Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 13

= March 13 =

02:36:24, 13 March 2022 review of submission by 69.172.148.230
What is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in the entry that I created? Thanks! 69.172.148.230 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not accept plagiarised or otherwise copy-pasted text.  —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 02:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

03:43:09, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Thomas Meng
Hi, my article on the most popular testing framework in Python (programming language) Draft:Pytest was declined for lack of secondary sources. The reviewer gave some suggestions afterwards on my talk page, and I followed them by adding more sources, including two more published books. I think the article is in very good shape now, but the previous reviewer seems unreachable. Please help review this article and any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft is in the submitted pool. It may be reviewed by the same editor who handled the first submission, or it may be reviewed by any of hundreds of other reviewers. The advantage of the latter is that the draft gets a fresh look by someone who may have different strengths, and may point out different problems. Submission and review is an iterative process. Please be patient, there are about 3000 other submissions waiting. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies for being a bit impatient. But since Pytest is such a popular testing framework, I do worry that while in the long waiting process someone else might create a duplicate. Do you think it's a good idea to seek out a reviewer who knows Python programming to take a look at this article? Thomas Meng (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the decade or so of pytest's existence, no one else has written an encyclopedia article about it, so there's little risk of someone else doing so soon. And if they did, so what? There are no points here for being first. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give readers the best possible content. Whether that is arrived at by someone else editing something you started, or you editing something someone else started is immaterial. The draft is already advertised to members of WikiProject Computer science and WikiProject Software. That may shorten the review cycle by attracting a volunteer who would not be interested in reviewing any random draft, but one needn't be a Python programmer to evaluate the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thomas Meng, as someone familiar with python, I've taken a look and accepted the draft. The two published books seem more than adequate. Thank you for the article! Rusalkii  (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rusalkii, thank you for reviewing! Thomas Meng (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

06:00:55, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Khabykalua9922
Khabykalua9922 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. We have no interest in what you want to say about yourself. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

11:22:19, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Vychpedia
Hello, how am I able to find more sources for Lisa Oxenham? Vychpedia (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Use your preferred search engine, your local library, newspaper archives. A Wikipedia article is not for merely documenting the existence of a topic, but for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic. If no such sources exist, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

18:44:35, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Beth Wimmer
Dear Missvain, and Hello Wikipedia Experts and Help Volunteers I'd like to ask for a re-review, and/or some advice with this article. I would very much like to write other articles on Wikipedia - and i do edit articles sometimes, fixing grammar, fixing broken links, etc - but I would like to know more about what makes a successful Wikipedia article. I have read many things on Wikipedia, and read the feedback about my first attempt at an article... and i've implemented the feedback into my own first article, "Draft: Manfred Little Konzett". I would like to engage in a tiny conversation with you, or someone, as to why my article doesn't show notability, in your opinions. I have linked, within my article, to many other musicians' articles and many of them are very noteworthy. Some of the other musicians to whom I have linked my article (to their Wikipedia articles) do not seem very noteworthy at all, yet they HAVE Wikipedia articles about them. So my big, long question is: Why would Wikipedia say that a man who is still living, in his 40s, who has a giant, self-made business after having grown up on an Austrian farm, who is a keen networker, bringing together many aspects of music-gear manufacturers, a man who receives sponsorship from major microphone, headphones, and cable manufacturers (and those businesses' Wikipedia articles are now linked to Manfred Little Konzett's); a man who is a sought-after (by famous musicians: Judith Hill, Fred Wesley) music engineer, music producer and musician (drummer), who has been nominated for national music awards (in Austria), and who has worked with many famous people (who are noteworthy and have Wikipedia articles (Simon Phillips, Fred Wesley, Judith Hill, Adam Ben Ezra) of their own... and lastly, a man (Manfred Little Konzett) who has received citizenship in one of the hardest countries in the world from which to receive citizenship (Liechtenstein)...how is this a person who is not noteworthy? I don't ask because I have personal ties to the subject; i don't. I ask because in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people whom I know, who know this famous engineer, producer, musician (Manfred Little Konzett) either personally, or who know of him, all agree that this is a noteworthy person. A noteworthy person who will continue to work with more famous people, receive more press and notoriety. I also have in my possession, with permission to use, high quality, black and white professional photos to add to this article; yet they were rejected and deleted by Wikipedia. I knew it could and would take quite some time to have my first article published, but I really thought that Manfred Little Konzett would be a 'safe' person about whom to write my first Wikipedia article. So today I kindly ask for a re-review, and I truly look forward to your feedback. Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)beth wimmer Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Short answer: Because we don't do notability-by-osmosis. Being associated with people who are themselves notable per Wikipedia's definition does not make one notable themselves. I'll look over your sources shortly; watch this space. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 19:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * https://www.nti-audio.com/de/neuigkeiten/little-big-beat-studios-liechtenstein is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/8-of-the-countries-where-its-hardest-to-become-a-citizen-2018-9?r=US&IR=T#8-china-8 is a non-sequitur. (In other words, Konzett isn't mentioned, let alone discussed in any appreciable depth, in the source. This makes the source completely useless as a source on Konzett.)
 * https://www.tagblatt.ch/kultur/carlo-lorenzi-schlagzeuglehrer-ld.1010676 is a non-sequitur.
 * We can't use https://www.wirtschaftregional.li/person/manfred-little-konzett/ (too sparse). We don't cite search results, full stop. Cite specific articles.
 * I cannot assess https://www.vaterland.li/liechtenstein/kultur/beste-aus-der-situation-gemacht;art175,443504 (walled). The same applies to every other citation from the same outlet. You need to find someone who can read German and English with a subscription to the paper to assess these sources.
 * http://www.x-act-musicmagazine.com/2018/08/09/mayfair-auf-tour-im-oktober-und-das-neue-abum-ist-auch-im-fertigwerden/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * We don't cite Discogs, full stop (no editorial oversight). Discogs' content is entirely user-generated and is not vetted for accuracy.
 * https://de-de.sennheiser.com/ambeo-blueprints-erfahrungsberichte-little-konzett is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Konzett wrote this.
 * We can't use https://www.littlebigbeat.com/product-page/fred-wesley-sls-vinyl (online storefront), and even if we did it's a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.ligita.li/?page=2264&id=0&lan=en is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't it'd be useless for notability (too sparse). The page itself seems to be a listing of upcoming events, and even if it weren't all the listing proves is that he was scheduled to show up, not that he actually performed.
 * Barring the three German newspaper sources (and those need someone who can read German to assess them) all of your sources are completely useless. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 19:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jéské Couriano - thank you so much for your quick and thorough input! ok, it helps to know and understand these things. ok, i'll see if there is some 'valid' new press. maybe it would be better if a german person wrote this article in german, for the german Wikipedia pages. ? thank you again! Beth Wimmer (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly; I cannot speak to the German-language Wikipedia's policies as that is a different project entirely. Different language-editions of Wikipedia set their own policies. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

19:12:42, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Mdgtrust
Mdgtrust (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/chop-suey-history on Chop Suey.
 * Authentic Chinese chef & Cecilia Chang, ( mentioned) refused to serve it !!! Mdgtrust (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time. The article you have on CHOP SUEY is NOT factual; just ask REAL CHINESE. I am a retired Bicultural & Bilingual Chinese educator.
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you have such sources describing what chop suey is in China, please offer them on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Chop suey. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)