Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 16 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 18 >
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 17[edit]

03:56:35, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Aimtoaddvalue[edit]


I have updated the content with new sources. Could you please review the draft. Aimtoaddvalue (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Draft Which is Decline[edit]

08:54:40, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Endrabcwizart[edit]


Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One article is decline by reviewer. So I'm here for discussion. According to this article all the given sources are reliable. please read this article and mention me on your answer. thank you

Endrabcwizart The sources you have offered are not significant coverage and do not show that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable lyricist. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the mansion guidelines, but found no weaknesses, If the source has not been reached, put the citation required tag there. thankyou Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endrabcwizart, subject fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. So, I suggest you re-read the policies of wikipedia as your statement of no weakness is incorrect. And a citation needed tag will not fix the fact the subject just isn't notable.Slywriter (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to your suggestion, I make some correction. Thank You... Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Endrabcwizart: That sources are reliable is necessary, but it is not enough. The reliable sources must also be independent, they should be secondary, and they should talk about the subject in some detail. The first source, from Annapurna Post, is an interview which means it is not secondary. There are two sources from The Rising Nepal (you call them GorakhaPatra in the draft, but I think that is the Nepali newspaper that covers the same content?), and the first one ("The Popular Lyricist: Ramesh Dahal") looks like it might be OK, but I am not quite sure. The second one ("Dahal wins modern song competition") is almost certainly a press release (not independent and not secondary) and is rather short. The "Nagarik Network" source is also a press release. I get the sense that this lyricist is potentially notable, but at the moment, the draft and the sources do not show it.
Where does the date of birth, May 19, come from? I can find the year of birth in one of the sources, but not the date. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ohh!!!! According to your feedback '' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Thwala'' is this right article ? Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:31, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Thomson Walt[edit]

I want to resubmit this draft since Miss Grand International has been split into a separate article per this DRV. Thank You Thomson Walt (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:32, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Hfedit9898[edit]


Hfedit9898 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hfedit9898, no question but article has been rejected, again. Do not resubmit as it will not be considered further as being on YouTube is not inherently notable.Slywriter (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:12, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Hfedit9898[edit]

I Have Summited Many Verified Source Articles in This Draft Hfedit9898 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:50, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Mysterious Whisper[edit]


Declined by Liance on Notability grounds. Their comment:
Majority of cited sources do not demonstrate significant coverage (are part of lists, passing mentions, etc) or are not reliable sources. Significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources needs to be established per WP:GNG.
I disagree with the first part. My analysis of the sources:

Extended content
  • Hermitcraft Season 8: List of members, Minecraft builds, datapacks, and more - This article is entirely about Hermitcraft, and there are several paragraphs of prose in addition to the lists. Sportskeeda may not be the most authoritative source, but it is independent of the topic of the article, none of the information is controversial, and all of it can be verified through primary sources, so there's no reason to think it's not reliable in this instance.
  • A YouTuber Is Building Among Us In Survival Minecraft - This article is entirely about some recent events on Hermitcraft. I'm not too familiar with this publication, but they have the makings of a reliable source, e.g. editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc.
  • 5 most popular Minecraft SMPs of all time - This is a list, but note that it does contain "two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic."
  • One Trillion Minecraft Views - This is from YouTube, but it's not a video, it's an article published by YouTube to mark the trillionth view of Minecraft content on YouTube. This article was linked via the logo on every page of YouTube the day it was published, and Hermitcraft features prominently, which shows its significance, though the coverage on Hermitcraft isn't in-depth. Seeing this on YouTube is what led me to this draft in the first place.
  • MINECON 2016 Hermitcraft: Growing and Maintaining a Strong Server Community &
    MINECON Earth community panel - Hermitcraft Presents: Creating, Maintaining, and Evolving An SMP - These are YouTube videos (gasp!), not produced by Hermitcraft, but by Minecon (a convention hosted by Minecraft developer Mojang), where Hermitcraft members have been featured speakers. This article is similar, though it could be considered a passing mention, it shows that Hermitcraft was featured at the 2019 convention.
  • Minecraft Icons Host 2nd Livestream Fundraising Event for SOS Africa - This is entirely about an event on Hermitcraft, also covered by the Business Insider article listed below.
  • Larissa Hjorth. Exploring Minecraft: Ethnographies of Play and Creativity. - This is a serious academic text published by Springer that has multiple paragraphs about Hermitcraft.

