Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 15 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 17 >
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.


September 16[edit]

Request on 07:45:35, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ntkn766[edit]

After this new film Khadak, Actor has lead role in three notable films and hence actor becomes notable as per WP:ACTOR. She has got significant coverage in noted publications like Times Of India,Indian Express etc. she has many individual coverage also about her. Already all references has been added about her request you to kindly re review Ntkn766 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ntkn766: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, which will happen when a reviewer gets around to it; there is no need to flag up this draft here. Meanwhile, if you have a question, feel free to ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous reviewer has given article is not reliable How can he say when there are so many references attached Ntkn766 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit more to it than just the number of references. For example, the Times of India, which this draft cites several times, is borderline reliable at best (see WP:TOI). And more generally, there's the whole issue of paid news in India. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Pratik Dawange[edit]


Pratik Dawange (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, @Pratik Dawange, but your sandbox draft autobio has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:50:23, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Moceroci[edit]


Hello, the article has been declined due to the submission's references and significant coverage. However, there are 28 references of which 4 are interviews with the artist in some of the most notable newspapers and magazines in Denmark (Politiken). These are all independent. There is a video interview with the artist and the museum director of Trapholt Museum. There are three book references and one exhibition catalogue. The remaining newspaper articles are either reviews of her solo or group exhibitions from credible sources including Politiken, KunstKritik and Weekendavisen. They all mention her name in the articles. There are furthermore article links to news outlets. There are two art critic quoted on the importance of the artist.

I'm a bit surprised to see why these aren't important? I have included more references than many other articles on artists and done so much research to ensure you have all the right information. When looking at other artists, I don't understand why she isn't of importance. I have done additional research about the artist so it meets the criteria for a notable person according to Wikipedia standards. All information is backed up by articles from credible newspapers, books, YouTube interviews with museum directors and museum websites.

Why is it not too soon to have the article The artist work is included in the permanent collections of two museums and also the prestigious Danish states official art foundation ’Statens Kunstfund’. The artist has had several solo exhibitions and has two exhibition catalogues published. She is included in the publication 'Touched - Danish Art in the New Millennium’ by art critic Maria Kjær Themsen. Gernild’s work has been compared to the female painters Anna Ancher, Christine Swane and Anna Syberg. And a solo exhibition about her work presented her work alongside Christine Swane of the Funen Painters in 2019 at Roennebaekshom Museum. She has been part of group exhibitions at renowned museums. Gl. Holtegaard Museum just announced that they will host a solo exhibition on Emily Gernild work in 2023.

I nominate this article to be included on Wikipedia as Emily Gernild is a notable artist. It is of interest to the public to learn more about female artist and connection to other female painters throughout history. I will be able to link her to several other Wikipedia articles. It will therefore not be an orphan.


