Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 30

= June 30 =

01:38, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Afracica
I recently updated this page and my edits were removed. I documented my source. I used the same source for both minor edits. I added the birth name and the year both were available in the IMDb, which is the goto database for actors. I am just trying to understand what I did wrong.

Thank you,

Andy Afracica (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Afracica: you're at the wrong place; this is the Articles for Creation help desk, for dealing with drafts that are undergoing AfC review; you should probably ask at the Teahouse instead. But since you're here: IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and cannot therefore be used to support potentially sensitive or contentious information such as a person's DOB; that's why your edits were reverted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

02:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by JalKiRani
Why is my draft "The Haunting; getting rejected?

I have linked various reliable sources from big newspapers like Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, MidDay etc.

Also the film is already released on Amazon Mini TV.

Can you please approve my draft? JalKiRani (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @JalKiRani: we don't approve, decline, or otherwise determine the fate of articles here on the help desk, that is done when you submit your draft for a review and a reviewer comes across it and assesses it.
 * This draft has been twice declined for lack of notability. You will need to demonstrate that the subject is notable, by meeting either the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standard. "Link[ing] various reliable sources" is a start, but isn't in and of itself enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources in the draft are not independent, as they are largely quoting Fernandes' words. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

06:09, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Elton Heta
I have added additional requested information, is the matter now under review? Elton Heta (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm also the newbie here like you, and I know why your article got deleted. Your article contains references of social media handles, not of PR. Wikipedia checks PR for the validation and not the social profiles. And the second reason is you are writing about yourself, that is strictly banned here. Narendra7302 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elton Heta: no, the matter is not under review, because this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. Also, as the previous commentator says, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But, for the record, I want to point out that Narendra7302 (who has incidentally just been banned) is giving bad advice. Wikipedia is no more interested in PR than in social media. Almost all social media is unacceptable as sources because it is not reliable. Almost all PR is equally unacceptable because it is not independent. See 42 for what is required in sources.
 * It is also not true that writing about yourself is "strictly banned": it is strongly discouraged, but people are permitted to try. It was repeatedly trying, and apparently failing to understand why it didn't work, that got Narendra7302 banned. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand everything you say, but I want to emphasize that regarding the profession of programmers nowadays, I think that GitHub, Stackoverflow and similar platforms like these or certificates from Google and memberships and listings are somewhat reliable and I think they can be treated as such in these cases, I also started editing this article after someone else had started it and I noticed mistakes, so I started submitting more references from different national and international media for myself.
 * I ask for your understanding and I don't know if after all this history this article will manage to be reviewed! Elton Heta (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

06:19, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Narendra7302
I want to create the article for President Awardee Mohit Sharma, who is a social worker and NSS volunteer from Bareilly region. I saw article about other NSS Volunteers on Wikipedia, so I thought to make an article about him also. But, the article is declined while the other article for the different awardee is published with the same number of references. Kindly, please publish this article to mainspace. Thanking you Narendra7302 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Narendra7302: do you have an actual question you wish to ask? This draft was declined for lack of notability, and unless and until you rectify that, it cannot be accepted. (As for other articles that may exist on persons with a similar background, this is neither here nor there; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check the similar article Ritika Verma and compare them, both are President Awardee of NSS. Narendra7302 (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Narendra7302: as I already said, whatever other article may exist isn't relevant here, as we don't assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but instead by reference to the relevant guidelines and policies. I repeat: do you have an actual question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've a question. How can I make this article ( or any other article) eligible for Wikipedia page. I read that minimum 3 news articles are required for creation and here I've mentioned 7 proofs, including news articles and videos too. So, what I've to do to make this page published here Narendra7302 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Narendra7302: firstly, you have cited five sources, not seven, and at least one of those is primary and provides no meaningful coverage of the subject, so we're down to four. All the four only talk about this award, which is similar to appointment news, whereby someone gets appointed as a CEO or whatever, the organisation sends out a press release, and certain types of media pick it up. This is not the publications writing about the subject, independently and of their own volition. We need to see that this person is genuinely notable beyond a single event like an award (unless that award be, quite literally, the Nobel Prize or similar). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

07:51, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Gaff33
Hi,

I was able to find one contemporary journal / magazine source, which I've added. I note that the web sources I've linked are the only sources for other similar articles, so I hoped they woudl be sufficient. Appreciate this is only a tiny article, but as it gets a mention in various other articles it is plugging a gap.

