Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 31 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 2 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


February 1[edit]

07:23:06, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Itisthebio[edit]

Hi Wikipedians, i need help on my work, kindly check if it there's wrong with it or something that needs to be change please change it thanks!

Itisthebio (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itisthebio: I'm afraid the draft would not be accepted if it were submitted now. None of the sources is independent of Baddie Roma, and iTunes Store, Spotify, IMDb, and YouTube should not be used as sources at all. Most of the content is unsourced, and almost all of it is written in a promotional or very colloquial tone. The draft makes no actual claim to notability, and given that it's only been a month since you were asking about creating an article about the artist under her previous artist name Nikka Starr (a title that has been create protected after multiple attempts to create articles about her), it seems pretty clear that this not a notable musician.
You have been asked to disclose any conflict of intetest you might have with the subjects you edit about. Since Draft:Baddie Roma is full of information that isn't in any source, it seems pretty likely that you have got it from her. If you have a connection to her or any other people or topics you write about, please disclose that. There's info on your user talk page about how to make such a disclosure. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:10:51, 1 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SRIKANTH2304[edit]


SRIKANTH2304 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SRIKANTH2304 You don't ask a question. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, instead this is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in your case, that of a notable creative professional. Please also be aware of the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:48, 1 February 2022 review of submission by Ogouogou[edit]

My draft article was declined and the reviewer said "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I disagree with that and can show it. I do not think the reviewer knew the quality of the sources that were cited. Their are multiple mainstream reliable news, magazine, and government website citations that refer to the article subject. They aren't just passing mentions.

How can I contest the decline? Ogouogou (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ogouogou You are free to resubmit a declined draft(a rejected draft could not be resubmitted); simply click the "resubmit" button. However, I believe that the reviewer was correct, and without substantial changes the draft would be declined again. The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the topic, they just document its existence and what the project is. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on press releases, interviews, announcements, brief mentions, other primary sources) to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Instead of a large number of low-quality sources, a small number of high-quality sources would go further towards the draft passing this process. Most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage- coverage that is in depth and goes beyond just documenting the existence of the topic. Please read Your First Article.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you have a paid relationship with this topic, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The primary 3 sources are a printed profile in a mainstream magazine, a newspaper article about the project, and a government website describing the project. I believe these constitute significant coverage. Many other links are included to support specific details, such as date ranges and quantities, within the text description. I spent a month gathering citations to justify notability, along with researching this process. I also looked at a large number of articles similar in nature. I believe I submitted a substantial draft. It's surprising to hear a suggestion of removing the supporting links. The submission process has been opaque and seems arbitrary. I feel like a value judgement is being made on the subject and not a consideration of the actual supporting material. BTW, I am not being paid to create the article. -- Ogouogou (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou Okay, but please note that you don't have to be specifically paid to create this article to be a paid editor- any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirement(such as being the subject's PR/communications person). Otherwise every paid editor would say that they weren't specifically paid to create their articles, rendering the requirement toothless.
Please link to those sources here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content Magazine
San Jose Mercury News
City of Palo Alto
Ogouogou (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ogouogou All three of these sources are based on interviews with the artist. The one from the City also announces the location of his work. These do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I have been looking at other artist and musician article pages and see many citations based on sources that include interviews. It is a very common approach to the discourse about contemporary artists. Art history texts also quote artists describing their intent and practice. By excluding these, I am at a loss for how to establish notability for any artist or musician. I don't know how to proceed with this feedback. --11:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou I believe you that there are many other articles that likely do not follow guidelines. See other stuff exists; this does not mean that more inappropriate articles can be created. Only new users and IP users are required to use this process(though it is a good idea for all until one gains experience) and it has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
Note that interviews are not completely prohibited as sources for articles, but they cannot be used to establish notability as it is the subject speaking about themselves, a primary source. I'm not sure which claim to notability you assert that this artist meets- but it is usually demonstrated through unsolicited reviews of the work which explain why it is significant. The two interviews you linked to here seem to just summarize what the artist says about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot From the link you offered, I submit 3 examples of notability. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique: The Art Review Generator he made uses modern AI techniques to generate those art reviews. There is nothing like it right now. An unsolicited review of his music states, "his November release Critters is its own language. It is unlike anything we’ve heard." 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. The Wolves project mentioned in the article is very well known, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newspaper article is one example of the coverage. There are many others, but they use blogging platforms. No, it didn't get national coverage, but it is absolutely notable from a regional point of view. There are many many Wikipedia articles that are regional in nature. The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention Winning first place in a global film contest sponsored by the Internet Archive is pretty significant.
331dot I can tell that you personally don't think his project is notable, but from a regional perspective he is. The sources cited in the article make use of all the media outlets (except broadcast TV) available for a non-national topic. I wonder what path forward there is to reference independent creatives and cultural figures on Wikipedia. The interpretation of notability criteria you are using seems less like scholastic rigor and more like gatekeeping. I made a substantial effort to satisfy all the requirements I could quantify. If I can't convince you or the original editor then I'll let it go. But, I do feel like this is a notable project and deserves inclusion. -- Ogouogou (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou A topic does not have to get national coverage(though it helps), but it does have to get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Local projects can qualify, but not always. I think that the topic is potentially notable, but the sources do not support that yet, or at least the ones that you offer. I encourage you to not just listen to me; I make mistakes sometimes, feel free to get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot On today's homepage on Wikipedia, an entertainer called Mothica is featured. Most of the citations for her article are from a regional newspaper in Oklahoma and another is from a tattoo magazine. All of the citations prominently feature interviews with her as their primary information. In fact, "Mothica has no record label, publicist, or manager, and describes herself as a self-made musician." She gained popularity on TikTok. Now, I believe that article was thoroughly vetted to be included on the homepage. But, based on our discussion here she wouldn't fit your definition of notability. I think this a good example of the arbitrary nature of this process. Wouldn't you agree? --Ogouogou (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou Wikipedia is a volunteer project, with tens of thousands of editors from around the world. Naturally those people will have differing interpretations of policies and guidelines. As I've said, don't just listen to me, get other opinions. I make mistakes. I am not the only and last word. However, be wary of citing other articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
I've never said regional coverage is not acceptable. Note that as a musician Mothica has a different set of notability criteria. Mothica's claim to notability(one of her songs charted) is not based on an interview, even though it is described in a piece that contains an interview. Lucidbeaming's claims to notability that you assert are not as clear cut as a song hitting the charts, and you seem to be basing that largely on what the artist says about themselves and not on what others say about them. I stand by what I have said, but again, get views from others. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:47, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SaffaGugliani[edit]

