Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 15

= March 15 =

Request on 01:47:15, 15 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind
i am not resumiting the article it is automatically getting resubmited and i dont know why

UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @UrFathermaybeblind: yes you are, by messing with the AfC templates; please stop. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

04:40:07, 15 March 2023 review of submission by SalahEldin1
Hi, my draft has been in pending state for over 4 months. Please can you help. (SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)) SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @SalahEldin1: it was submitted 2½ months, not "over 4 months", ago. And drafts are not reviewed in any order. So you should just wait until a reviewer gets around to it. Although I must say you're not helping things with the REFBOMBING; eg. the statement Azizi Developments is a Dubai-based property developer surely doesn't need eight sources to support it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

09:35:53, 15 March 2023 review of submission by Alexandrabkk
Hello, My topic has been rejected because not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think is wrong, it's a young political of the opposition who need space, including on Wikipedia. Most of articles he has are in thai langage, so I focused on english langage coverages. Still have a look on his name he does have press coverage. How can I do to improve my article to make is sufficiently notable? The election are coming soon and a wikipedia page is a big help inside the country but also outstide. Many thanks.

Alexandrabkk (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Alexandrabkk: Wikipedia is not here to provide "space" or otherwise help promote anyone or anything. Either this person is notable based on existing published sources, or they're not. And if they're not, no amount of editing can make them so.
 * As for sources, these don't need to be in English, Thai sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the WP:GNG standard (= independent and reliable secondary published sources).
 * In any case, as this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

18:10:04, 15 March 2023 review of draft by BHKendler161148
I, as editor, have been asked to find at least three further sources. I suggest that as Giles Marsh played one Top-Flight Match and played for a club that went bankrupt 130 years ago there are NO other sources other than those I have used. I respectfully request Giles Marsh is reinstated despite its limitations. Also it is suggested that it does not link to other articles. With due deference to Wikipedia I suggest that is not correct as I have linked the article to Accrington FC the team he played against that he was a Goalkeeper and to Thorneyholme Road, the home ground of Accrington are four examples.

BHKendler161148 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @BHKendler161148 this draft has not been submitted for review. It appears this was sent to draft by an WP:NPP reviewer so I suggest addressing any questions or concerns with that editor directly, who left a detailed note on your talk page.  However, generally if there are no additional sources that indicates an article is not warranted.  S0091 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

18:37:35, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Rohin vaidya
Submission was denied due to inadequate sources and because the organization did not have an influence outside of the university. However, many other student sections have been given Wikipedia pages despite not having an influence outside of the university or having as many sources on their page (see Oakland Zoo, The Show (SDSU Student Section), etc.). What can we change so that we get our submission accepted?

Rohin vaidya (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rohin vaidya: what you can and should change is cite sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. You currently cite no such source. (As for "many other student sections" etc., this is neither here nor there; please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

22:22:06, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Kj2023
I want to change the name of this page to Christian Cash Harrison in order to disambiguate from another article talking about someone else named Christian Harrison

Kj2023 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kj2023: if and when the draft is accepted, the name will be disambiguated in an appropriate manner. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Thanks Kj2023 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

23:22:11, 15 March 2023 review of draft by TexasEditor1
When my draft was declined, I received the following comments: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics).

Comment: Need in-depth coverage about him. Also, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand this, as I referenced several articles from mainstream publications that showed significant coverage of the subject, in interviews and independently, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer and it's Clevelanddotcom website, and books from reputable publishers. I also used other reputable publications such as a major university's alumni magazine. I'm quite confused about the idea that interviews don't constitute worthy coverage; I've built my entire journalism career writing stories about people based on interviews and research, many of which are cited on Wiki pages. And some of the interviews I used are part of bigger feature stories that include valid reviews, quotes from other people, etc. If significant coverage of living people cannot include interviews, what about the reviews and other pieces I included? I took care to cite — and verify — very reputable and reliable sources, not blogs or fly-by-night publications. I've also taken pains to archive everything. I understand mentions "in passing" aren't considered major coverage, but I included those to provide context and verification not only of information, but of relevance as a subject. I'm having a hard time comprehending how this person, who has cowritten major hits for superstars, had a foundational role in a major motion picture (as acknowledged by the director in linked references) and had a role in inspiring one of Bruce Springsteen's biggest hits — and is cited on many other Wikipedia pages — isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page. What can I do to turn this into a page that will be accepted? TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @TexasEditor1: there may well be solid sources cited, but they can be missed among the 70+ references. Perhaps you could highlight the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard (= independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject). Alternatively, please explain how the subject meets the WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER or other relevant notability guideline, and what evidence supports this. You can do so eg. on the draft talk page, so that once you resubmit the reviewer will have easy access to this. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)