Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 27

= September 27 =

04:42:49, 27 September 2022 review of draft by 2001:4455:1DD:6F00:A9A9:7DF1:7C87:7C16
2001:4455:1DD:6F00:A9A9:7DF1:7C87:7C16 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Gerhard Habarta has a reliable sources and he is a art historian from Lexikon Surreal Edtion One & Two see this link ..And take note Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed this art world book as a notable-- https://www.lexikon-surreal.com/k%C3%BCnstler-l%C3%A4nder/?fbclid=IwAR2ji4i6i0VVciTEACn-nvVrU8uvviFcGMevA-BSQ01TxmJWyMLGgJfs-m4 And here another KUNSTHERZ by Prof Gerhard Habarta is a considered the "RELIABLE SOURCES" Forever In Our Memories and Forever In Art World of Prof Gerhard Habarta and notability strongly believes in our three core values, representation matters, diversity matters and equality matters. Thus in doing so we can encourage greatness, foster inclusion, and explore the beauty of the diaspora and that is the reasons why we should thanks again and notable books on Lexikon Surreal Edition One and Two, & the new published 2021″KunstHerz”, and other important art books as a notable museum galleries in the world. If you want to see more information on the art biographies in KunstHerz by Gerhard Habarta: Including Pablo Picasso, Beksinski, Henry Moore, Ernst Fuchs, Salvador Dali, Brigid Marlin, Otto Rapp, Peter Gric and TAKE NOTE THIS NAME LISTED-- "Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr." listed on the German version of KUNSTHERZ the notable art world book and reliable source from Prof Gerhard Habarta. We should thanks from Prof Gerhard Habarta and this is very informative and interesting subject area: Biographies, Literature, Literary studies-Non Fiction. & Genre: Non-Fiction / Politics, Society, & Economic Gerhard Habarta https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2jZPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA573&lpg=PA573&dq=bienvenido%20bones%20banez%20jr%20KunstHerz%20Gerhard%20Habarta&source=bl&ots=jQqXN8QN44&sig=ACfU3U3xnGxpofJHmHklaJdInxTQ41DO6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwkrmzi7j4AhWVSmwGHQPMD9EQ6AF6BAgWEAI&fbclid=IwAR27BXMwMcuDns688LYjgVdTno8x2uiai6YzOIC3CIYtWD85Gr-cuYmt4Xg#v=onepage&q=bienvenido%20bones%20banez%20jr%20KunstHerz%20Gerhard%20Habarta&f=false

09:42:08, 27 September 2022 review of draft by Addingcontentagain
I'm attempting to create an article for an event. I've added a set of sources which according to Independent sources are regarded as independent, e.g. sources 8 through 16 in the article. The majority of them come from news sites and news papers, e.g. Forbes (sources 15 and 16 describing key publications at the conference in a broader machine learning context), Le Monde (source 12 describing recommender systems), etc. While I agree that not all sources are independent, there are significant sources to independent news outlets, whereas the non independent sources are added for completeness.

I would be grateful for more specific feedback as to why the sources in the article are not deemed independent. Thanks!

Addingcontentagain (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Addingcontentagain: Forbes is often unusable, as they publish sponsored content, churnalism, etc. non-independent material, pretending to be proper journalism (see WP:FORBESCON). And the Le Monde piece "describing recommender systems" might contribute towards the concept of recommender systems being notable, but it doesn't seem to provide significant coverage of the conference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

12:58:04, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Mocha c jp
"Work management" is not the same as "project management". As described in the following link, it does not refer to managing a specific project, but rather to managing work flow on a broader scale (e.g., department-wide or company-wide). It is something to do. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/work-management https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/what-is-work-management https://www.scoro.com/blog/what-is-work-management/ https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/work-management

Mocha c jp (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but I'm certainly not an expert. I would suggest that you nevertheless expand the existing article and then build a case on the article talk page as to why this topic should be a separate article. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Work management and project management may sound similar, but they’re two different things.
 * Work management focuses on creating a central platform for your team where you can organize workflows and bring clarity to team members across all levels.
 * Successful work management will help your team achieve their goals faster.
 * Project management, on the other hand, is confined to a single project at a time.
 * It’s a subset of work management, designed to help you manage tasks, delegate responsibilities, and hit your deadlines.
 * Mocha c jp (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mocha c jp: be that as it may, this draft as it stands amounts to little more than a DICDEF; only cites one source; and appears to be a copypaste of that source, to boot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the contents.Please consider it. Mocha c jp (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

13:40:51, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Evie.rr
When can I submit for re-review after having a first draft of my article rejected?