I can tidy up what I've got, but I can't do that much better when it comes to sourcing.

Is this salvagable? Or should I give up? Gaff33 (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gaff33: "is this salvageable", as in can an article be created on this topic? Probably. But it will need better sources. What you need to do is find at least three solid, independent and reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this subject, and then summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided. A quick glance suggests you're part of the way, but not quite, there. Or if, as you say, you cannot find better sources, then you should probably drop this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've linked 3 web articles and a contemporary journal article which all provide significant coverage of this subject. How should I demonstrate that these are reliable independant secondary sources? Gaff33 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gaff33: are they, though; are they reliable and independent secondary sources? I'm not saying they categorically aren't, I just have no idea what Urban75.org, BrixtonBuzz.com, or SouthLondonClub.co.uk are. All I can say is they're quite not The Times, or even the Big Issue. (Nor, I would argue, does the first of those provide significant coverage.) Which is another way of saying that quality, even more than quantity, of sources matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They are local news sites, local history clubs, and so on. Once upon a time they might have been local print magazine, but hardly anyone publishes physical media nowadays.
 * ...But I guess that's my question! What's the metric here? Who can say if these are reliable? Gaff33 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gaff33: I can say categorically that you need better sources than 'local history clubs' etc. Anyone can set up a 'local news site', esp. in this day and age, and write whatever they want. The onus isn't on us to prove that such a source is non-reliable; it is on whoever is wanting to rely on that source to demonstrate that it is. The fact that none of the sources cited in this draft passes muster in any obvious way, means that the WP:GNG notability standard simply isn't yet met. Hope that clarifies the matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm still confused though - how are you able to say categorically that these sources are non-reliable? Or conversely how am I to know if a source is reliable? Is there some sort of list of "generally reliable" sources that I could check (ie. The Times, The Big Issue, etc)? Not being facetious - I'm genually trying to figure out what the metric is.
 * Also you said "none" my sources pass? Even the 1877 issue of "The Builder" magazine? Does the same issue apply here (ie. in 1877 anyone could have gotten anything published in this magazine?)? If so it feels an impossible barrier. Presumably I could still cite this as a primary soruce? Gaff33 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read about reliable sources. In short, a reliable source will have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- they don't just publish whatever the writers write, an editor reviews the reporting for accuracy. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gaff33: okay, yes, the Builder article may be solid; I didn't have that in mind, sorry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gaff33 As the person who declined it, I can also say that bonmarchebusiness and southlondonclub are both obviously not independent sources.
 * Regarding "who can say if they're reliable", for something like a history blog, look for listed sources. If there are none, it's not verifiable in itself - so not particularly good for our purposes either, unless for some reason you need to say "such-and-such blog wrote about this topic on this date and said blah-blah." Personally, I'm happy to accept that a local history blog shows some amount of "notability" (see WP:N) and probably isn't going to be disastrously incorrect about something (as long as the article isn't something high-stakes, like a biography of a living person or something about a contentious topic). But if I'm going to accept an article with some wibbly sources like that I want to see at least one that is basically unimpeachable. Otherwise, I think the article's chances of surviving a deletion discussion are almost nil, and that's the standard we're trying to apply here. (Also, I don't want anyone's first article to be sent for deletion if I can help it!)
 * The Builder article doesn't have a byline, which makes me wonder if it's independent reporting or basically a 19thc press release. I'd have to check before calling it reliable, secondary, and independent. -- asilvering (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , not sure if this helps but I did a quick newspaper trawl and found a couple more sources (but mostly got bored of job averts, and store adverts) KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow that's impressive stuff! Thanks!
 * (I'm curious whether "The Noorwood News" in the 1930s is materially different to "Brixton Buzz" today - both are local special interest journals. It is contemporary at least, and from a historical perspective it is endlessly fascinating!) Gaff33 (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , Doh didn't even notice most from Norwood News... two more non Norwood News, inc Selfridges taking controlling interest.  KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That "Young London" article is great, especially the part where they say "he would very soon be ruining himself" - which is exactly what happened! :D
 * Thanks again! Gaff33 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , Doh didn't even notice most from Norwood News... two more non Norwood News, inc Selfridges taking controlling interest.  KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That "Young London" article is great, especially the part where they say "he would very soon be ruining himself" - which is exactly what happened! :D
 * Thanks again! Gaff33 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , Doh didn't even notice most from Norwood News... two more non Norwood News, inc Selfridges taking controlling interest.  KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That "Young London" article is great, especially the part where they say "he would very soon be ruining himself" - which is exactly what happened! :D
 * Thanks again! Gaff33 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

