Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 11

= June 11 =

04:47, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Canadachoral
It was mentioned in other comments that the subject was notorious enough. Vallee is the leading choral conductor in Canada - there's not reason to deny an article on him and his work. The sources have been modified since the first version to include more secondary sources. I would like some more guidance if possible. Canadachoral (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The term is "notability", not "notoriety"(which usually has a more negative connotation). If you believe that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of the reviewer, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly, on their user talk page.
 * I'm wondering, do you have a connection to this individual? 331dot (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

07:01, 11 June 2024 review of submission by CyrilierOne
To be honest, It is an FOS (Free and Open-source) High-level programming language in the Philippines. CyrilierOne (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @CyrilierOne: well, thank you for being honest. Did you have a question in mind?
 * Please don't resubmit declined drafts without adequately addressing the decline reasons. It is annoying and pointless, and will eventually cause the draft to be rejected outright with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes CyrilierOne (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh... could you ask that question here?   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

08:06, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Movieverse88
i am having trouble in creating an article Movieverse88 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you specify the trouble you are having? 331dot (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your article is woefully undersourced, and the two sources you do have are useless (the first being too sparse and the second connected to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Movieverse, writing a draft without first finding several sources that each meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. If you manage to build the house, is it likely to fall down, or to break laws so that you have to pull it down,. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Movieverse, writing a draft without first finding several sources that each meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. If you manage to build the house, is it likely to fall down, or to break laws so that you have to pull it down,. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

10:12, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Kelviszng
This article is a about a famous Sportler and Influencer from Germany. I cant understand why this shouldnt be on Wikipedia. Kelviszng (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kelviszng: apart from the fact that this draft is in German, whereas where are the English-language Wikipedia, there is no evidence that this person is notable. The draft has consequently been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

13:55, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 133.106.134.9
why 133.106.134.9 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean ? Yes, that is indeed pure promotion, and possibly also a copyvio. Hence why it's up for speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

15:51, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Brookesurrett
Hi! This draft was denied due to the page Phil and Tim Hanseroth already existing. I wanted to see if it would be possible to appeal this because while that page does exist, The Hanseroth Twins is the name of their band which is a separate project from just them as brothers. Brookesurrett (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Brookesurrett: but isn't the Phil and Tim Hanseroth article also about "just them as brothers"? In other words, could you not incorporate whatever is the new salient content from this draft into that article, perhaps in a new section? It seems to me pointless to have two articles on the same siblings' musical career. Or have I missed something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

18:17, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Haresh26
Please tell me how to improve this page to get it selected for article. Haresh26 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't accept hagiographical writing. We don't cite IMDb or Instagram (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay if i publish another article without tagging IMdb and Instagram, and make it sound neutral, does it work? Haresh26 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Haresh26: what you're asking is "if I do this better will that be accepted?" Possibly; possibly not; impossible to say speculatively.
 * You shouldn't be writing about yourself, though; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because the only source that would remotely come close to being acceptable is the Hindustan Times piece, and I say that without being able to actually assess it (language barrier). The only other non-Instagram, non-IMDb source is to ZEE5's streaming service, which is also unusable (connexion to subject). We have much stricter sourcing standards for articles on living people, and this applies by definition to autobiographies as well. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood! This helped thankyou! 2406:B400:B4:E893:E15C:560C:BC29:A036 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

18:30, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Martyn66
I am a candidate in the general election on 4th of July for the constituency of Bethnal Green & Stepney. You can find confirmation of this on your wiki page with data supplied by the local electoral commission. Ideally I wanted my name there in blue so that people could find out more. I am an author of books and articles on the new political philosophy called Political Humanism. This can be verified in such periodicals as The Ethical Record which I cited with a link to. I have also had plays on in reputable off-West End theatres including The Waterloo East Theatre which again I cited. Please advice me on how I might get my page established as soon as possible and while the election process is still running. Thank you Martyn66 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Martyn66: Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion of any sort, and that includes political campaigning. If you are deemed notable, an article may be published on you, but you shouldn't assume that can or will be done before the election takes place, or that you can control the content of such an article in any way. In any case, such an article shouldn't be written by you yourself, for reasons laid out in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, thank you. I appreciate you explaining that. I thought there might be enough there to warrant having a page but ok, I guess I’ll have to wait to get more recognition of the writing. All the best Martyn66 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not cite Wikipedia (circular reference) or social media (no editorial oversight). As to the rest of your sources:
 * https://www.conwayhall.org.uk/whats-on/event/is-utopia-within-reach/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). "Upcoming event" announcement.
 * https://www.thehumanistparty.com/political-humanism is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Your own political party is not a good source on you, especially if it merely name-checks you.
 * We can't cite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNFryhSFRNs (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is only acceptable if (1) the video is produced by an organisation we'd consider to have good editorial oversight and (2) it's uploaded to that org's verified channel on the platform.
 * We can't use https://www.conwayhall.org.uk/ (website homepage). Citing a homepage is akin to citing the cover of a book; you need to link to actual articles on that domain.
 * " " " https://www.lse.ac.uk/ (" "). " " " " " " " " " " " "; " " " " " " " " " ".
 * https://reggie66.wixsite.com/now-utopia is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Pretty sure this is your own website, given the URL.
 * https://www.whatsonstage.com/news/an-interview-with-gaddafi-waterloo-east-theatre_34690/ is borderline. It does discuss the play's writing, but otherwise there's little discussion of you.
 * We can't use https://www.waterlooeast.co.uk/ (website homepage).
 * https://westendwilma.com/an-interview-with-gaddafi/ is useless for notability (too sparse). This discusses the writing of An Interview With Gandhi even less than Whatsonstage.com does.
 * We can't use https://www.futuresocialtheatre.com/ (website homepage).
 * " " " https://www.islandrecords.co.uk/ (" ").
 * You have one questionably-usable source; the rest are unusable. For a biography of a living person this isn't anywhere near acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess I didn’t appreciate all that’s involved. There are clearly no shortcuts towards having your work recognised I suppose. Oh well. Martyn66 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you win the election, that in and of itself could be considered notability, but the issues in re our biographical policy would still exist. That said, being elected generally begets coverage, both good and ill, that can be used for an article on you, and there is nothing you can do to dictate the content of any article on you beyond the drafting process. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a few people I’m running against in the Bethnal Green & Stepney constituency general election who have not won elections before either but they have Wikipedia pages. None of them have written books or plays or owned clubs or been signed to a record label, as I have, or have done anything of the notoriety you mentioned. It doesn’t seem fair or even. There’s one candidate that has written a book also, not sold as many as I have but it’s been fully reviewed and analysed by Wikipedia and a childrens fictional story not a work on political theory and economic modelling. I’m a bit disappointed that you’ve been harsh on my entry to Wikipedia and yet so open to others. Martyn66 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

