Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 29

= October 29 =

15:00:24, 29 October 2022 review of submission by 43256ds
43256ds (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please again read my text.43256ds (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't accept word salad, especially as promotional-sounding as this is. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

18:42:59, 29 October 2022 review of draft by RkOLOGUY
Hello - I received comments on the draft which I am addressing now. There were two: add more wiki links and more recent (post) 1996 citations. Once this is done -- what is the next step? Do I resubmit the piece for review? Do I move it to the main space or does someone else do that? Thank you for your help on this. RkOLOGUY

RkOLOGUY (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You resubmit for review with a new template.  —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Request on 21:38:29, 29 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Debartolo2917
Hi, I recently had a draft for publication declined (Draft:Elijah Green). I severely disagree with this declination for a variety of reasons, namely the reasoning that the subject of the article, the baseball player Elijah Green, is not notable. He was drafted 5th overall in this years draft, with all one but other player in the first round having their standalone article created and published. It makes zero sense why Elijah Green would not also have an article, and likely would have had his name page not already been created and linked to a different article. Sometimes it feels like admins on Wikipedia lack common sense and simply follow rules blindly. I can go ahead and improve this page, but I don't see a need to wait for another four months to go through the review process when this topic has notability.

Debartolo2917 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone may conduct reviews, not just admins- the vast majority of reviewers are not admins. Saying that reviewers- who may have more experience than you- lack common sense won't help get this in the encyclopedia faster. Being drafted is not a guarantee of notability, nor is the existence of other articles pertinent- some of them could be inappropriate as well. A player must still receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You have some coverage of his college career, but none of his professional career other than to say he was drafted. That's probably the biggest holdup right now.  331dot (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Debartolo2917 once you have made improvements and resubmitted the draft, please make a note on the draft's talk page with WP:THREE. You can either come by here or to my talk page and request adding an AfC comment to direct the next reviewer to the talk page for THREE.  That hopefully will help with a quicker review. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

