Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 19

= August 19 =

09:02, 19 August 2023
Доброго дня! Будь ласка, допоможіть мені краще зрозуміти, що саме потрібно редагувати в статті https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924) Чи правильно я розумію, що потрібно редагувати тільки розділ Біографія, інші розділи можна залишити без змін?

Good day! Please help me better understand what exactly needs to be edited in the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924). Am I correct in understanding that only the 'Biography' section needs to be edited, and the other sections can be left unchanged?

Inna Ogiievska (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There are many things wrong with this draft, but the biggest problem is that it is completely unreferenced. We need to see where this information is coming from. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

09:07, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Roast Etti
One of the reviewers said that the draft should show that the subject meets one of the eight conditions listed below. I wonder if any of the following (that are visible on the internet) may be considered? Grateful for your advice. 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (His recent chapters have high citation results. He has been selected for lead chapters in books. His books have been widely purchased by libraries in the US and Europe as seen in WorldCat. His research in international communication led to him being appointed as Foundation Chair of a new department). 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (He has received the prestigious Order of Australia from the Queen of England, as Head of State, for services to education). 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (He was elected Secretary General of the prestigious International Association for Media and Communication Research that was set up by UNESCO in the 1950s). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (He has been a Visiting Professor at Sorbonne - Paris III in France; Jilin University, Communication University of China, South West University of Politics and Law, and South East Normal University - in China). 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. (He was appointed Foundation Chair in International Communication at Macquarie University. He was also appointed to the prestigious position of Professor Emeritus at the same university). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. (He has served as Dean of the School of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy). 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (His commentaries have been published in China Daily and other media. He chaired a panel with former Australian PM John Howard and Foreign Minister Gareth Evans in Parliament House, Australia). 8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (He has been Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of International Communication (Taylor and Francis) since 1994. Roast Etti (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Roast Etti: I'd say #8 is your best bet, assuming it can be verified from a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

12:25, 19 August 2023 review of submission by MUBARAK SHEIKH
WHY REJECTED MY PAGE? AND WHY NOT PUBLISHED MY PAGE YET? I AM LOOKING MY PAGE IN GOOGLE DID'NT GET MUBARAK SHEIKH (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @MUBARAK SHEIKH: please don't SHOUT.
 * Your draft has been deleted as promotional. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about yourself. Try one of the many social media or blogging platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

13:20, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler
This process is getting absurd The New York Times reviews are more than "passing mentions." They discuss the book and the author, Douglas Rigby, in enough depth to provide more than meet the Wikipedia guidelines. What's more, several of the citations are not accessible online. Have the reviewers checked those? Finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their "notability." I think this article provides substantial documentation. Gsandler (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC Gsandler (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A number of the sources fail verification, others are passing mentions, I can't see the New York Times review, perhaps you can elaborate on what it says in the text? Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gsandler: RE "finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their notability" – whether or not being published by a major publishing house automatically makes a book notable, that would be the book's notability you're talking about, not the author's. There is nothing in WP:AUTHOR that confers publisher-derived notability on an author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also note that the first source in the draft is actually written by the draft creator G. Sandler. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

17:01, 19 August 2023 review of submission by HikingManiac2010
Asking if my submission for Lynn Sorensen has been approved as notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? If not, what more can I do to prove that he's had a lifelong professional music career with world renown bands? Thank you! HikingManiac2010 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been rejected twice, you have zero independent reliable sources to support any of the content, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

20:28, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Pinkcell23
I believe I addressed any concerns some time ago about my Wiki article on Chris Jonas, and now I am wondering if it needs to be resubmitted or if it will continue to be reviewed as it now stands. I'm a little unclear on how the process works and I am still hopeful it will go live soon. Thank you for your help! Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Pinkcell23. Your draft was submitted for review, and it'll be reviewed in due course - though it may take up to four months.  Qcne  (talk)  20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate it. Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

20:59, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler
Hi, I'm baffled... as I have provided numerous citations related to the subject that were published in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, such as The New York Times, Harpers Magazine, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History, New York History, The Kirkus Review, The Red Rock News newspaper, and the Modernist Manifesto.