19:18, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 66.165.31.64
I have no real idea why this page was rejected or what corrections might be made to be acceptable. It is a bit like submitting a draft of a book and having it rejected because "there is a missing comma somewhere". This page was submitted in February, and as an old retired guy who does not write web pages or Wikipedia entries for a living, I have tried to follow your formats to the best of my poor abilities. Can you give me some help here? I can not see why Cuis is the only major dialect of Smalltalk with no Wikipedia web page.

Perhaps note/mark places for improvement? I really have no idea what, specifically, is bring objected to. 66.165.31.64 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't cite GitHub (no editorial oversight) or ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me! Just because masters theses or conference talks (e.g. https://smalltalks2023.fast.org.ar/talks) are not "editorialized" does not make reliable, verifiable information "go away". You can easily download, say, https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis7-0 and verify all aspects and claims.  Don't you believe software is real if it is open source and available from GitHub?  You seem to be eliding much of the world here via editorial solipsism.  Have you looked at the references and seen any invalid information?  Surely you must accept some aspects of the world which exists outside of an encyclopedia.  Some information is self validating by its existence. KennethDickey (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @KennethDickey, what is being said here we don't provide proper editorial oversight or in depth fact checking on the content either. This is why the article needs be based on what others not connected to the subject have said about it in what we consider reliable sources. This means the sources used must show us there is impact on the greater world though the independent and significant coverage in these reliable sources. Github, Researchgate or theses do not achieve any of these criteria. You can use connected source for simple uncontestable facts, but again they will not help to demonstrate how they impact the greater world.  McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that we are looking for evidence a subject is notable by Wikipedia's terms, not that a draft's subject exists. Existence has never been a criterion for inclusion. There is also the matter that the bulk of your sources are to GitHub, which does not exercise editorial oversight in the journalism sense (i.e. corrections, retractions, fact-checks). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. So you know of nobody who has the programming/computer science expertise to fact check this directly. Sigh.
 * The antialiased rendering engine and Unicode support are quite unique. KennethDickey (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I invite you to re-read what I just wrote. We're not discussing the accuracy or veracity of the article; we're discussing if the sources demonstrate notability for software as Wikipedia defines it and so far they do not. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that the inability to be able to make a judgement is quite limiting on your ability to accept material.  Again, sigh. KennethDickey (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @KennethDickey, quite the opposite actually, we have made the judgement, that you have not demonstrated how that the software you are writing about is notable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. The onus is on you to prove it, not us. If you are not interested in making an effort in understanding our guidelines, policies and processes then it's probably best you move on to other things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have spent _much_ time reading through your guidelines. I find some irony in having a Wikipedia page for GNU DrGeo, which has been re-implemented in Cuis Smalltalk due to its small size and unique graphic rendering and has a dead link to Cuis-Smalltalk. Cuis has been around for a couple of decades, used to implement non-trivial software, used to teach OO, some of its algorithms have been adapted by Squeak and Pharo, but somehow there is a hole where its page should be.
 * There have been many talks featuring CUIS in European Smalltalk User Group (ESUG.org) and Fundación Argentina de Smalltalk (fast.org.ar) conferences over many years.
 * TheCuisBook's three authors live in Austria, the USA, and Argentina.
 * There is a vibrant and notable world outside of peer reviewed journals.
 * I though I had done a reasonable job in documenting Cuis's notable features -- features which differ from other Smalltalks and other language IDEs. I see no discussion of actual notability.
 * The guidelines also say "Exceptions
 * As with other essays (or guidelines), this essay is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Go ahead and tag that article for deletion or present reasons to keep an article. "
 * I was hoping to convince you of the notable work of a large number of people over many years.
 * I have obviously failed. KennethDickey (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is because convincing reviewers means providing sources to satisfy WP:Notability or WP:Notability (software) - which are guidelines that must be followed, not essays which are opinion pieces - and not trying to pettifog your way into an article with logical fallacy appeals while disregarding what the people trying to help you here are telling you. GitHub and ResearchGate aren't helping your case because neither have any sort of rigourous editorial oversight, which is one of the things we look for in reliable sources (the others being independence from the subject or those associated with it, significant discussion of the topic and the coverage not being routine). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 07:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

23:29, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 1.40.68.212
I received an email from someone reporting to be a Wiki Administrator. His name is Alan James. Is this legitimate?

1.40.68.212 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not; junk it. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A list of active admins can be found here. That's a scam.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)