Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 2

= April 2 =

00:55:37, 2 April 2023 review of submission by 1mariogamr
1mariogamr (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @1mariogamr: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

03:57:56, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Neogenesiscreation
Hello, this is my first time creating a stub and I just wanted to know if someone could give me there thoughts on improvement or if it would be okay to publish as a stub I'm very interested in adding more to this article over time but I want to make sure I'm going in the right direction.

Neogenesiscreation (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is it you wish to ask, @Neogenesiscreation? You have submitted the draft and it is awaiting review. (And not that it matters, but this is too big to be classified as a stub, just FYI.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me how much needs to be deleted for it to be considered a stub? Neogenesiscreation (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neogenesiscreation: why would you specifically want to create a stub? You still need to be able to demonstrate notability and support the contents with reliable sources. All 'stub' means is that the information may not be as complete as you would expect in a fully-fledged article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why I said as a stub was because I was unsure if the topic of an up and coming artist had enough links for it to be publicly be accepted as a full article for the main space of wikipedia and it's an article I was interested in adding to over time.
 * Alright I will add more notable sources thank you for the insights on a stub. Neogenesiscreation (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neogenesiscreation: just bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't really deal in 'up and coming' anything; we are never the first to report on a topic, and instead only summarise what other, reliable and independent sources have published before. From this it follows that Wikipedia cannot be used to proactively build someone's reputation, only to reflect a reputation that has already been built elsewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neogenesiscreation FYI, getting a "stub" accepted for publication is not (or should not be) easier than getting an article accepted. They all need appropriate references. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

12:24:16, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Thewisebaghera
Thewisebaghera (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your question, @Thewisebaghera? There is no draft at Draft:Claudia Carpentier, and doesn't look like there ever was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ths draft about Claudia Carpenter is confusingly at Draft:Chris_Wong. David10244 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

18:30:24, 2 April 2023 review of draft by 172.218.102.186
I want to know how to make the sources in my article on Phelan Porteous more reliable. 172.218.102.186 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no way to make the sources more reliable; the sources cited in this draft are all user-generated, meaning anyone can publish anything they want, and therefore we cannot trust any of them. What you need is to use different sources, instead; ones that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, such as proper newspapers and magazines, major TV and radio programmes, books (not self-published ones), and other such media outlets. Find a BBC radio documentary, New York Times article, and Deutsche Welle TV programme about this Phelan Porteous person, and you're golden! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

19:33:17, 2 April 2023 review of draft by JennaHTN
Hello, could you help me / explain to me how to improve this article so that it falls within the eligibility criteria

JennaHTN (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @JennaHTN, the first source is a blog so not reliable, the second source is a brief mention, the third source says nothing about him really and the fourth source is YouTube which does not help with notability. In addition, much of the content is unsourced and nothing suggest he meets the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

20:33:44, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Applemcg
I believe the Draft had overcome two of the reasons for rejection, the Archaeology article is both

reliable -- a source for scientists in the field independent -- the family member quoted was contacted by the magazine,

Also, I've just resubmitted the Draft with what I hope are improved citations.

Applemcg (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Applemcg you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look but I will note that what his family says or anyone affiliated with him is not useful for notability, even if interviewed/quoted by an otherwise reliable source. The coverage needs to be entirely independent. S0091 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

21:01:07, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Applemcg
I've resubmitted the draft, included more recent citations, then highlighting my belief the references are


 * indpendent,
 * substantial, and
 * verifiable

Applemcg (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Answered above. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

21:51:55, 2 April 2023 review of submission by Warezalex911
Warezalex911 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Warezalex911 what Bird has said or written or those affiliated with him (employers, etc.) is not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. The draft is rejected so will no longer be considered.  S0091 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting a re-review as Daniel Bird is a notable British journalist with media coverage on both traditional media and broadcast. There are more than enough sources quotes, both individual and mainstream.
 * @Warezalex911 I have looked at the sources in the draft and agree with the rejection. None of the sources satisfy our requirements for being considered independent or reliable as they are either connected to subject or written by the subject. It has now been rejected and will not be considered any further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)