Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.228.112.175 (talk) at 06:38, 21 September 2022 (→Request on 15:25:13, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by EDIT174: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


September 15

00:00:33, 15 September 2022 review of draft by VampireKilla


How else should I try to establish why Gibraltar Wave are notable? They're the only independent women's team in Gibraltar, the only organised beach soccer team in Gibraltar, the first and only Gibraltarian team to participate in the BSW Euro Winners Cup, all other currently active women's teams in Gibraltar have Wikipedia articles that haven't been deleted. I'm trying to figure out how that's not more notable than, say, the stub article for Crawley Wasps F.C. which has no references whatsoever, or Leafield Athletic L.F.C. which is virtually empty. It feels almost like *because* it's the only team not affiliated to a men's team, that's why it's not being approved for an article. If someone can explain exactly why the 9 references included in the article (only one of which is from the club itself) aren't independent that would help too. VampireKilla (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VampireKilla: notability doesn't mean "the first to do X" or being "the only Y in Gibraltar". It means being able to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Based on a quick look, I don't think any of the sources cited in this draft meets this standard, although I'm happy to analyse them in more detail if you'd like.
As for other articles which may be out there with similar or weaker referencing (the so-called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that is undoubtedly the case, but it doesn't mean we should create more of the same; it means those articles should also be brought up to the required standards. Meanwhile new articles must comply with the relevant guidelines, in this case WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate someone taking the time to look more closely at the articles I have used as references. Bear in mind some are in German or Spanish as it has had coverage from different countries - I've rarely had to use the referencing system for foreign language articles so not 100% sure on how to flag the languages of the links. VampireKilla (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VampireKilla
Okay. It's not clear whether by 'someone' you mean someone other than me, but here's my take on it, all the same:
  • Refs 1/2/5: I consider these the sports equivalent of 'routine business reporting' (acquisitions, appointments, product launches, etc.); can be used to verify information, but not to establish notability. I should point out that as these are behind a paywall, I haven't analysed the text properly, and it's possible bits of them may collectively add up to significant coverage. If that's what your notability assertion specifically relies on, then please provide more details (eg. on the draft talk page).
  • Ref 3: primary source
  • Ref 4: press release, likely primary source
  • Ref 6: close primary source (club website)
  • Ref 7: at first I thought this would meet GNG, but then noticed it's written in first person voice, so it's clearly the 'club talking'; finally realised it's by the club chairman, ie. clearly not independent.
  • Ref 8: only mentions the club once, in one of the fixtures graphics
  • Ref 9: this is probably the strongest of the lot; it could be argued the coverage isn't all that significant, or that this is similar to refs 1/2/5, or perhaps that the publication isn't fully RS (being a local online newsletter/blog), but even if one gives this the benefit of the doubt in all those respects, this one source alone isn't enough to establish notability.
Happy to be proven wrong on any or all of these points. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:32, 15 September 2022 review of draft by Umeshnair4u


I have submitted my page as I am a movie producer in India. I have produced 2 movies and 2 tele serials in India. If i am not mistaken this is the second tie i tried to publish my page on wikipedia and still I couldn't get through. Looking forward for a support to get my page live as I am not sure what I am suppose to do.

Umeshnair4u (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshnair4u: firstly, if this is ever published, it won't be "your page"; it will be a Wikipedia article about you. There's a big difference.
Secondly, you shouldn't be trying to publish an article about yourself, for all sorts of reasons which are enumerated here: WP:AUTOBIO. Please read and understand them.
The reason why your draft was declined is that it is entirely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:GNG on notability.
And just to remind you, you really shouldn't try to publish an article about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your updated. Umeshnair4u (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:16, 15 September 2022 review of draft by 50.101.160.189


i was wondering how if the draft articles do not expire if not then by when

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your question is — are you asking how long a draft stays on the system before being deleted? Six months from the last edit, per WP:G13. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:15, 15 September 2022 review of submission by 50.101.160.189

is there a deadline for article drafts if so how much

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:13, 15 September 2022 review of submission by MistaEntertainer

He has now a Google Knowledge Panel and a wikialpha page. Is he now worth? MistaEntertainer (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MistaEntertainer: please don't copypaste the entire draft here, and certainly don't do it several times. Thank you.
No, there is not the slightest indication of notability here. In any case, the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care about Google's (ab)use of its platforms. Besides, the Knowledge Panel is known to cull from Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MistaEntertainer Wikialpha is not a reliable source. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:16, 15 September 2022 review of submission by ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513


ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513? The draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:03, 15 September 2022 review of submission by Plumbgum


Hello! I thought that my submission provided more information about a brand that I've grown to love in recent years. Could you all provide more information about which sections violated Wikipedia guidelines and/or why my submission was rejected? Is there a way that I can improve my submission?

