Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 14

= October 14 =

02:23, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Michallauren91882
Could you please provide guidance and support in ensuring the accurate implementation of these edits on the Wikipedia page? Michallauren91882 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Michallauren91882: can you be more specific, please; what support do you need?
 * The first thing that you will need to do is to support the draft contents with proper referencing, using inline citations and footnotes. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

05:32, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Gyalten.jigdrel
Hello!

Thank you for agreeing to help. I would like to ask whether the notability of Gyalten Khen Rinpoche is sufficiently attested to by the fact that he

1. Is the spiritual director of Awakening Vajra International (www.awakeningvajrainternational.org), a network of dharma centers that are active in a number of educational, spiritual, and charitable projects.

2. Is the abbott of Lama Gaun Tashi Rabten Monastery in Nepal (link has been added in the opening section of this draft (http://lamagaunmonastery.org/)

3. Is the main student of Kyabje Choden Rinpoche (Wiki-page exists) and is entrusted with the preservation of the educational and spiritual legacy of his successor Tenzin Gyalten. He was the leading figure in the search for the legitimate successor of Kyabje Chöden Rinpoche.

4. Has been awarded an award by the Mayor of San Jose (CA), USA, in recognition of "his work and deep dedication for teaching the Buddha-Dharma in California and worldwide" (image uploaded)

Also, as for the issue of the neutrality of view, I would like to ask which elements would need to be reconfigured so that the upload will be successful, since all pertinent information has been disclosed on my contributor's profile (especially that I have not received any funds etc. for any contribution made to this article) and, as far as I understand, the issue has been cleared.

Thank you so much for your help, since I have been writing on this draft for nearly 5 years now ... :-) Gyalten.jigdrel (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gyalten.jigdrel: the short answer is no, none of the above points establish notability. Also, the referencing of this draft is insufficient for the purposes of both notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear DoubleGrazing,
 * Thank you for your message. Could you explain maybe somewhat more elaborately why being the spiritual director of an international network of associated Buddhist Centres does not establish sufficient notability that deserves a Wikipedia-page entry?
 * He is a public persona with a large following of students, and I wonder by what metric he would not be notable enough to deserve a reference on Wikipedia. Gyalten.jigdrel (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merely being a public figure does not guarantee that someone is notable as Wikipedia defines notability for people. None of your sources are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. His organization's website is not an independent source, and anything sourced to it should be removed. We want to know what sources wholly independent of him choose on their own to say about him. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me.
 * In fact, I would like to point out that it is not correct that "none of your sources are independent reliable sources", since references 1, 11, and 12, constituting nearly 25% of the total number of references, are references to materials on completely unaffiliated institutions, e.g. the Kringellocken Kloster in Potsdam, Germany (https://www.kringellocken-kloster.de/).
 * Could you give us a benchmark, (e.g. a minimum of 33% or 50% etc.) of sources that have to hail from outside the individual's own organization?
 * Thank you for your help in this. Much appreciated. Gyalten.jigdrel (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a certain percentage, because it isn't that primary sources are disallowed, but that they do not establish notability. Most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage to be summarized in order to accept a draft. Reference 1 says "public lecture"; that is just him speaking and is not an independent source. 11 is a gallery of images from a monastery that hosted him(if I understand it correctly) which isn't independent. 12 also seems to just document an event he is involved with.
 * We are looking for independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this man, not just documentation of his activities, but sources that describe what makes him important/significant/influential as a person, in order to meet WP:BIO.
 * Large sections of the draft are entirely unsourced, such as most information about his background 331dot (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concrete help. That is much appreciated. Would this entry in a German Journal called "Tibet und Buddhismus: Oct. 2018" help establish notability?
 * https://www.tibet.de/fileadmin/Bilder/Zeitschrift/TiBu_119/TiBu_119_13Geshe_Gyalten_Kunga.pdf
 * I appreciate your feedback Gyalten.jigdrel (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

07:14, 14 October 2023 review of submission by 103.147.87.19
Lack of Significant Coverage: Mention that the topic or article lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Explain that there are only passing mentions or that the sources do not provide substantial information about the subject.

