Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 24

= December 24 =

03:24, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Monique Reymond
how is this not notable? secondary sources - awards. Monique Reymond (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Monique Reymond: you need to either demonstrate that the subject is notable per the general WP:GNG guideline, or provide evidence that the special WP:CREATIVE one is met. Just arguing that you feel like you should be notable isn't what we're looking for, nor is claiming sex or gender discrimination etc. without any real evidence.
 * Please also read and understand WP:AUTOBIO, for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read entries of not notable people - meaning people whom have not been written about in any format by a 2nd or third party. These people are not removed and they are clearly self published. I wish you a happy holiday, but this source - wikipedia isn't what I thought it was. A reliable source. I'll stick to professional journalists in the future.  Monique Reymond (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you find an article that is deficient, you are welcome to improve it, or nominate it for deletion if it seems to be unsalvageable. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

08:44, 24 December 2023 review of submission by ZYX001
The reviewer rejected and its reason would be "Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". However, I cannot take any actions if I am not notified which sources seem not reliable. And also, the reason why these sources are thought as not reliable. It has to be not fair such a way to reject without any clues to revise the draft. I was a reviewer of many scientific articles manuscript in some international journals, and I was really so surprised at this manner. For scientific field, such a response from reviewer is never acceptable. ZYX001 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @ZYX001: I think you're being a little bit disingenuous. At the time when this draft was declined, its 'References' section consisted of this: "ameblo.jp dailymotion.com Additional sources include the V League Official Website and sports blogs." This is not referencing. This is listing two domain names, and suggesting that some sources may exist somewhere. The draft was absolutely correctly declined. The onus is on you as the draft author to figure out what the referencing requirements are, and how referencing works, on Wikipedia, rather than coming here complaining about the reviewer. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing in general, and WP:BLP for information on editing articles on living people, including the referencing requirements applicable to such articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that "disingenuous" would be against the rule of Wikipedia in the communication.
 * The refernce 1 is an article in a journal published by "Undo Tsushin, Co. Ltd" whose majour stock holders are The Asahi Shimbun (Japan biggest news paper company) and Dentsu (Japan biggest advertising company) and others, so I cannot bileve that the description in the reference is not reliable.
 * The reference 2 is the official site of "GSS Tokyo Sunbeams" that blongs to V.League (Japan). There is no professional volley ball league in Japan and "V league" is the the leargest and highest rank volleyball league in Japan. I don't understand why this reference is concluded as not reliable one.
 * The reference 3 is the offical site of "V league".
 * The reference 4 is the article of Nikkan sports online. "Nikkan Sports" was first published on March 6, 1946, and is the oldest existing Japanese sports newspaper.
 * I am just asking which one is not reliable, and I am guessing that the reviewer has a responsibilty to answer me which one. I am not sure that such a subjective communication is standard or not in Wikipedia. ZYX001 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZYX001: you're missing the point. The draft was declined based on the state of the referencing as it was when this was reviewed. You're now asking about the referencing (refs 1–4) as it currently stands. The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, at which time you will get feedback on the current state of referencing. We do not provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk (which, in fairness, you haven't explicitly asked for, although have sort of implied). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably, there might be some misunderstanding. The draft was declined twice.  The first decline was completely my fault.  So, I corrected the draft and resubmitted.  Then, it was declined again because the references were not reliable. So, I am asking which references were not reliable.
 * The above is my understanding and please tell me what was my reply was "disingenuous".
 * I will wait for the answer for my question in this board. ZYX001 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, can I get the answer for my question about the 2nd draft declined in the future? Please confirm it. ZYX001 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZYX001: the revision history of Draft:Zhang Xinmuyi shows that it was declined once, timestamp 17:33 22 December 2023, with the reason . When was the other decline, according to you?
 * I don't understand what "the 2nd draft declined in the future" means. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It was declined 2 times. If it is not correct, why did you say "At the time when this draft was declined, its 'References' section consisted of this: "ameblo.jp dailymotion.com Additional sources include the V League Official Website and sports blogs. This is not referencing. This is listing two domain names, and suggesting that some sources may exist somewhere."?  I resubmitted the 2nd draft with references, and it was declined at the 2nd review.
 * I am now asking about references because of the message from reviewer after the 2nd decline, and there is a obviouly a contradiction about your reply. ZYX001 (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZYX001: okay, I give up. Hopefully someone else will come along shortly who is able to assist you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does "Hopefully" mean that Wilkipedia declined the draft and the author revise and resubmit the draft, then Wilkipedia sometime finally ignore the revised draft? ZYX001 (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZYX001: "hopefully" means, I clearly can't help you, or possibly you can't or don't want to understand what I'm saying, or perhaps both, and given that case it's clearly better to wait for someone else to come and give it a try, in the hope they can do what I can't.
 * "Wikipedia" did not decline the draft. We are all volunteers here; one reviewer declined the draft, and either the same or a different reviewer will review it the next time. We do not "ignore" drafts, they get reviewed eventually, although this may take days, weeks or sometimes longer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. ZYX001 (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my misunderstainding. ZYX001 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, can I wait for the reviewer's explanation here about how I can do for the 2nd draft? ZYX001 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ZYX001 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, your references look better than they did when you first submitted the article to Articles for Creation. Perhaps you can re-submit the article. I'm honestly not sure if it will be accepted as I'm not confident in the intricacies of notability standards when it comes to non-English sources. Sorry I'm not more helpful. Good luck! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello:
 * You left your comment for 2nd revision as "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.", so I improved the references and explained the reliability of each reference above.
 * Then, you say now "I'm not confident in the intricacies of notability standards", but it is obvious her height is same as that of Yekaterina Gamova and "She is 2.02 m (6 ft 8 in) tall, making her one of the tallest female athletes in the world." and the "notability standards" shoule be same as her.
 * You can check only her height in references of 1-3. (the references were kindly modified to show Japanese title by another person and reference 3 was changed to a meaningless one by him/her, and now it is corrected).
 * Although they are "non-English", you can confirm her height in official documents. ZYX001 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please find the followig descripton of (at least for her height) in references 1-3:
 * Ref 1: "■張 心穆意（ちょう・しんむい）ミドルブロッカー／身長202cm／1996年3月28日生まれ／共栄学園高→至誠館大",
 * Ref 2: "the profile of No.21 in MEMBER", and
 * Ref 3: "張心穆意が所属している. 中国河北省出身のミドルブロッカーで、現役女子Vリーガーの中では最高身長となる202cm!!".
 * Please tell me if other information is needed. ZYX001 (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me if other information is needed. ZYX001 (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