Thank you.

Plumbgum (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbgum: if you're talking about Draft:Cash Acme, then that has been deleted and hence there's no way of improving it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

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

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


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


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


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]

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


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


 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

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


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]

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

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]

September 17

00:36:15, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7

Just needed to find out where my previous message went about the article. How long does it take to receive help here? Thanks! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Lightspeed7 "How long does it take to receive help here?" Well, it can certainly take more than the 6 hrs you waited before posting again. We're all volunteers, some of us are busy IRL, and occasionally it's nice to sleep a few hours, even. We do get around to most things, eventually.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. And given that you and the rejecting reviewer have been discussing this at some length already, what is it that you want us here at the helpdesk to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing. Thanks for your reply! Nice to make your acquaintance!
I apologize if I gave the impression as though I was honking my horn while waiting in line at a McDonald’s, but this is the first time using this Wikipedia communication medium and I wanted to make sure that I was not waiting due to erroneously being in the wrong place. I’m relatively new at editing here, so I’m still learning.
Anyhow, I will briefly describe my concern. First of all, this article was originally reviewed nine months ago the following day after submitting it. Well, it was removed and placed in the draft department about a month later. I added a little bit of new content and references each time I resubmitted, but same thing happened a couple of times. Long story short, this last time, I revised it a lot for about a week...submitted it and was rejected the following day because of notability concerns. I contacted the editor and posed this question: “How could someone who is heard on a weekly basis by 5,000, 000 listeners on 500 syndicated stations not be notable? That’s more than most people on Wikipedia.” This person replied, stating, “you didn’t mention that in your draft.” Then it dawned on me that he or she was right, it was a “duh” moment for me...so I revised the intro of my draft and mentioned Kates’ notability right from the start. That’s just one of the many things he’s famous for. Anyway, after I mentioned that i did that, it got quiet...no replies for days. I thought maybe he or she had a personal issue to deal with and so I didn’t bother them...until a few days later when I checked their activity and saw some recent comments. I then took it as if this person didn’t want to admit that my notability points were well founded and was avoiding me for some reason. I sent one final reply to them, asking to do a nomination for deletion, which would give the community a chance to chime in on it. I received a quick reply and they mentioned to go to Teahouse for a review instead of doing that. I thanked them and mentioned I’d try that. I received their reply after I had already contacted this avenue of help.
Forgive me for the lack of brevity here, but this issue with this subject has been somewhat of a mystery to me...first reviewed and accepted immediately, then this... Kates is not only very well known by many, but is extremely intelligent about all things space! I strongly believe he should have been on Wikipedia many years ago!
Thank you! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7 Notability (click here) refers to how much the subject of the article has been written about in independent, reliable sources. It is not the same as popularity or number of listeners and stations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I guess I can rewrite it and remove questionable sources. If I do, how shall I submit it anew? It’s been rejected...does this article need to be deleted? Are you able to just hit “delete,” or does a nomination for deletion need to be initiated? Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7: You're not understanding the position the draft is in. Steve Kates as a topic has been deemed not notable for Wikipedia by an AfC reviewer (me). You cannot resubmit this draft nor can you submit a new draft that is substantially the same as this one without the community explicitly agreeing to a resubmission. So far everyone appears to agree that it's not notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FormalDude. Ok! I understand now. I’m not planning on resubmitting as is. I’m reworking the draft with respect to yours and others advice/suggestions. I’ll notify you when I’ve completed it for you to take a look at. Thank you! I appreciate your objective overview of the situation! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7: Again, I'm not going to look at it because there is nothing you can do to make the topic notable. You can continue to work on it but that is essentially meaningless as it cannot be resubmitted in any form without prior approval from the community. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FormalDude. I’ll probably only spend another day or two reworking Kates’ draft. I’ve found more revealing content with reliable references. (Nearly all of the references I’m using come from organizations that are on Wikipedia. I read somewhere, that matters a lot, because they’ve already been deemed notable by default of simply being on Wikipedia. I’m sure there are those exceptions!)
You mentioned getting approval of community. When I’m done, should I randomly contact several Teahouse members in order to ask their opinion regarding his article? That’s why I previously mentioned to nominate for deletion, to have the community weigh in on it.
This is another one of the examples I mentioned regarding their lack of reliable references to prove notability. Lucy Clarkson has been on Wikipedia since 2007, with just two references that don’t even function? There are multitudes of articles all over Wikipedia like this one. They pale in comparison to the Kates’ article. Is there a logical answer for this gross violation that runs rampant throughout Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for satisfying my curiosity about this matter! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, just because a reference comes from an organization that has a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean that it meets WP:GNG. You're much better off checking WP:RSP if you want to determine reliability.
Secondly, you should post a message at the Teahouse requesting a review of your rejected draft for possible resubmission–not contact individual members.
Last, the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. From the logical perspective, this argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). There are always going to be articles on Wikipedia that are of low quality and possibly need to be deleted. Lucy Clarkson is one of those, and as such I've nominated it for deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:41, 17 September 2022 review of submission by 2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD


