Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 9

= May 9 =

00:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Interstatefive
I recently had my AFC submission of this draft declined, as it "was not supported by reliable sources". The article only has two sources, which may be why.

However, two sources is definitely enough for an article of the size it's currently in (51 words of readable prose). All non-obvious facts were cited with a decent source in the article, so I don't understand why the reviewer declined with this reason. Is it because of the length, or what?  interstate five   00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Interstatefive: you would have to ask the reviewer what, specifically, they weren't happy with, but I myself would have declined this based on the quality (rather than quantity) of the sources, which are basically just glorified maps, and don't IMO satisfy WP:GEOLAND. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Interstatefive I would also look at WP:NGEO, as it has guidance on this topic in particular. The sources provided only prove that it exists and does not support the need for a stand alone article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing @Mcmatter I see what you mean. I was just about to bring up the two other articles of the same name in California and say how they've gotten off just fine (except for a single source tag on one article), but then I realized they had facts such as wildlife and their translations from another language in them.  interstate five   23:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

00:59, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Eocorbet
I have two questions. 1. I have redone three references as a test and saved them to my draft. Can you confirm that I have properly cited my three sources so that I can continue citing my sources the same way that I have previously done? 2. Does adding a unique birthdate help clarify disambiguation in the title? I would like to know if more information is needed, and if so, what information is needed to clear a disambiguation in the title? Eocorbet (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Eocorbet:
 * Yes, the first three sources are correctly cited. Carry on.
 * Don't worry about disambiguating the title for now; if the draft is accepted, it will be moved to the correct title. (And FWIW, the current dab seems okay.)
 * I have, in turn, a query, which I've posted on your talk page; please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

01:37, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Jacksonpanix
The information about this person was mostly taken from liner notes on the back of two vinyl LPs which I have in my possession, and are recorded on Discogs.com. I also have a copy of the book which I referenced in the content. I understand if Discogs and Abe Books are considered not citable sources, but I do not understand what my alternatives are for citing this content when there is so little available on the internet about this person. Are the other citations I included are acceptable? Should I include photographs of the backs of the LPs with the liner notes? I did quite a bit of research on this person. They existed, and they produced media works that are out there in the world. Their funeral was covered by news media for which I was able to discover and cite. I'm unclear on how to improve this listing to make it acceptable. Please advise. Jacksonpanix (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jacksonpanix: there are a few things here.
 * AbeBooks is just a retailer, there's no point in citing it as a source. If you want to cite a book being sold via AbeBooks, then cite the book directly.
 * I suppose album cover/liner notes are 'publications', and as such you can again cite them as if they were, say, books. (And best not mention Discogs, as that is not an acceptable source.) However, they are clearly primary sources so do not contribute towards notability.
 * As for the other sources, the British Pathé clip doesn't seem to provide much that is useful. The Tulane one is an interview. Neither is useful for notability.
 * The Christian Century piece is a record review, but it does provide some coverage of the Pastor, and is IMO the best of the lot; however, it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

07:12:22, 9 May 2023 review of draft by Stephaniedejager
Submission is taking a very long time which demotivates me a little by submitting or adjusting (new) articles. Can someone help me out please?

Stephaniedejager (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Stephaniedejager: we don't normally respond to fast-tracking requests, as there are over 4,000 drafts awaiting review. However, in this case it was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. Half the sources were close primary ones, and the rest didn't mention the subject; in other words, no evidence of notability, and also inadequate referencing (see WP:BLP for advice on articles on living people). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict), you have chosen a topic that is highly controversial and abstruse. It is not an easy topic to evaluate for reviewers not immersed in the inside world of computer hacking. To me, as an outsider to hacking, your references look exceptionally weak, which also tends to make reviewers skeptical. Which three best independent, indisputably reliable sources devote significant coverage to this person? To be frank, I do not see the notability but again, I am not an expert in the topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

09:19, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Seyisage
I've been trying to publish a new draft for days now but this error keeps displaying "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404): (no message)"

what could be the problem? Seyisage (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Seyisage: I don't know, but doubt it's an AfC issue. Maybe ask eg. at WP:TECHPUMP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks
 * I reopened the previous draft on a different page and tried editing that. Copied my current changes and republished. That worked. Seyisage (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

10:25, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Agnidathkn
The reason behind rejecting my article was not sourcing statements like date of birth. How to give a source about the date of birth? Agnidathkn (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Agnidathkn: this draft hasn't been rejected, only declined (meaning you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons).
 * You reference the DOB the same way as any other piece of information, by citing the published source that provides it. Where did you get the DOB from?
 * Needless to say, it's not just the DOB you need to reference, but everything: eg. the 'Early Life' section is completely unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

10:55, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Botota
Why was my article deleted? I think this article is important, please Botota (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Botota: nothing has been deleted, your draft was only declined; the reason for this was that there was no evidence of notability. And I should probably add that since the decline this draft has been made into a real mess, so it has no chance of being accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

11:06, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Constance52
Hi,

I would really appreciate any specific advice on how to improve my draft page, or whether there is a route for a more experienced editor to work on my page. Thanks! Constance Constance52 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Constance52: you need to cut down on the REFBOMBING – we don't need to see half a dozen sources verifying who the Director was more than a decade ago. We do, however, very much need to see sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, namely: significant coverage (of the Institute, not some indirectly related matters) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks that's really helpful. C Constance52 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

15:07, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Da Piped M
Can pls find more sources? Da Piped M (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Da Piped M: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

15:48, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Michaelw3211
I do not understand why I cannot get this article published. I have all the rights of all the photos and I am being hired to create this article. Please help Michaelw3211 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Michaelw3211: you cannot get it published for the reasons given in the decline notices, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
 * Also, given that you have been hired to create this article, you must make a paid-editing disclosure, as explained in WP:PAID. This is a hard requirement; please do this as your very next edit. (You may also want to show your boss this: WP:BOSS. It explains why the job they've given you is wholly unreasonable.)
 * As for "having all the rights" in the images, it isn't enough for you to have the rights, they must be released into the public domain, and in any case we cannot simply take your say-so, there needs to be some evidence that this has been done. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have evidence through email, how do I submit it Michaelw3211 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Michaelw3211: don't worry about the images, they are irrelevant in what comes to getting this draft accepted (and hence, I will go and remove them, for now). You need to deal with the other issues highlighted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

22:10, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Khalidqtr1968
I have made the changes to the article today, But I'm not able to submit it for review, can you please check and help me out, review the final edited article. Khalidqtr1968 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Khalidqtr1968: you're unable to submit this draft, because it has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

23:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Filmforme
Looking for additional opinions about the subject here. Is this draft acceptable the way it is, or is further coverage needed? Thanks. Filmforme (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for context, I recommended that Filmforme come here for a second opinion. Here is the relevant discussion. Would appreciate if someone is willing to take a second look and provide some feedback. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Filmforme, I took a look and left a comment on the draft. I agree with the decline.  S0091 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)