Moceroci (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moceroci: I haven't looked at the sources yet, but the first thing that strikes me is that you seem to think interviews are somehow a good thing, whereas they're pretty much the opposite. Many publications just quote the interviewee without any challenges or fact-checking, and the interview becomes effectively a close primary source, being whatever the interviewee wants to say about themselves or anything else. That's why we usually disregard interviews.
As for reviews of art exhibitions, while those could provide significant coverage of the artist in question, often they don't. I'm not saying these type of reviews are categorically useless, but neither are they categorically useful, even when published in reputable and reliable media outlets.
Beyond that, I would need to do a more thorough source analysis. Alternatively, you could help by highlighting the three sources that are the strongest in terms of meeting WP:GNG, namely offering significant coverage (of the artist), and being independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understand and thank you so much for all your help. I'm learning and your guidance is very much appreciated. I have been struck by the lack of female artists on Wikipedia and thought I would devote my spare time to help optimize this. I thought Emily Gernild was a good start. I have listed books, catalogues, articles, reviews and interviews below that correspond with WP:GNG. I know you aren't interested in it all but I wanted to give you a brief overview. I have also included art critics and museum directors which I hope will show that this is credible. Her work is very much related to the art movement the Funen painters and in particular the female painters - an exhibition on Emily Gernild's work and Christine Swane of the Funen painters was on in 2019 at the museum Roennebaeksholm. I have really tried my best here and would be grateful for your help. It would be easier just to give up, but I strongly believe that it is in the public's interest to know about the artist and in particular the relationship with the Funen painters and female artists in Denmark.
Please do let me know if there's anything else I can do? Thank you again for your time and expertise. I'm grateful for your help.
Book on the history of Danish art written by independent art critic. No involvement from the artist.
- Kjær Themsen, Maria (2020). Berørt - om dansk kunst i det nye årtusinde (in Danish). Denmark: Strandberg Publishing. pp. 243, 244, 335. ISBN 9788792949875.
Art editor of the newspaper Politiken and Weekendavisen profiles the artist.
- Hornung, Peter Michael (21 July 2019). "Ung lovende kunstner: »Nettets hurtige billeder er som hurtige forelskelser. Vi har brug for at forelske os. Men vi har også brug for kærlighed«". Politiken. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Steffensen, Erik (26 August 2022). "Tilberedelse af et menneske" (PDF). Weekendavisen. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Kryger, Mathias (5 September 2021). "Udstilling på Arken er et billede på den forførende kraft, en blomst besidder". Politiken. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
Museum exhibition catalogue with contributions by art critics, curators and museum directors
- Vibeke Kelding Hansen and Lisbeth Bonde (2019). Upåagtet - Emily Gernild & Christine Swane; Rønnebæksholm Museum. ISBN 9788799992850
- Milena Høgsberg and Grant Klarich Johnson (June 2021). Emily Gernild: Black Lemons. Kerber Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7356-0772-0.
- Natalia Gutman (2022), Kassandras søstre – fremtidens malere hæver forbandelsen (in Danish). Denmark, Rundetaarn.
Interviews in printed and online magazines
- Fejerskov, Ditlev (24 February 2022). "Interview: Emily Gernild". Dossier magazine. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Lodberg, Marie (12 July 2021). "Morgenmad med Emily Gernild". Alt for Damerne. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
Exhibition catalogue (from gallery)
- "Too Good to be True" (PDF). Galleri Bo Bjerggaard. 2022. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
Government art foundation and museum director interview
- "Emily Gernild - Bønnebord med palmekål / Kidney table with lacinato kale". Holbæk Art. 2020. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- "Trapholt zoomer ind: På besøg ved Emily Gernild". Trapholt Museum of Modern Art YouTube. 5 March 2021. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
Upcoming solo exhibition:
- 2023: https://glholtegaard.dk/da/udstillinger/emily-gernild/
"Emily Gernild solo exhibition 2023 - 2024". Gl. Holtegaard Museum. 2022. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
Solo exhibition that compared her to the Funen painter Christine Swane.
- "Upåagtet – Emily Gernild & Christine Swane". Rønnebæksholm Museum. 29 June 2019. Retrieved 4 September 2022. Moceroci (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:58:36, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Moceroci[edit]


Would it be better to create the article only in Danish?


Moceroci (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moceroci: can't comment on whether the Danish Wikipedia would accept an article on this person, as each language version has their own rules and requirements; except to say in general terms that the bar for inclusion is probably higher in the English Wikipedia than just about anywhere else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I think it makes more sense in English. Thank you again. Moceroci (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:25:13, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by EDIT174[edit]


Hello, I received this message:

May be notable but needs to cleanup to remove puffery. Only summarize what the sources actually state, not what he stated and not with your own editorializing. Also, need to address your possible conflict of interest.

There is also mention of the lack of neutral tone. I thought my references were independent sources as they are published articles about him. What about the podcasts on which he appeared? Are those considered secondary sources?

I can not edit anything, as the body of text has been removed from my page. Can that please be restored so I can make the necessary changes? Re: COI -- Should I copy the COI template to address that, and if so, where on the page do I place it?

Sorry for all of the questions, I am new to this!

Thank you!


EDIT174 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EDIT174 The text has been removed? The draft is at Draft:Jeremy_Murphy. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:47, 16 September 2022 review of submission by MatrosMonk[edit]


 Courtesy link: Draft:Anna_Frajlich

I have submitted my first article for review and it wad declined twice. I have added many more references and I am convinced that the person about whom I wrote meets the notability requirements AND I found nearly forty references to support the article. I have spent hours finding the reliable sources, and I can actually continue adding references (there are many, many more to add), but it seems at this point it is getting excessive. I am weary about submitting it for the third time and getting the same pushback. Can anyone advise me how else I can improve the article?