2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question regarding this rejected, unreferenced, non-English, apparent autobio stub? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:26, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Rainbownautinspace


Hi! My article got declined again after i made some changes based on he first reasons(referencing) and some great advice from the help desk! Could i receive some guidance? Draft:Tanya Abraham Rainbownautinspace (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbownautinspace: the number of sources seems to have increased, but I don't see a corresponding increase in their quality, and we are now starting to get into REFBOMBING.
Could you please highlight the three strongest sources in terms of establishing GNG notability, namely being independent, reliable and secondary, and providing significant coverage of this person? Note that this expressly excludes interviews, primary sources, reviews of her books, things she has written or said herself, and any sort of sponsored content and churnalism. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing
I think these are the references (none of these are interviews/book reviews but mention the works in the article)-
[1]
[2]
[3] Rainbownautinspace (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the first and last of those sources are about TAOS and what they do, not about her as a person. She is being quoted, but that's her speaking as a representative of the organisation. And the second one is about the cookbook, and written in the context of its publication; yes, there is a bit of personal background included in that piece, which someone might try to argue amounts to significant coverage of her, but I'm not at all sure. In any case, that one source isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:27, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Dux96

I was drafting an article in my user sandbox and it was deleted. I want to recover my work, help! Dux96 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dux96 Your account has no deleted contributions. Did you click "Publish Changes"? Note that "Publish Changes" should be interpreted to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dux96: I don't think you have a sandbox, nor have you created any pages, and it doesn't look like anything has been deleted. Were you perhaps working in the common sandbox? (That gets reset periodically.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I believe it was in my sandbox, it had the box saying, 'This is the user sandbox of Dux96 ...' I don't know what else to say other than I've started over with a draft page this time because I must have done something wrong. Thanks tho! Dux96 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably like 331dot says, if you didn't click the 'publish' button, it doesn't get saved anywhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGlazing @331dot the only thing I can think of is as I was done with the draft and trying to figure out how to add a TOC. I switch from visual editing to source editing, checked my other tab for the code, switched back to the sanbox tab and it was gone. So no more source editing for me ... Dux96 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dux96 The text likely got lost during switching ... not really tgs source editor's fault. You should have seen a prompt saying you would lose your text. Sorry. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:22, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Sathiyarajraj1


Sathiyarajraj1 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathiyarajraj1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:50, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz


Hi There, about a couple of months ago I noticed my page had been declined so I reached out to the person who reviewed it for more help, but I reckon due to the volume of submissions, that person wasn’t able to respond to my plea of help, so I’ve decided to movie my questions and seek help here instead.

Could I possibly ask a couple of questions if that’s alright? Firstly is there any way in which I can improve the article enough to warrant it’s own page, I have a lot of experience with the item in question and can add more information where necessary, I just may need a bit of help with what you would class as “Important” for improvement of the article as I feel that it is indeed a machine that’s significant for the format and stands separate from other devices using a similar name.

Secondly, The intention of the compatibility list was to show which games were compatible. The ones listed are all those that do indeed work with this particular system, where some do not boot or load at all, I agree however, that it is a long list, but was unsure how I could shorten it and explain in detail what games work, which is why I had added a dropdown to it. Also, the merging Idea does appear to be a good one, there’s just a couple of issues I have with it. The Ivo V10/V11, though originally carrying the Discman logo and name, isn’t reality a Discman at all, in the same way that the Ebook readers of the same era are. It is a functioning multimedia Cd-I viewer, much like the Cd-i Itself, which I feel Is more likely that it could be merged better with that page instead? but it’s an odd device to place. That’s why I felt that it’s better situated on it’s own page, due to the importance of the direction and abandonment of the format and also led to why Sony took the company in another direction before they invested their own time in computer entertainment. Also the fact that it’s one of a few systems to carry CD-i technology that wasn’t branded as Philips, is something unique, where other devices of this nature differ and lastly, it’s also the only Portable Cd-i ever made for market that wasn’t branded Philips, that also has a sub line of portables such as the absence of the LCD on the V12 unit. This may not sound too important to some people, but it’s a big thing within the history of the format and multimedia devices itself and as a whole, leading to where we are today with mobile/cell phones.

