Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 10

= April 10 =

03:33, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5
I want edit this artist page and I planned to giving a good references 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is little point in editing this draft, as it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously available, you may make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This draft title was protected so IP decided to create it under Draft:VigneshSivajayam despite the advice here and numerous rejections.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

08:27, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Vanity013
The topic is a cinematographer Vanity013 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Vanity013: yes, and? Do you have question you would like to ask? This draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He is a beginning cinematographer and has reputation via the Emtee music video which has credible sources / articles that mention Kabelo Sebake
 * I ask that his article be posted on main space or user space and further references will be added as his career grows  Vanity013 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Kabelo Sebake has two sources neither of which mention Sebake? Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanity013: nope, doesn't work like that; we don't publish articles on non-notable subjects in anticipation of them possibly becoming notable later. If, as his career progresses, he one day becomes notable, a new case can be made then. But for now, being a 'beginner' almost certainly means that he is not notable enough to be included at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

09:53, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Ckptr3690
I am a first-time joiner of Wikipedia. My article are being rejected many times. The last time it said appears to read more like an advertisement. But I believe it is already written in a natural way. In fact I am not connected with the subject, I just tried to add a missing page. Could anyone please help to tell me in what sentence or words that look like an advertisement? Ckptr3690 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You have few sources other than the school website, and those you do have seem to just detail routine activities. This is considered "advertising".  There needs to be sources with significant coverage of this school, coverage that details what is considered important/significant/influential about it- how it meets the special definition of a notable school. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the explanations and directions. It is more clear now. Ckptr3690 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

13:03, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 75.88.67.7
This is a list of forthcoming books similar to the "Marvel Epic Collection" line which has a wikipedia page (that I made). The only information we have right now is directly from the publisher via press release and solicitations. I could source other sites that are getting the same information from the publisher that doesn't seem to solve the problem. How can I get this page published before the books actually get released? Because, by the time the first book releases, several dozen more will have been solicited and need to be complied. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is highly unlikely that something not yet released would be notable. Indeed, if, as you say, you cannot find independent sources, then that pretty much proves my point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I could find multiple examples of sites stating the importance of this line of books (here, here, and here, for example). I just didn't do that before as the line is not yet published, so some of the information from each source is coming directly from press releases. This line is notable because its goal is to publish the entire history of some of DC's (and American comics' in general) most significant and noteworthy characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) in their entirety. With the way publishing works, at least in terms of comic book collections, the books have to be solicited approximately six months ahead of their publication date. DC seems to be pushing these books very hard, as they've solicited 10 volumes for publication in November 2024 or later. If you wait until the first book actually hits the shelves for purchase, and DC publishes them at the same rate, there could be a list of almost 40-50 books to compile, which would be significantly more difficult and complicated than keeping track of the books as they are solicited. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

13:26, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 152.23.179.99
Hey there, My draft was rejected with the comment "The current draft contains too much bragging". So, I edited it and submitted the revised version again. I am wondering if it will have another chance to be reviewed. In addition, the picture I uploaded was removed with the reason "No permission since 1 April 2024". I am confused because I own this picture and I am not sure where I should get permission from. 152.23.179.99 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, if you're, please log into your account whenever editing.
 * Secondly, your draft was not rejected (which means end of the road), only declined (which means you can improve and resubmit it). So yes, you can have another review, and have indeed already resubmitted the draft.
 * As for your copyright in the image, you can find details of how to donate your copyright at WP:DCM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

16:15, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Dutchmagazine
I'm not sure I'm going in the right direction - the first time I submitted my draft the feedback was good and related to adding more references, the second time I submitted it, it was rejected because of language. Should I make the draft more concise? I'm sure the subject meets notability requirements. Many thanks Dutchmagazine (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dutchmagazine: I've accepted your draft, thanks for improving the referencing so promptly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

21:10, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Antochkat
My submission was declined. (sorry if my english is bad) I don't understand why at all. This draft is a translation of an article in French that I myself wrote ("Historiographie alternative de l'Empire Mongol"), and which was verified and then accepted by French moderation because it follows the rules of Wikipedia. I am told that it was refused firstly because I did not cite enough sources: THERE ARE 41, almost all books by historians, from different authors, almost all of which you can read on the internet. I can hardly do more. Second, I am told that the point of view is not neutral, yet at no point do I promote these theories. The proof: throughout the article I constantly repeat: "according to the author", "according to his theories", etc. And also I use the conditional. Maybe my English is too bad and I'm wording it wrong? In this case I need help please Antochkat (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Antochkat: we don't publish original research or synthesis, which this essay seems to be, or any sort of 'new theories' etc. that aren't well-known and widely-discussed in their field already. If you wish to promulgate an alternative to the current orthodoxy, Wikipedia is almost certainly not the right platform for that.
 * As for whether the French-language Wikipedia has accepted your article, this has no bearing on us here on the English-language one, as each language project is entirely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

23:56, 10 April 2024 review of submission by IWasIAm
Hello, I was wondering if the new changes make this acceptable to be an article, and if not I was wondering what more needs to be added to make it official. IWasIAm (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not acceptable, and likely never will be anytime soon, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. "Up and coming" singers almost never merit articles; a singler must have already arrived and been noticed, meeting the definition of a notable singer as shown with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)