Independent Sources: Highlight the absence of independent, secondary sources. Emphasize that the existing sources might not be independent of the subject, which is a key criterion for notability.

Importance: Explain the importance of the topic and why it should be included in Wikipedia. Make a case for its relevance and significance, and how it contributes to the broader knowledge base.

Encourage Improvement: Express your willingness to work on improving the article or finding additional, reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Request Guidance: Ask for guidance from experienced Wikipedia editors or volunteers on how to address the notability issues and improve the article's quality.

Be Respectful: Maintain a respectful and polite tone in your request for assistance, as this can help foster a positive response from the Wikipedia community. 103.147.87.19 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

08:10, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Honeysingh1234321
Hey I have made the changes. Can you please check and help me? Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Honeysingh1234321: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. Besides, as this draft has been rejected, your only way forward is to appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Honeysingh1234321 have replied to you above, no need to make topics on my Talk Page and again here.  Qcne  (talk)  09:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Qcne,
 * Thank you for taking the time to review my Draft:Regar Raghuvanshi Kshatriya . I understand the importance of reliable sources, and I've made an effort to include them where possible.
 * The article is about the caste which original history is mentioned in this article. I have cited all the valid ancient pdfs and books where these information is mentioned which I believe to be a reliable source. Could you please provide more specific feedback regarding which areas or statements in the draft you found lacking in reliable sources?
 * I would make more improvements if required. Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Honeysingh1234321 I'll just copy what I stated above:
 * Hi @Honeysingh1234321. This has gotten a bit complicated now, as you've also submitted
 * Draft:Rehgars_/_Regar which seems to be a duplicate of the submission Draft:Regar_Raghuvanshi_Kshatriya.
 * However, Robert McClenom was correct to point out we have an article on this group at Regar. They seem to be the same group? Is there a reason you cannot improve the already existing Regar article instead?
 *  Qcne  (talk)  09:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Qcne
 * I’m new to wikipedia. I by mistakenly submitted same two pages Draft:Rehgars / Regar / Draft:Regar Raghuvanshi Kshatriya
 * The information mentioned on the article Regar is not correct about the community.
 * For which I have already given the proof / reliable sources on the talk page of Regar but nothing happened.
 * On the article Regar, the community has been categorised under different community which is wrong information.
 * “Raigar caste is not related to Chamar/Jatav Raigar / Rehgars caste (Artisans) comes under Class V Artisans and belongs to group 11 mentioned on page 197. Whereas Chamar is a separate caste belongs to Class VII. Leather Workers and the Lower Village Menials ( page 199) Reliable sources Page 196, Class V Artisans, GROUP 11. Salt and Lime Workers(Page 197), Rehgars, General Report on the Census of India, 1891” https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/general-report-on-the-census-of-india-1891/ 2. Page 199, Class VII, Leather workers and the Lower menials, General Report on the Census of India, 1891 https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/general-report-on-the-census-of-india-1891/
 * The only reason I have created a new article, which is getting rejected again and again
 * please guide me. It would be really helpful Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you discussed proposed changes to Regar and they have not been accepted, you can't circumvent that by creating a separate article. There can only be one article about this topic. As noted at Talk:Regar, you need to provide independent reliable sources. If you have no such sources, your proposed edits cannot be on Wikipedia.
 * Castes in India is a designated contentious topic, meaning that is has its own special rules. I will notify you of these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already provided reliable sources.
 * I have given the evidence from government census list.
 * The article Regar page is not replying nor they are editing.
 * what should I do? Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not appear to support the content? Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What type of sources does wikipedia need to support any valid information?
 * please help me Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ones that support the content for instance this doesn't appear to mention Regar? Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Theroadislong @Theroadislong
 * Thankyou for replying. My source Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Theroadislong
 * @Theroadislong
 * Thankyou for replying. This source  clearly mention Regar (Rehgar)
 * on page 197 under Class V Artisans in Group 11(Salt and Lime workers) as Rehgar.
 * Whereas, Chamar is mentioned in Class VII on page 199. which means both are different group of people and different community and doesn’t belong to each other. Regar (Rehgar) is not related to chamar.
 * This wrong information is mentioned on article Regar. I am unable to edit article Regar.
 * please kindly check the above details.
 * Regar and Rehgars, both are same.
 * Please let me know what more reiable source, I need to present
 * It would be really helpful Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Honeysingh1234321: just to say that this help desk is for issues arising from the AfC review process and/or drafts undergoing review. If it is the case that your draft duplicates a topic already in the main space, then your draft can not be accepted, as already explained, and that is the end of the matter as far as AfC is concerned. If, beyond that, you have general questions about Wikipedia, may I suggest that you pose them at the general Help desk or the Teahouse? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be really helpful Honeysingh1234321 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Honeysingh1234321: just to say that this help desk is for issues arising from the AfC review process and/or drafts undergoing review. If it is the case that your draft duplicates a topic already in the main space, then your draft can not be accepted, as already explained, and that is the end of the matter as far as AfC is concerned. If, beyond that, you have general questions about Wikipedia, may I suggest that you pose them at the general Help desk or the Teahouse? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

