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

= February 19 =

01:33:34, 19 February 2023 review of submission by 44PVgirl
Hello. The previous reviewers wanted more sources, so I added most of the known articles about the subject and her Latvian National Record for Pole Vault and resubmitted.

The last reviewer indicated "Unreliable sources remain." I have linked many sources, most of them are online publications specific to the sport but a few are magazines. Some of them are in Latvian, but subject is the Latvian National Record holder in Pole Vault (hence creating the wikipedia article) how do I know what unreliable source the editor wants to pull out? Thank you. 44PVgirl (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @44PVgirl at a brief look, the obvious one is Google Docs which is not usable here. The other issue is most of the sources seem to be profiles or stats, which are considered trivial coverage. Those are fine to use to support facts but do not help with notability.  If you resubmit it, I suggest posting on the draft's talk page (Draft talk:Allison Neiders) three sources that meet WP:GNG (see WP:THREE for guidance).  S0091 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

02:29:12, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Rajmohanaushik
Rajmohanaushik (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , what specific advice can someone assist you with?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

04:18:42, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Mr. technify
Mr. technify (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

09:20:19, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Sagar 29 94
Sagar 29 94 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just post personal information about yourself, that's what social media is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a person.  Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fir kya kre jo apne village ko wiki pr page bnane ke liye kya krna hoga? 117.243.208.28 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. If Hindi is your primary language, you may edit the Hindi Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

15:03:20, 19 February 2023 review of draft by Rushistoriia
I am having trouble getting feedback from reviewers on my article. It is being declined for publication but the reason given not specific. It says that the sources are not "reliable" and "verifiable" but I do not understand what they mean. Every sentence has a source to support what is being said in the article. Is there any way to get someone else to review it to offer specific feedback besides submitting it? When I have tried in the past I have not gotten any replies and have also had great difficulty getting the original editors to even respond to my questions. The article in question is Draft:James T. Andrews

Rushistoriia (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need the whole url when you link to another article or page on Wikipedia, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets like this Draft:James T. Andrews.
 * Regarding your draft, the sources all seem associated with Andrews in some way; a basic directory listing at Iowa State, a basic desciption of him from a conference website, a press release from Iowa State, etc. A Wikipedia article about a professor must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am not sure I agree with that characterization. The majority of the citations are from reviews of his work that were written by academics who themselves are considered noteworthy by the standards of Wikipedia. These are peer-reviewed. The background of what his title is seems to be useful context, is that not so? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I am still just a bit confused. Is the implication here that a public R1 university is an unreliable source? Or that the Kennan Institute is also unreliable? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Universities/organizations that Dr. Andrews is employed by or otherwise associated with are not independent sources.
 * I can't examine the reviews, but based on the draft they don't seem to discuss him personally, but his work. That might merit his publications articles, but not necessarily him. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This question of "otherwise associated with" seems to be a pretty confusing claim. If he won a Nobel Prize, doesn't that mean he is associated with it? In a similar vein, getting a prestigious competitive fellowship at the Hoover Institution or the Kennan Center, seems to be the way that academics establish their notability. But then it creates a situation where the very markers of their importance make them somehow ineligible? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If he won a Nobel Prize, plenty of independent reliable sources would report on that- we wouldn't need something from the Nobel Committee itself. We need independent reliable sources that discuss Dr. Andrews' significance or influence. Winning a prestigious fellowship probably qualifies, but that needs to be reported on by independent reliable sources, not just the organization awarding the fellowship. Primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances, but not for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot That's not how prof articles work - reviews discussing the academic's work are perfectly acceptable. It's typically seen as better to have a single article on the author than several stubby articles on their books. If the references are genuine (I have not checked) this would almost certainly survive an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay(an interesting exception to the rest of Wikipedia, but I accept this exists), but if I'm remembering correctly most of the sources in this case were associated with him. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NPROF is specifically an alternative to GNG. An academic can be extremely notable without any biographical coverage of them! Also, most humanities profs that pass AfDs do so under WP:NAUTHOR. Usually two sole-author books with 2+ reviews each will convince AfD participants to keep an article under WP:NAUTHOR, regardless of whether there is other biographical information available, since it's ok to cite non-independent sources for basic facts like "is professor of such-and-such university". -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks like a WP:NPROF pass - can you make it easier on reviewers by providing URLs/dois for the citations, and resubmit it? -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

16:56:08, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Amanda at Chocolate City Music
Candy Bleakz is a renowned artist. Amanda at Chocolate City Music (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because you have not demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this person meets at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amanda at Chocolate City Music Discussing someone's "passion" is almost never appropriate in the tone of an encyclopedia article. Also, "Prior to these wins" and "This relationship opened up a new world for Candy" and "The song went on to become a viral sensation and a monster street favorite". David10244 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

23:02:40, 19 February 2023 review of submission by 98.97.34.96
This review must be important. Because, I cannot edit anymore, and if I did it then it doesn't work. 98.97.34.96 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, your comment does not make sense and you do not ask a question but the draft is rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)