14:25, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Bonnie1981
I created an article on Echelon Studios, which is already mentioned a number of times on Wikipedia and has received press coverage since 2004 so I don't understand why it's not considered notable?

Bonnie1981 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bonnie1981: it's not considered notable because the sources cited do not meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. We need to see significant press coverage, not just passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

14:42, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Ositarich
Links were added cos i felt i needed references. Should i remove the links? What should be done. Thanks Ositarich (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ositarich: this draft has been deleted as promotional, so there is nothing that should be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

18:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Neilmelawati
hi, I had submitted a few tries, but keep getting rejected. may I know how can I improve my article to make it approve? Neilmelawati (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Your draft has been declined twice and finally rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It has also been tagged for speedy deletion as purely promotional. The draft is barely referenced, with the one citation being Twitter, which is user-generated content where anyone can literally spew out whatever they want: thus, extremely unreliable (see WP:TWITTER.) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Left my standard deletion notice with helpful links -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

23:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Igor Markov
I'd appreciate some explanation/reasoning for the reviewer's decision. Which part of the text reads like an advertisement? (there are no judgements, superlatives, etc) Which of the references are considered sufficient? Aren't the in-depth CNN and MSNBC interviews relevant? If Anderson Cooper wants to know about this organization, doesn't that imply notability? I know, expecting common sense from the Wikipedia is too much, but there is clear evidence of notability even for someone who is critical. Igor Markov 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Igor Markov: the whole draft is essentially promotional, because it contains nothing of encyclopaedic value, and therefore seems to exist only to spread awareness of an organisation called Bluecheck Ukraine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing, let me quote: "
 * Bluecheck Ukraine is a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (EIN 92-1021572) established in 2022 during Russian invasion of Ukraine to support the people of Ukraine." This is a statement of fact, and the number makes it easy to verify (including the goals of the organization). I am puzzled by your claim about "nothing of encyclopedic value". Are you saying this sentence is promotional? Let's compare to the first paragraph of some established article, such as CNN. Is that promotional too? Thank you.
 * Igor Markov 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in case, I made a few edits to the text, but not the first sentence. Comments on the new text would be useful too. Also, did you mean that something in the text poisoned it or that every since sentence was promotional? (the latter would be difficult to understand, given the first sentence in particular) Igor Markov 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interviews are rarely relevant to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColinFine To state the obvious, an interview is not a monologue, Anderson Cooper of CNN has no connection of the subject and does not repeat material produced by others - he is one of the most established TV reporters in the US.
 * The very fact that Liev Schreiber was invited to CNN represents that CNN editors - who are are independent - thought BlueCheck was notable. Also, in the process of interview, Anderson Cooper says things about BlueCheck. Granted, the Wikipedia review policies are widely open to interpretation, but not accepting a pair of CNN and MSNBC interviews as evidence of notability seems like a stretch, at least to someone living on this planet. Igor Markov 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The very fact that Liev Schreiber was invited to CNN represents that CNN editors - who are are independent - thought BlueCheck was notable. Also, in the process of interview, Anderson Cooper says things about BlueCheck. Granted, the Wikipedia review policies are widely open to interpretation, but not accepting a pair of CNN and MSNBC interviews as evidence of notability seems like a stretch, at least to someone living on this planet. Igor Markov 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)