I have seen this figure on tiktok and youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCES7l9FqHZyvJzd3eido6ow he is very popular and I think he deserves a place on Wikipedia.


SaffaGugliani (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaffaGugliani The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to honor or recognize someone. This is an encyclopedia, which has criteria for inclusion. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You offered no sources whatsoever. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Jc4400[edit]


I am seeking guidance on how to improve my submission so it meets approval criteria. I understand and value the fact that Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet and that is why I tried to only include facts backed by trusted third party sources such as Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Harvard, etc. Can someone advise me what I should remove and/or change so that this article passes the Wikipedia threshold? Many of Bryan's peers (Ray Dalio, Warren Buffett, Bill Frist) and companies he founded (GCTR, Cressey Thoma Bravo, etc) have Wikipedia pages which suggests people of his stature are worthy of being included in Wikipedia as long as the page is written properly. Thank you in advance for any guidance you provide a lost soul such as myself. :)

Jc4400 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jc4400 A Wikipedia article does not just summarize facts; it summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The sources you offered do not have significant coverage of Cressey. Profiles and similar do not establish notability. To pass this process you need only have three reliable sources with significant coverage; I would focus on just summarizing your three best sources, the rest can come later. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Ntndude[edit]


Ntndude (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry sir your decision may be right But I hope for your help, If I have any mistake in this article then please help me to correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntndude (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:28, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Japan.Travel[edit]


Hello, I would like to add a picture in the infobox but the name keeps getting denied even though I follow the instructions. How can I fix this issue? Thanks for your help!

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless adding a photograph, the draft is just blatant advertising and will shortly be speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Japan.Travel, worry about writing an acceptable article first. Also see WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:NCORP. In short, Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business and will only accept articles that have significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:46, 1 February 2022 review of submission by HadyElmadany[edit]


HadyElmadany (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I want example about the reliable source is[reply]

22:44:10, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SFManagement[edit]


Hello, I am new to wikipedia and got a rejection for my first article draft saying that the article I created was lacking "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - what exactly does this mean for a musician, a classical composer who's works have been published by a major publisher? Would the publisher count as a reliable, secondary source? Are press articles, interviews, concert programs considered "significant coverage"?

Also I had Wikipedia:External links which I removed now upon the reviewers request. Why are external links wrong?

Thank you

SFManagement (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFManagement First, you must change your username immediately to represent yourself as a individual(real names are not required); business usernames are not permitted. Please see your user talk page for more information.
A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. We don't need citations to document the existence of her music(such as from her publisher), we need to know what people say about her music(and not based on materials put out by her like an interview). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_1&oldid=1070350973"