Evie.rr (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rejection means resubmission is not possible. If something has dramatically changed since the rejection, you should first appeal to the reviewer.
 * I see you declared a COI. If you are a company employee, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Evie.rr (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

13:54:57, 27 September 2022 review of submission by EmuFan
Many notable publications like Kotaku, PC Gamer, Linus Tech Tips, and others have published articles & videos about Ryujinx within the last 2 years. There is also a new Wikipedia article mentioning Ryujinx as a Nintendo Switch emulator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulators_of_Nintendo_Switch#Ryujinx I believe this software to be sufficiently notable as to warrant a re-review. Thanks! EmuFan (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @EmuFan: in that case, please contact the reviewer who rejected this draft, to make your case; I believe they are something of an expert in video games and related technology, so should be well placed to take a view on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've done that! EmuFan (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

13:55:35, 27 September 2022 review of submission by MaxMedia123
MaxMedia123 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot I am being attacked for pronouns. What question can we ask? How can he be removed from the team? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no team to remove anyone from, nor has anyone done anything to warrant removal. I don't see where you were "attacked", only where you were asked simple questions about your use of "we" if you don't represent a business. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot And we clarified we is a pronouns and I am not a company. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dotAnd we clarified we is a pronoun and I am not a company. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. So that takes care of that. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dotYes, it does but it still shows "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". This is false. Can you or someone who is not prejudices like @Theroadislongfix it? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot Yes, it does but it still shows "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". This is false. Can you or someone who is not prejudiced like @Theroadislongfix it? Sounds like he is a bigoted individual. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to retract your accusations of bigotry(we don't know with any certainty what your race/nationality/gender are) and prejudice, unless you have hard evidence of this. Please consider that Theroadislong is an experienced, knowledgeable reviewer who just may know what they are doing, while you have just arrived and probably aren't intimately familiar with guidelines and policies. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot I consider he is experienced. Experience does not free someone from bias or bigotry. He is the one who started saying I am being paid. That is a lie no matter how much experience he has. He acts like a gate keeper against diversity and must stop. This is not a false accusation the note says "undisclosed payment". MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot And you are an enabler. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you only seem interested in personal attacks, I have nothing else to say, and will advise you that further attacks will result in a block. When you are ready to constructively engage with us, we will be willing to work with you. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot I constructively engaged with you clarifying "we" is a pronoun. Why is the not still saying I am paid? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dotI constructively engaged with you clarifying "we" is a pronoun. Why is the note still saying I am paid? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot You seem interested in personal attacks and enabling prejudice. You have done nothing to rectify the false note. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't know your race/gender/nationality/anything else. You are not constructively engaging when you make personal attacks. As the draft was rejected, and won't be considered further, I wouldn't be concerned with the tags on it. How did you come to edit about that person? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @331dot The draft was rejected due to "undisclosed payments". How is that valid? I chose to edit about that person to increase diversity in this free platform. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not why it was rejected. Why did you pick him to edit about, I assume it wasn't at random. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of people (6 - 4 males, 2 females) in a list in their category. They were selected based on the need for diversity in this platform. There are many notable community leaders and entrepreneurs not covered. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot I have a couple of people (6 - 4 males, 2 females) in a list in their category. They were selected based on the need for diversity in this platform. There are many notable community leaders and entrepreneurs not covered. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which category? A category of realtors? Your draft was rejected because it was a single line that does not indicate how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of people where mere existence warrants inclusion. Is there a particular reason you are duplicating some of your posts?  I am following this discussion, you don't need to ping me. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot Realtors is one of the categories not all. It shows that @Ingenuity and @Theroadislong just edited it 2 seconds ago to remove the other citations. This is not a personal attack agains the,. It exposes their lac of professionalism. Also The "paid" edits are still there. You can't make this up. Hilarious. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

21:22:53, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7
Hello

Could you please take a look at my recently created article about astronomer/journalist Steve Kates? The reason why I’m asking for you to do so is due to the fact that it was rejected two weeks ago and the rejecting administrator mentioned that I needed to garner support/approval before he would resubmit it.