10:48, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Sujeet5775
This article is about a well known producer and director of indian film industries ,his name is also mentioned in wikipedia page created on the movies he directed or produced (please check the movie likns in the draft.I think decision to reject this draft was taken without going into the details of the draft or the article. Sujeet5775 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sujeet5775: this draft was declined, not rejected. And the reason for that is that the sources do not establish the subject's notability, which they don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ok thanks,I will try to add more sources to it ! Sujeet5775 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add better sources, rather than just more, but okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

11:36, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Phyominsanofficialaccount
Please rework this fix.Please verify this page. Phyominsanofficialaccount (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Phyominsanofficialaccount: I don't know what you're asking for, exactly, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

15:06, 24 December 2023 review of submission by AccountManager1
I accidentally submitted a 3rd revised draft for approval, please see only my 2nd draft revision that was completed, I updated Lyon's press coverage as you requested AccountManager1 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see your user talk page; if you are employed by Mr. Daniels, you must disclose that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

18:40, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Victor MacTavish
Hello, I have a question, the only reference I have is a picture like a CV form picture how can I place it as a reference? Victor MacTavish (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If that's your only reference, this person does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document someone's accomplishments or career; Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

19:10, 24 December 2023 review of submission by SamuelCulper
I'd like some clarification on why my page wasn't approved, just so I know how to rectify it. The comment says I should not use IMDB as a source. Should I only rely on media outlets to confirm an actor's role in a a film or television show? Thanks! SamuelCulper (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @SamuelCulper. Articles about actors must meet the special notability requirements as laid out in WP:NACTOR. So far you draft does not show notability of Josha.  Qcne  (talk)  19:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I'll give it a read right now. SamuelCulper (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you should rely on places where somebody unconnected with Stradowski or his associates, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of Stradowski, has chosen to write at some length about Stradowski. That is the only kind of refernce that will be relevant to establishing notability. See Golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information! SamuelCulper (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

22:39, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Scottalexeden
I don't understand the guidelines. Scottalexeden (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Should I have someone else write my biography? If so, what references should I use?  My record label (https://soundcloud.com/willyreedrecords) can easily be confirmed as my booking agency (www.livemusicgroup.org).  They are both online and can be verified. Scottalexeden (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scottalexeden Wikipedia is not a platform to be used to promote your musical career. That is what your agency is for. We have a special definition of notability (the guidelines is at WP:NMUSICIAN for musicians). You do not meet that threshold. Even if you did, you should not be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) and your draft is more suitable for a LinkedIn bio or a personal web page, not an online encyclopedia.
 * In any case, the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further, including if it was written by someone else.  Qcne  (talk)  23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)