22:27:32, 29 October 2022 review of submission by TexasEditor1
My submission was rejected because "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." I was told "Need in-depth coverage about him. Also, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability." I provided links to several independent articles in reliable, mainstream publications, including reviews and books. I also included several with mentions because they supported or substantiated the subject's affiliations with major artists, including authoring or co-authoring songs recorded by Cher, Joan Baez, Kiss' Gene Simmons, Hanson, etc. His band was the inspiration for Paul Schrader's Film "Light of Day," and he appears in the film (as well-documented); his band also wrote the song that was the movie's original title — "Born in the U.S.A.," which Bruce Springsteen lifted for his song — all of which is documented by independent sources. I also don't understand how interviews would not qualify — they show mainstream coverage of the subject, which I was told was important. Somewhere, there's a directive that says to include features by major publications. Features almost always include interviews with the subject; that's why they're written. As a journalist who's written hundreds, if not thousands, of feature stories, I'm shocked to hear that Wikipedia deems them unreliable as sources chronicling someone's work. Seemingly 90 percent of Wikipedia entries include feature stories as main references. When I searched for assistance with this draft, I was told by several reviewers that the subject clearly met the criteria for notability, despite elimination of sources such as IMDB — which Wikipedia has conflicting guidelines for inclusion (apparently, it's allowed as an external link at the bottom of an entry, but not as a reference. Which is quite confusing.) I was also told that, if anything, I'd over-referenced, so I removed many lesser items. I read Wikipedia entries for musical artists constantly, and can point to many who have few viable sources, references or major achievements, yet they're somehow approved. I saw one for which the lone reference was a photo; others use artist-generated bios. I took care to search for and include legitimate, verifiable sources and create permanent, archival links so they would always be verifiable. I 'm quite shocked that my meticulous work has been rejected when I see daily examples of far more questionable entries. Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belle_Sounds#cite_note-2 The first several reference links don't even exist. I actually edited this page at one point to improve its readability and clarify some references. Still, I believe the subject carries less notability than the subject you're turning down. Also, artist Buzzy Linhart, linked to in this draft, has career credits of similar weight; why would he be approved, yet my subject is not? In any case, I think a thorough review of the attached references, including this artist's extensive All Music Guide credits and testimonies regarding his work by Joan Baez, Maia Sharp and others, should stand as credible support for the notability of his work — especially if taken as a whole. I hate to have to rely on comparisons to make a case for his legitimacy, but I can find links to several less worthy subjects who already have pages if I must. I would also request specific examples of features and articles that don't merit inclusion as sources, with further explanation of why they don't measure up. TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC) TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @TexasEditor1 the draft was declined rather than rejected. Decline allows for resubmission while a rejection does not.  There is also a distinction with the use of sources.  One is verifiability (does the source support the claim) and notability, (does the source provide in-depth independent coverage about the subject).  Both, of course, have to meet the reliable source| criteria.  Going by memory, I think the Austin Chronicle article likely meets in-depth coverage.  While portions of it were an interview, there was enough independent coverage.  As for interviews in of themselves, from a Wikipedia standpoint, what a subject says/written about itself is not useful.  What matters for notability is what others have written about a subject. Also, I believe were some sources that did not mention Addison so those are not useful (again, going by memory).
 * As for other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Overtime Wikipedia's standards have generally become more strict so an article that was acceptable a decade ago is not acceptable today. There are over 6 million existing articles and even today some get by when they should not.
 * You welcome to resubmit the draft to get another opinion. If you do, I strongly recommend posting a note on the draft's talk page listing the three sources that meet notability standards to help the next reviewer but be concise.  See WP:THREE and WP:42 for guidance.  S0091 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In defense of my sources, I have to say that I went to great pains to assure the reliability of every one. I'm a journalist; I abhor the notion of untrustworthy sourcing. (I might add that my own work, including interviews, is referenced in several Wikipedia entries). Even when I write Q&A interviews, they're prefaced with information citing background, achievements, etc. that establish notability; otherwise, why cover the artist? Even the answers in a Q&A are responses to well-researched, informational questions. I'm quite surprised to learn these articles are not deemed worthy. What about this clip, for example? It contains much information that I would consider in-depth coverage, aside from the artist quotes. https://archive.org/details/plain-dealer-new-band-makes-the-big-time
 * Also, I'm being told references that don't mention my subject are useless; I'm also being told references that mention him but aren't just about him are useless. I'm also being told I have to back up my statements with references. So if I say my subject cowrote a song on a multi-platinum-selling album, and link a reference to the album's multi-platinum status, how is that not a valid reference if I'm supposed to be proving every fact? And doesn't proof that my subject worked on multi-platinum selling albums help establish his notability? I remain confused regarding establishing notability, because I thought my careful sourcing, including proving every statement involving work history, etc., did just that. I used material mentioning a previous band, the Generators, because they figure prominently in establishing this subject's early notability — i.e., his role in the creation of a famed director's well-known movie and the band's relationship to Bruce Springsteen's biggest hit. If the band is named in that documentation, doesn't that help prove notability, even if the subject is not individually mentioned? I also used a story from cleveland.com, the online version of the Cleveland Plain Dealer — Cleveland's main daily newspaper (est. 1842)— that connects the dots between director Paul Schrader, Springsteen, the band and Mark Addison, the subject. It's a long read, and Addison is mentioned and quoted. Does that diminish or enhance the story's value? https://www.cleveland.com/movies/2011/03/michael_j_fox_movie_light_of_d.html
 * Also, the footnote generator doesn't allow me to explain that cleveland.com is the Plain Dealer's website; does that lessen its credibility in the eyes of a Wikipedia editor who wouldn't know that unless they click on the story and see the byline?
 * Here's another source that sounds as if it should meet the standards, according to what you're saying, but there also seems to be conflict about its suitability because it's an alumni magazine (I wrote for one; I can tell you how exacting the editing and fact-checking process is as most of these mags). This feature about Maia Sharp, a well-established artist with impeccable credits, mentions Mark prominently and describes how he was instrumental in getting a track they co-wrote to Cher. Sharp's own Wikipedia presence contains pages dedicated to albums Mark coproduced; he's named on those pages. Seems he should have a living link instead of red letters.
 * I understand the concept of choosing three sources that meet notability standards; I'm just not sure which three would do it because I've gotten so much conflicting info, and I'm trying to make the strongest case I can. TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)