The remaining sources don't contribute much to notability, they are mostly being used to support the list of members:

As you can see, we have several sources with in-depth coverage as defined by Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) (which is linked in the template message that's used when declining drafts).
I note that Liance been reviewing a lot of drafts lately - and they're often spending less than five minutes on each draft. I question whether they could actually review the article and the fifteen sources in that amount of time (and if you think that 15 sources is just too many, know that there were 24 present for the last review, and there's no official requirement that an article have exactly three top-quality sources). Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing a breakdown on the sources, there definitely might have been some significant coverage I missed there. However I still stand by my rejection of the draft - aside from the academic text, significant, in-depth coverage in established reliable sources is quite sparse and does not meet GNG in my eyes. As always if any other reviewers disagree with my decision a second opinion is always appreciated. -Liancetalk/contribs 17:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as for the comment about my review speed - perennial AfC reviewers tend to develop an eye for which sources are worth reviewing (I can assure you all the sources you provided an analysis on were considered by me) and I tend to be an extremely fast reader. Please don't take the speed at which I edit as indication that my review was incomplete - there wouldn't be any reason for me to review at AfC at all if that were the case. -Liancetalk/contribs 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to review the draft and respond to my comments, but I would like a second opinion. This is a fairly new kind of topic with some unusual sources, but several of them are published, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the topic, and that should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda is an issue. They are generally unreliable as anyone can write for them and no editorial controls have been seen by the community. As a result, the article doesn't contribute to establishing notability. Minecraft would be connected (as in has vested interest in promoting mods), and if SOSAfrica benefited from the charity event, same issue there that are connected. Drop those and you have a subject that is notable to the Minecraft community but seems to fall short of Wikipedia notability.
An interim step would be adding a section in Minecraft as the material appears to meet WP:DUE for coverage there. From that section, an article may eventually arise.Slywriter (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the previous discussion at WP:RS/N about Sportskeeda, and agree that we can't assume it's reliable, which is why I assessed the specific Sportskeeda articles in question on their own merits. The SOSAfrica event was also covered by Business Insider, but the primary source has more Hermitcraft-specific information. The YouTube article convinced me that this is notable beyond just the Minecraft community, and we have articles on several other Minecraft servers, as well as the article "Minecraft server." These aren't just random WP:OSE examples, they're well-established articles featured in Template:Minecraft, some of which were explicitly kept via community consensus after unsuccessful deletion discussions. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that despite the apparent consensus at WP:RS/N, Sportskeeda is still used in hundreds of articles, and even without the sources you've noted, we still have a few that are clearly reliable with significant coverage as defined at Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Mysterious Whisper (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm left with the impression that we're applying an arbitrarily high standard to this draft, or perhaps to drafts in general. Drafts do not need to be perfect, they just need enough to be able to survive AfD, and we have that at least. If you review the RS/N discussion about Sportskeeda, you will see that it has not been depreciated (that would require an RfC), and I have shown that it should be usable in this circumstance. The claim that being featured as a main event at an international convention doesn't contribute to notability, because the speakers are "connected" to the convention, is not a reasonable interpretation of the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG, which references WP:QS). Even if you disagree with all of that, we still have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - not much, but enough, and that's all that matters. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:04:35, 17 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Manonrouget[edit]


I would like to cite iodé's firm & iodé's work on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I tried to publish a draft but it failed for 'non-notable' reasons. How can I get help to get the article published? I would need a little guideline, and I can get more (independant) sources in order to help it get published.

Thanks for your help

Manonrouget (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manonrouget, you need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. We care very little what a subject has to say about itself.Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manonrouget I did a quick Gsearch and found a couple of minor sources. [1][2] It's a start but you'll need more than blog-like coverage. It could be WP:TOOSOON, or simply that there's not enough interest outside of a very few privacy conscious individuals in a phone that can't access the Google store. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:08, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Akb bhatia[edit]


hey i want to create this page .she is indian tv actress but i don't know how to do it i have made one submission but it declined can some one help me Akb bhatia (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Draft is being speedied and possibly even salted at some point. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:25, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Akb bhatia[edit]


hey can someone check why this references are not reliable

Akb bhatia (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered at The Teahouse are you expecting a different answer here? See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:26, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Krinesh62[edit]


Krinesh62 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. Shouldn't this Wikiproject tagging feature be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject? This doesn't seem to merit a standalone page, nor would it be very useful by itself. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoTalk Usually when an editor links to that page they are asking about how to add tags to their draft; I've replaced the link with a link to their draft. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Krinesh62 You don't ask a question, but I can say that Twitter is not considerd an acceptable source. Any article about Amrendra Bagi must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:00:48, 17 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Garry23112[edit]



Garry23112 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE - user has been warned on his talk page. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_17&oldid=1073507727"