MatrosMonk (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MatrosMonk: I cannot see anything in the career details that would make this person obviously notable per WP:NACADEMIC, so we need to establish notability per WP:GNG. To save us having to plough through 40 refs, could you point out the three strongest sources in terms of being independent, reliable and secondary, and providing significant coverage of the person in question?
Note also that there is quite a lot of unreferenced content there, so I would probably decline this draft for that alone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very grateful for your feedback. I see that her educator's credentials may be seen as unsubstantiated, but her primary notability is as a poet. As an educator, she taught for 30 years in Columbia which in and of itself is significant. But all the references I provided document her career and importance as a poet. She is considered to be one of the most important living Polish poets --- and a fact that the entire special issue of a respectable, peer-reviewed journal "Polish Review" (published in the United States) was dedicated to her personally is a testament to her prominence in the field. (Current references ##7 and 8). The entire conference in Rzeszow University in Poland was themed around her work (reference #6). Within the draft, there is a section "Selected critical studies and reviews" are just a small body of scholarship about Anna Frajlich. I can expand this section. She received about a dozen different awards both in Europe and in the North America. So I think that her notability is adequately documented.
I can removed references to the mentions in the immigrant press which are hard to track (although I think it would be a disservice, because they are hard to find and verify by a person who is not a Slavist scholar, but they are accurate, I am a librarian after all :) MatrosMonk (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I am not sure if you have seen my response to your feedback. I would greatly appreciate your take on my points. Thank you! MatrosMonk (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:14, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7[edit]

Hello. I’ve been dialoguing with the person who rejected the page, but has not replied in a while. (Dialogue on my page.) Anyhow, whoever this gets sent to, can you intervene and view the changes that l made regarding the extreme notability of the person whom I created the article about? Thank you! He or she was helpful, but since making the new edits, haven’t heard back from this person? I thought this person might not be available, but I did notice this person had activity today? Thanks again! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't make it clear on your talk page, your new additions do not change anything in regards to notability and the draft is still rejected. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:56, 16 September 2022 review of draft by RLSnow[edit]


Hello, Looking to find what is considered a reliable reference source for this article. I had hoped that an NPR publication would be considered reliable, but apparently not. Unfortunately, for major awards given in India in the 1990's I was unable to find other references. Conference proceedings are not available. I do have photos of award certificates but was denied attempting to upload them. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you!

RLSnow (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RLSnow: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged in good faith for any reason MUST be cited to a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source that is written by an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources are available) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
The Living on Earth source is an interview, Shambala.com is a non-sequitur, and Buddhistdoor.net explicitly calls itself an open platform. None of your sources are any good even if they were properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RLSnow Unfortunately, if there are not enough usable sources, then an article cannot be created. My suggestion is to work on a different topic. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:05, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Chito Kaii[edit]

I am trying to create this new page, but cannot find any more citations that are applicable. I wish it would be easier, I tried 4 search engines on the topic. Please help fast, I want to get this through! Chito Kaii (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chito Kaii Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Wikipedia has no deadlines, do you have a particular need for a speedy resolution here? Most of the sources you offer seem to be the organization website or announcements of its activities. These do not establish notability. Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Significant coverage goes beyond the mere telling of what the topic does, and goes into detail about its significance and influence as they see it, and not how the organization sees itself. If no other sources exist, the organization would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
311dot Can you help me clean it up then? I tried to format it, but that is difficult. Any help to make it look good would help, and I can take another look. Is it news articles and major websites we look for?
@Chito Kaii: I did a source review and Googled the organization and do not see anything that suggests the article will ever be approved. There is insufficient media coverage for the organization to meet Wikipedia's high notability standards for inclusion. Social media links, directory listings, organization announcements and local match results do not show notability. See WP:GNG. My advice is to abandon this project, and if someone asked you to do this, let them know that you need more notable info to work with, and have no chance of success. I see you link to Shane Higashi, but his relationship to the club is unclear. This won't really help you anyway with the club's article - see WP:Notability is not inherited. Nonetheless, if you can find an independent source about his relationship to the club (you don't have one now and I can't find one), you can consider adding a sentence or two about it to his article, and redirect searches for the club to his article. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chito Kaii A single karate club is very likely not notable. Has the club done something to make newspapers and magazines write articles about them (which are not based on interviews)? Existence is not notability, unfortunately. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_September_16&oldid=1111817899"