What's more the subject has written books published by major publishers, such as Harper and Brothers and JP Lippincott.

This more than meets Wiki's general notability requirement:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Gsandler (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Gsandler. Unfortunately your article has now been rejected and can't be considered further.  Qcne  (talk)  21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

23:58, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal
I have re-done this article 3 times with a ton of secondary credits and each time it seems to be getting a _subjective_ "this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry despite this person having a two-decade career with numerous credits for writing, producing, voice over work and production in multiple entertainment mediums. He's even already on wikipedia pages (listed as winner/runner up in comedy competitions) - where, ironically other winners/runners up have far less. Examples: Tom McTigue - was a series regular on Baywatch - only his bio/imdb page is a source Ngaio Bealum - similar level of work, but mostly in the pot space, many sources are primary and not secondary Bill Radke - is a west coast radio host now - one of the sources being his station bio page Ricarlo Flanagan - this person was a semifinalist and had a handful of episodes - the notable was 4 as "davey" on Shameless; every source is an obituary Preacher Lawson - 4 sources, two of which are his YouTube channel

I could keep clicking through, but this is really feeling like once a single person decides "not for Wikipedia," the bar gets progressively higher and higher.

I would also point out that on the Stan Against Evil Page - Stan Against Evil - Matt also appears as the credited writer in Season 3. What's crazy is the only other writer without a Wiki page there is Jessica Conrad and that's downright criminal considering her career. Does Wikipedia consider writing to not be a substantial portion of entertainment? Is it only front of camera or directing that count? Trying to figure out what else needs to be found here - not really getting great feedback.

Midwesterngal (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Midwesterngal: this person can be notable in one of two ways, by meeting either
 * WP:GNG, but the sources cited aren't sufficient for this, with the LA Times piece being the only one that comes even close (note that interviews do not count), and it alone isn't enough; or
 * WP:ENTERTAINER, but there is nothing in the draft to suggest this is the case.
 * So no, it isn't a subjective standard we're working to, it is very much an objective one; and it isn't a single person deciding, you've had three reviewers (and now me) all reaching the same conclusion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI you don't need to provide the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article- simply place the target page title in double brackets, as I've done here. Please read other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still confused. The other sources seem to rely heavily on first-party sources (bios created by stations, managers and other similar items, including one of the above where all of the sources is a variation on that person's obituary (and, frankly, getting an obit in Variety involves emailing it with verifiable entertainment credits - and that's the same for the other sources).
 * He already appears in Wikipedia - will reviews of other media help? I can also get into the SF archives and find an older review if that helps.
 * This seems ridiculous considering his very active IMDB which includes shows with major presence, including Beware the Batman which is an IP based on that small indie DC comic publisher that seems to be going places.
 * I will add all of those with some minor adjustments to the article and hopefully this will help your team find that a writer in the business for over two decades with voice, acting, producing credits and a ten-year podcast which has led to additional credits just may qualify. Midwesterngal (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Midwesterngal. A should be entirely based on reliably published sources, and almost entirely based on sources that are wholly independent of the subject - not written by, published by, or based on information directly from, the subject or the subject's associates. If little or no such material has been published - i.e., few or no independent writers have chosen to write in depth about the subject, and been published by reliable organs - there is essentially nothing that can go into an article irrespective of what the person may have done, said, or created, or how famous, popular, or influential they may be. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , any draft that includes language like is going to be received by reviewers with well-placed skepticism. That's promotional "booster" language, not neutral encyclopedia writing. Also, per WP:IMDB, you should be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. The only things that matter on Wikipedia are references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Weinhold that devote significant coverage to Weinhold as a person. Passing mentions and lists of credits and products of press releases or PR activity are of no use. As for the other articles you listed, Wikipedia has over 6.7 million articles and at least one million of them are in bad shape. Wikipedia editors work 24/7/365 to either improve or delete these articles. We do not accept the existence of older poor quality articles as a valid argument to create new poor quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As for those other articles that you listed,, all except one are listed as stub class, which is the lowest possible rating. One is rated start class, because there is some coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If you were taking a university level course, would you model your contributions on the work submitted by D students, with one barely getting a C mark? Or would you strive for a higher grade? Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)