Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 19

= February 19 =

05:35, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Poketape
This article is being held to a higher standard than other tennis tournaments, such as Almaty Open and Zhuhai Championships. It is simply the nature of tennis tournaments that all required information comes directly from the ATP/WTA Tours or the tournament host. poketape (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Poketape. Wikipedia has, unfortunately, many tens of thousands of poor quality poorly sourced articles. We certainly don't want to add more to that pile. Looking at the draft now compared to when it was declined, I think it's now passed the threshold of notability so I will accept it for you.  Qcne  (talk)  09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

11:37, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Ravikantshinde
I Understand that the article had large number of references but honestly this was for the notability proof of the work. This article needs to be accepted. Please guide me so that I can make it possible with all respect. Ravikantshinde (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was deleted as "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person". It clearly DOESN'T need to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your relationship with Dr. Shinde? Are you a relative? 331dot (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

15:15, 19 February 2024 review of submission by 47.221.1.83
How can I include references from printed articles that are not online (from before 1994)? 47.221.1.83 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * See this for advice: WP:OFFLINE. It's important to include enough details in the citation so that the source can be reliably identified. It would also be very helpful if you could somehow indicate what the source says, eg. by including a quotation. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

17:49, 19 February 2024 review of submission by MTlegends
I continue to submit my article for review and it continues to send blank. Help me understand exactly what I am doing wrong. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @MTlegends: that's because your sandbox is blank.
 * It seems you've added draft content to your talk page User_talk:MTlegends, though, and also submitted that. I will move that to a new draft page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One source of confusion may be that you need to click "Publish changes" to save your edits. This button used to say "save", but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am not a educated enough to understand how this systems work. I appreciation the guidance. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MTlegends: okay, I've moved the content to a new draft, at Draft:Walter Wetzel Sr., and removed it from your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. I will review and see if I can find more information to add in the article. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 23:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

19:29:02, 19 February 2024 review of submission by PenmanWarrior Draft:Michele Evans
This was declined erroneously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opinion/rikers-jail-covid.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

There are many other articles about Ms. Evans PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed the concerns at Articles for deletion/Michele Evans. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @PenmanWarrior. Why are you so hell-bent on getting this draft created (I presume you are the IP editor from the Articles for Deletion discussion)? Do you have a connection to Michele?
 * I've had a glance at the draft as an uninvolved reviewer and I do not see the notability. I see a lot of fluff about her self-published books, professional and, personal life: but frankly most (all?) of it could be deleted. You have also refbombed the defamation lawsuit paragraph, and I do not think it warrants inclusion in the article at all.
 * Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable.
 * Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable.
 * I think we might be able to get to the notability threshold by focusing on her Riker's Island incarceration? But I am not sure if it would warrant it's own article. Surely her advocacy about the conditions on Riker's island has been reported in the local or national press? The two sources and the op-ed for this are primary sources so useless for establishing notability.
 * My best advice going forward is to start from scratch, focus entirely on the Riker's Island stuff, and choose three (and only three) sources which are all independent of Michele, from reliable places, and show significant coverage of her.
 * The draft was not declined erroneously and I agree with @Muboshgu's declination as an uninvolved reviewer.
 * Let me know if you have any questions.  Qcne  (talk)  20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At what point do you stop downplaying someone's accomplishments? 6 Novels and a Children's book?  You can argue self-published all you want but you can't argue it's feature in The New York Times!  This is the holy grail of authors.  Time to stop ignoring facts. PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are defensive and I don't appreciate the tone. Please answer the question: what connection do you have to Michele.
 * I am not downplaying her accomplishments. There are literally millions of authors, only a fraction are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Her NYT op-ed is great, but we need significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent of her.  Qcne  (talk)  21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Provided two NEW SOURCES which most definitely address concerns at the article for deletion.
 * 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html
 * 2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing your sources:
 * NYT: This is an okay source. It is an interview with Michele but contains enough commentary to put it over the edge.
 * Rocky Mountain News: This is an interview and a fluff piece and confers no notability.
 *  Qcne  (talk)  21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. More than an ok source.  A book featured in the New York Times is the holy grail for authors.  This is a known fact.
 * 3. Define notability.  Who gets to decide it's a fluff piece?  It's concerning Evans' work.  Show me where describing someone's work is fluff.  Especially since the deletion article's only complaint was there were no sources.   There are now sources, independent of Evans, which is what was demanded.  Please re-read the deletion discussion. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up on responding to you. I gave you constructive criticism. I have 2000+ article reviews under my belt and know what I am talking about. I also trust the consensus from the deletion discussion. This person is not notable and I hope you will be topic banned as per the ANI discussion.  Qcne  (talk)  22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "You can be blaze about somethings Rose, but not the Titanic!" - Caledon Hockley PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By consensus, she was not notable as of 17 January 2024, so 2008 and 2021 refs cannot help overcome that. PenmanWarrior, it seems counter-productive to take a beligerent tone and argue so strongly against those who are explaining our policies and guidelines and even giving you guidance on a route to accomplish what you want. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your logic makes no sense. The argument in the deletion discussion was that no one could find sources that were independent.  They have now been found and included. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)