you still feel the referencing satisfies WP:GNG, please point out the three strongest sources that meet the criteria in that guideline. Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: Just so we're clear, your draft wasn't rejected, only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining.
 * PPS: I've posted a COI query on your talk page, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for replying.
 * The three I believe are strongest sources:
 * 4. The biggest Portuguese tv broadcaster news video regarding the institute foundation (RTP)
 * 9. Independent business portal describing one of the accreditations.
 * 11. Business newspaper article regarding its rankings.
 * Honestly, I'm not sure about the decree-laws, what kind of sources can those be categorized? Thiagotsn (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure about the decree-laws, what kind of sources can those be categorized? Thiagotsn (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

16:01:43, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 108.58.9.194
Typically tornadoes are mentioned in derecho articles when spawned by derecho, so one system. See August 2020 Midwest derecho.

108.58.9.194 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

16:57:10, 5 June 2022 review of submission by Sidbill60
I can understand why the discographical material from the subject's web site are not acceptable; I'll fix that. But I'm really surprised the main sources I included with this article are not deemed sufficient to establish Amado as a major figure in jazz, as a musician and label creator. These sources are leading publications specializing in improvised music. For a point of reference, I direct you to the Wikpedia pages on Ken Vandermark and Rob Mazurek, which rely on similar and in some cases the same sources I did. I'm happy to make changes, but Wikipedia needs to take a second look at this decision not to move forward.

Sidbill60 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let gallery is a primary source, profiles on Discogs are not independent, interviews are not reliable, Apple music is not independent, blogs are not reliable. See also other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You've just activated Bastard Helper From Hell mode! Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
 * We can't use https://www.discogs.com/artist/282709-Rodrigo-Amado (no editorial oversight). Discogs is user-generated content.
 * https://avantmusicnews.com/2014/08/17/amn-interviews-rodrigo-amado/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with non-substantial lede.
 * https://downbeat.com/?/news/detail/rodrigo-amado-makes-his-mark-boldly appears to be fine. Despite the "interview" tag this reads like a regular news story as opposed to a prose or Q&A interview.
 * We can't use https://music.apple.com/us/artist/rodrigo-amado/118974912 (Streaming website/online storefront). There is zero reason to cite Apple Music/iTunes for anything.
 * https://www.allaboutjazz.com/at-seixal-the-implicate-order-review-by-jerry-dsouza is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop; no real discussion of him.
 * I'm legitimately unsure at present how usable https://www.pointofdeparture.org/PoD77/PoD77MoreMoments2.html is, but I would assume this 'zine's unusable pending WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion.
 * We can't use https://www.freejazzblog.org/p/the-free-jazz-collectives-top-101.html (no editorial oversight). Random music blog.
 * We can't use https://zet.gallery/artist/rodrigo-amado-20284 (too sparse/connexion to subject). Photo gallery from an art gallery hosting an exhibition of his photography work.
 * As to the two grenades you lobbed, Ken Vandermark was created 2004/04/10 (and is presently tagged as being undersourced) and Rob Mazurek was created 2006/11/16. Both of these pages predate Articles for Creation's modern form and the strengthening of our standards enforcement. If you actually cared about Wikipedia, you'd bring those articles up to snuff as well, rather than use them as straw men to justify your draft. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ouch, but thanks! i needed that! Sidbill60 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You do have a good source, in Downbeat. Unfortunately, one good source isn't enough to justify any article on Wikipedia, and especially not an article where more-or-less everything MUST have a cite. If you can find more sources of Downbeat's calibre or stronger - online or off, English-language or no - that would go a very long way towards proving notability, but you'd still have to essentially rewrite the article to summarise what sources you do end up citing. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * i do see that discog is an acceptable linked source on for amado on the german wikipedia Sidbill60 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, the English-language Wikipedia has more stringent standards on citations than the German-language version does. Discogs is right out, as far as we are concerned. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, the English-language Wikipedia has more stringent standards on citations than the German-language version does. Discogs is right out, as far as we are concerned. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

17:05:55, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 174.91.89.244
How many more sources does my draft need? I can't even find anymore sources regarding '"Adeilosmilus''. 174.91.89.244 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb we're looking for three high-quality sources (in this case, whitepapers that discuss the genus at length, either as a direct research topic or as part of a related one). —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

18:07:11, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Socialresearch
I don't understand why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helen_Pitt was rejected. The reason given was "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

However, all of the references were -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references. All the references in in reliable secondary sources that are independent of Helen Pitt. I also added a bunch of references, again, all -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references, and all are published, reliable secondary sources independent of Helen Pitt.

Would someone please explain further why this got rejected?

Socialresearch (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your draft was declined not rejected, rejected would mean that there was no chance of it being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

18:31:15, 5 June 2022 review of draft by CryptofanEn
Hello guys, my article has not been accepted, because it appears to sound too commercial, so I fix it and delete all the words and sentences that could be look that way. I have a lot a references from different objectives sources. Please help me to check it, to see if its all ok, for resubmitting. Thank you guys!

CryptofanEn (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your draft is blatant advertising, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not, I just start my Wikipedia articles with that subjects i like like game and crypto CryptofanEn (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Requestor alerted to the blockchain sanctions. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)