If you do read the article, please read this short explanation as to why this particular article was rejected. First of all, this article was originally reviewed and approved in one day, several months ago. It was on main space for about one month and then was placed into the draft section.

I must admit, even though the article was well composed, I used a few questionable references. Well, I didn’t have a lot of time to rewrite the article at the time, so I worked on it only for a short while before resubmitting it again. (I’ve only been editing for about a year now, so I blame the problem with Kates’ article on my lack of experience.)

Long story short, I recently spent many hours during the last few weeks and have basically redone the article quite extensively. I organized all of the pertinent points together so there’s less confusion regarding the myriad of facts in the article. The vast majority of references are from entities that are on Wikipedia themselves...so reliability is inherent from the get-go.

The bottom line is this: Steve Kates is known by millions of people worldwide. I basically took for granted that he’d be a shoe-in simply because of that fact, so my original article was lacking a lot of content. I just figured that I could add it in over time. Anyway, I admit my mistakes and am asking for a new opportunity to resubmit my “new” article for approval.

Thank you very much!

Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am the reviewer who rejected the draft, and to my knowledge it has never previously been approved via AfC. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

22:28:43, 27 September 2022 review of draft by Kmoneymo1
Kmoneymo1 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? I'm the artist that the article is talking about, and if I include the only links that I have it's going to get flag for promotional content.
 * A reliable source:
 * Discusses the subject at length, at least a couple of paragraphs;
 * Isn't news that would be covered as a matter of course due to their profession or legal requirements;
 * Has no connexion what-so-ever to the subject or anyone acting directly on their behalf (including contractors);
 * Has a byline that represents a single person as opposed to a role ("Web desk", "Entertainment editor", "$publication"); and
 * Has been subjected to an editorial process that discloses any conflicts of interest, fact-checks the article for accuracy, and issues retractions or corrections where necessary
 * We also strongly discourage writing about yourself due to the inherent conflict-of-interest when writing about oneself. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not that much to talk about since I started my career 2 years ago.
 * No, Im not famous the only article I got is the one that I created myself.
 * I guess I can skip that one because I don't have a reliable source.
 * None of that has been created.
 * Do you want my own personal article because nobody really cares to much about me to make one about me.
 * I strongly encourage writing about myself due to the no one cares about me that much to even care. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a place for people to tell the world about themselves. The vast majority of people on this planet do not merit a Wikipedia article. If there are no independent reliable sources about you, it doesn't matter who writes it, you wouldn't merit an article. Social media is the place to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So what about Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, and other artist, they have pages talking about themselves. And I agree with you, but vast majority of people ain't artists. I'm the main source, I give you an article that I made myself if that good enough for you. And for social media that's already a check in the box. So you can see that no one care about me to write extended articles about me. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of which were written by Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, etc. Each of which have a legion of sources that meet all of the criteria I explained above. You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and as I noted above, we're not interested in anything you or your surrogates have to say as far as notability is concerned. Wikipedia is not a billboard for you to promote yourself. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so making a my page is that really going to hurt wikipedia. I'm not promotion nothing because i'm just stating my accomplishments. Not tell people to check out some song. So how is that promotion myself.   Kmoneymo1 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'm not promotion nothing because i'm just stating my accomplishments" is an argument by bizarre definition at best and a distinction with no difference at worst. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you saying I'm promoting, I say I'm stating. Nothing in my article has a promotional link to any of my music, so I would like it if you stop stating that I'm trying to promote myself. I am just make a page, so I can put all my accomplishments down later.
 * Has no connexion what-so-ever to the subject or anyone acting directly on their behalf (including contractors);