17:42, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Divourie
I am trying to post about tranzpotter (me) and it dont work at all, i only get error messages whene im trying to post it publicly on Wikipedia. Divourie (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Divourie. I have rejected your draft. You have shown no evidence you meet the strict WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. Wikipedia is not a way to promote yourself or your music, and only musicians who pass that criteria may have an article written about them.  Qcne  (talk)  19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two following criteria matter for this ensemble, the rest of the rules are materialistic, this ensemble doesn’t qualify as “notable” (because record sales is not why they are notable. Seattle KEXP is a renowned public nonprofit arguably experts in music, anyone they pick for a live set has achieved notoriety amongst *music experts*:
 * > Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
 * Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Skyefleming (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

23:00, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Skyefleming
I suspect the topic did not qualify for a page due to my lack of experience with writing articles. The thing I was considering for additional qualification *based on their musical work and skill level paying expert tribute to unique world music genres that aren’t mainstream*. Just because “world music” doesn’t sell as many records doesn’t make it unimportant and it is capable of achieving notoriety within the communities where those genres are appreciated but only if the artists are *experts*and their “stylings” are “expert level” to other experts of that music genre. Wiki has not been told to see funk or afrobeat as “important” enough to be tag projects but maybe they should be, there’s definitely enough notoriety and art there?! Whether commercial markets see a given art as valuable and relevant should not be the main determining factor for the relevance of expert level *artist musicians*. There’s possibly a way of qualifying a group of subject matter experts on an art topic I am not finding, curious about that. From a neutral standpoint these people are *experts* in the tag areas I chose, I thought that would be relevant for qualifying as well but the general rejection was for references so it’s perhaps I just made a newbie mistake formatting something?! Skyefleming (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The first thing you have to do is format the references correctly, right now they’re just links. KingTheD (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You also need to have more than three very short paragraphs KingTheD (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Skyefleming. The criteria for inclusion when it comes to musical artists is at WP:NMUSIC. Your sources do not yet prove this band has met that criteria. Your sources are...
 * 1) An interview
 * 2) An interview
 * 3) An advert  Qcne  (talk)  13:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

23:07, 14 October 2023 review of submission by Knowledgebomb5000
Hello. I was attempting to create an article, however it was declined due to the citations not being appropriate. However, the citations do support the statements about the person that the article is about. How can this be resolved? Knowledgebomb5000 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You have documented her work and her views on herself, but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, WP:NARTIST. That usually entails something like independent, unsolicited reviews of her or her work. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)