Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 8

= September 8 =

01:39, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Pathania1009
please suggest advice in changing the article Pathania1009 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As you will have been informed, this draft has now been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

05:16, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Deadstay
The message given "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is very broad and doesn't explain the issues with the page. Deadstay (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Deadstay: without commenting on whether or not the rejection was done correctly, the concept of notability is explained in detail in the notability guideline to which the link in the rejection notice points (and further elaborated by the multiple links in the earlier decline notice). Please study those, and if you still have a question after that, come back to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still somewhat confused on the topic of notability. What does 'sufficiently notable' mean exactly? How notable does a topic have to be in order for it to mean the 'sufficiently notable' criteria? Deadstay (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sufficiently notable" means "notable enough for a Wikipedia article". The vast majority of the sources in this draft are about routine activities about it- that it was in development, that it reached Beta, and that it was released- these things happen to every video game. Any article about this game must do more than tell of its existence- it must summarize independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the game- coverage that goes beyond basic information and goes into detail about the significance of the game.  For most creative works(films, books, games, etc.) that means independent, unsolicited reviews of the work by professional reviewers.  The award nomination doesn't really contribute to that unless there are sources that discuss the significance of the award(to the point where the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks alot. Deadstay (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

06:09, 8 September 2023 review of submission by ReverseDelay
My submission was declined and the reason stated was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, my article does cite sources from major news organizations in the country where this article is most relevant. There is also a page on a similar topic that is already approved even if it has the same citation quality. When I looked at the talk page of the editor who rejected my submission, I saw that there were multiple discussions regarding issues about the editor's recent work in AfC. Given these, I think my draft was wrongly disapproved. Can I just resubmit again without further edits? (I'm worried about the note that the draft might be deleted.) ReverseDelay (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @ReverseDelay: my take on it, FWIW, is that this draft has been correctly declined, although possibly for the wrong reason. I would have declined it for lack of notability, rather, because I don't think the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and as a very new release I doubt it would meet WP:NFILM, either. You may wish to ask the reviewer directly for their rationale in picking that decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

06:22, 8 September 2023 review of submission by A smart kitten
Hi! I’ve had my draft declined with the reason Fails WP:DISAMBIG. However, with no other explanation or pointers, I admit I’m struggling to understand exactly which part(s) of the guideline my draft fails, so I’m not sure how to improve upon/fix the issues prior to resubmission (or even if the issues are considered fixable). I’d therefore be grateful if an editor could provide me with some extra information on which part(s) of the dab guideine my draft fails.

For context, I created this draft with the intention of greatly reducing the length of the hatnote currently present at Adam West (Family Guy). As there are three links currently there to other ‘Mayor West’s, and a fourth ‘Mayor West’ I found while creating the page (that may also be otherwise added to the hatnote), I thought that this was a good opportunity for a dab page.

All the best

A smart kitten (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @A smart kitten: the Adam West (Family Guy) article is considered the primary topic, meaning the majority of people searching for 'Mayor West' are likely to be looking for that. If there were several articles with competing claim to be primary topics, ie. each getting a significant proportion of searches, then a disambiguation would be needed. But I'd wager that nobody (or at least very few people) looking for, say, Ben West, would search for 'Mayor West'. That's my interpretation of it, at any rate; someone with better understanding of dabs may come along shortly. (I recommend reading that DISAMBIG guideline, BTW, if you haven't yet.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your response! I understand what you’re saying — all I think I’d really have to say in response to that (at least right now) is that the hatnote has been in place at the article since 2015, was reaffirmed by other editors in 2016 and 2019, and so I’d argue that the hatnote has an implied consensus to remain. I’d also argue that, as the purpose of this draft dab page is to take over much of the functionality of the hatnote, that this implied consensus would also in a way apply to this dab page.
 * In terms of reading the guideline, I often find it hard to read things like that all in one go; so while I have probably read (or at least skimmed!) a fair bit of it by now, my immediate recap of it isn’t yet enough to be able to refer to it without going back and checking/re-reading the specific bit I want to refer to.
 * All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @A smart kitten, I have accepted this draft in accordance with my response on the Teahouse.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  10:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

07:54, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie
Dear all,

As I have added new sources of Serbian media, please reconsider the article.

Best Regards, Visokoblagorodie (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Visokoblagorodie, as your draft has been rejected you'll need to reach out to the reviewer directly via his talk page, User_talk:Taking_Out_The_Trash.  Qcne  (talk)  13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

12:41, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Igreo
I don't understand what the non-referenced sources are, there are many sources and they are all online from referenced and important sites. Is there something to correct in the wikitext? Thank you Igreo (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Igreo: it's not enough to list sources, they need to be cited with inline citations, so that it's clear which source supports what content. Also, it's not enough to cite each source once, they need to be cited wherever you're making a material or potentially contentious statement, or disclosing some private personal information. There are currently several paragraphs, and the entire 'Private Life' section, without a single citation. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice on referencing, and WP:BLP on writing articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the answer, but I ask you a favor: could you give me an example? that is, point me to some statement not supported by a source. In short, I could use a hand to fix the draft. Thanks again Igreo (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Igreo: for example the DOB on the first line, and the 'Private Life' section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Thank you very much, I made some changes, is that better? Do you find any other significant ones? How long do you think the draft is left to go well? Igreo (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Can I try and send a new review of the draft? Igreo (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Igreo: yes, unless and until the draft has been rejected, ie. has only been declined, you can resubmit, once you've addressed the reasons for the previous decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

14:17, 8 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015
I have added citations and believe this to now meet the criteria required. DCM2015 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @DCM2015: while this is an improvement, in that some of the information is now referenced, some remains unreferenced, and there is still no sign of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep going then! All of those citations make him pretty notable though! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DCM2015, it's not necessarily the amount of citations that make someone notable, but the quality. The sources must pass the WP:SOURCE criteria. We would rather see three good quality sources than 20 poor quality ones.  Qcne  (talk)  14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually... they don't. None of the sources meets the WP:GNG standard for notability. And I'm still not seeing any credible claim of, let alone evidence for, WP:AUTHOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added citations to virtually all the awards and are all reputable sources! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Will keep going! Learning a lot about Wikipedia in the process! DCM2015 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

17:19, 8 September 2023 review of submission by NBhistory43
Hey there! I was just wondering what specifically was deemed unreliable (A NYTIMEs review, College Alumni Magazine, Website URLS, additional, etc?) Happy to accommodate what's needed to get this up there. NBhistory43 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @NBhistory43: your draft is not referenced, which is required, but instead has inline external links, which are not allowed. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)