 * Before you try to belittle me, learn how to spell. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You assume that providing links is the only way to promote yourself. On Wikipedia, it is more likely to be promotion or advertizing written to appear to be an article. And I do know how to spell. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case individual people should not have a page, regardless who they are. I am doing the same thing that they are doing. So if you tell me that my page is promotion or advertising written, then check your website because I can give you some pages that is just like mine but has more information. And I can hardly tell the way you spelled advertising.          Kmoneymo1 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you aren't. As I mentioned above, the articles about Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, etc. aren't written by them or anyone associated with them. They had no hand in those articles and don't have a say in what those articles include, except for demanding to remove poorly-sourced claims, positive or negative. The lot of them are also heavily sourced to sources of the calibre described above. Also, have you literally never seen any form of Commonwealth English before? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So what is different about my page other than I don't have a lot of links and less information? But apparently the person written these pages, know them well enough to make a page about them. I will just pay someone to make the page for me. It's not going to be written by me (even though I written it) or anyone associated with me.   Kmoneymo1 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll be wasting your money if you try it, even if you go with someone who isn't a scammer or indefinitely blocked. (And by definition someone you hire has a direct connexion to you.) And what is different is that we need sources of the calibre I described above to even consider having an article in the first place. This is not a situation where you can do anything to improve the chances of an article about you being written. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 02:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, tell me the minimum sources I need to have so I can make it happen? Kmoneymo1 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We're looking for multiple - three is a good rule of thumb - in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. I'm not seeing anything like that in a Google search (string: "edwin xaiver"). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 03:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain wikipedia's meaning of in-depth?
 * Example: Like the source need to be over 1000 words and it needs to talk you me from the time I was born until now.
 * Also non-routine?
 * Who would be an identifiable author? I would just need a name for this question.
 * The most that you're going to get if you google my artist name is hopefully links to my songs. You won't find any source about who I am unless you visit my website. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read literally anything I wrote in my first responce to you at the top of this thread, Kmoneymo1?
 * In-depth means the source discusses its subject at some length, generally at least a couple of paragraphs of coverage dedicated to the subject. It doesn't need to be an exhaustive biography of the subject, but it should talk about the subject to some degree.
 * Non-routine means that the coverage shouldn't be something that would ordinarily be covered as a matter of course or slow-news-day waterskiing-budgerigar stories that exist just to fill the paper.
 * An identifiable author a byline that represents a single person - not a role ("Web desk", "Editor") or the name of the publication itself. Omitted bylines are right out. (Role bylines exist primarily to publish churnalism.)
 * We can't cite your website or anything else you or your surrogates control (since that by definition is not independent of you, the subject).
 * —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 04:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok let's say someone made an article about me titled The Beginning of Edwin Xaiver and roughly about 6 paragraph. Will that work? So non-routine basically means it can't be in the news?
 * An identifiable author a byline that represents a single person - not a role ("Web desk", "Editor") or the name of the publication itself. Omitted bylines are right out. (Role bylines exist primarily to publish churnalism.)
 * Can you help me see an example of this?
 * But my website can be included in my infobox whenever I get this my page? Kmoneymo1 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Examples of sources with identifiable authors? Here is one from Kendrick Lamar, here is one from Usher, and one from Ludacris. "Non-routine" doesn't mean "not in the news", it means that it can't be routine news. Have you followed the blue links in the previous responses? You keep referring to the article as "your page", but a Wikipedia article about a person is not that person's page or profile. There are other websites offering that kind of platform. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Following on with what bonadea says, I will start reverting off responces from you if it's clear you're trying to find loopholes instead of actually taking criticisms on board. We are not obligated to help someone who refuses to accept good-faith answers and criticism. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this draft as violating WP:CSD and WP:CSD, like User:Kmoneymo1/sandbox before it (deleted by last week). The editor is clearly here only to promote himself and his music with no references whatsoever, perhaps to get a blue checkmark on a social media platform, and is not here to help build an encyclopedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that social media CSRs demand a Wikipedia article for that checkmark when their websites' verification requirements make it clear they should also accept news articles about the subject, often at lesser standards than Wikipedia requires. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)