Again thank you in advance for the help on how I can improve the article, I look forward to hearing back from you. I’ve spent quite a bit of time, research and photography on this Item and would love to see that work go somewhere. Also if it’s not too much to ask, I’d like to work with you to get this article as good as it can be, so that it can hopefully be accepted in the future.

Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz: I don't feel competent to comment on whether or not this warrants its own article, but I'll remark on this ancillary point: you seem to have 'reached out' to the reviewer on your own talk page. In that case, you need to ping them, as reviewers don't necessarily watch every page related to every draft they've reviewed. Alternatively, you can go to their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:03, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Snowtemplon


Hello! I recently tried to change the title of an existing wikipedia article, as the information pertained more to a gallery space than as an owner's biography, who's name was the title at the time. When I was unable to edit the title, I attempted to create a new wiki page for the gallery, using the same sources and information, though in a different order and with different subheadings. It was reviewed and rejected twice, for appearing to be an advertisement. I have disclosed that I work for the gallery, but I'm confused what about the page seemed like it wasn't neutral, especially considering it was so similar to a linked page that already exists.

I'm looking for some aid as to how organizations may be represented on wikipedia. The gallery I work for has a long history and it would be wonderful for that information to be available and collected on one place online. How can I create a wiki pages for the gallery, it's owners, and it's artists? Does anyone have experience being in this position? How do organizations create their pages, and if they don't, who does and how do they get onto wikipedia?

Any help would be much appreciated. I am totally new to editing wikipedia and this is something I've been tasked as part of my job, so I'd really like to know how to solve this issue I'm facing. Thanks so much!!

Snowtemplon (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snowtemplon: I haven't looked into the specifics of your draft, but in general terms I would say it is very difficult, borderline impossible even, for someone representing an organisation to write a neutral, non-promotional article about their organisation. They tend to want to 'control the message' and say what they want to say about themselves, rather than summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. And there is great temptation to put a positive spin on things, use puffery, and generally try to make themselves look good. (In this context, you may wish to read WP:AUTOBIO; I realise writing about your organisation isn't an autobiography per se, but many of the same issues apply.) If this gallery is genuinely notable, and noteworthy enough, someone will one day write an article on it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for your help! Is there any way to change the title of an existing wikipedia article, to make it more accurate? In my case it would just be to change it from "Galerie Daniel Templon" to "Galerie Templon." Thanks again! 2603:7000:4B3D:FBFD:C8E9:72A0:5C15:4CFE (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, how could I petition for an article to be written about this topic by someone else? Also why is this draft being rejected when it has the same information/sources as an existing (approved) article that was written by someone not associated with the gallery? Thanks. Snowtemplon (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowtemplon You can go to Requested articles, but the backlog is so severe as to make it functionally useless. Your best bet is to just allow someone out there to take note of the gallery and decide.to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

09:23:13, 18 September 2022 review of submission by TaiyoHoneyMoon

What kind of significance does Wizzard in Vinyl have for power pop artists not only in Japan, but also for the world's power pop artists? I stated that it is a certain label. Please review again. TaiyoHoneyMoon (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TaiyoHoneyMoon: I'm not quite sure what you're saying or asking, but this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:55, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Concernsavant


Concernsavant (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) https://studylib.net/doc/8353044/what-s-new-in-the-surreal-world[reply] 

                                                                                                          https://prezi.com/dimwhgffgi6s/bienvenido-bones-banez-jr/                                                                   https://miltonrevealed.berkeley.edu/images/satan-leaping-joy-bienvenido-bones-banez-jr                                                                                                         https://welcomebones666artworld.trilogistick.com/magazine/                                                                          https://www.aswangproject.com/bagobo-buso/                                                                                           https://www.quora.com/profile/Bienvenido-Bones-Ba%C3%B1ez-Jr                                                                   https://prabook.com/web/bienvenido.banez_jr./3755149                                                                                https://wn.com/bienvenido_bones_banez                                                                                                                                                                                                                      https://sites.google.com/site/terrancelindallsparadiselost/home/paradise-lost-project-annual-newsletter?fbclid=IwAR0a2IGcM71ktm6UtLVS-ZSgwLZoILw6fhq-a8bztFJSoriDUuc8G-koH1w                                                                                 https://sites.google.com/site/terrancelindallsparadiselost/the-grand-paradise-lost-costume-ball-september-2008?fbclid=IwAR25ZHULD0CF62YAXC1dglnivvk5PL5S56-a5NFCNz_DA_7JbM6IEkGVQSY

https://wikimedioc.com/album/Bienvenido%20Bones?fbclid=IwAR2g7exvXAYK5tpsxeKQndYiRnmmoUDpag9NqvwKiZo1g9oapoOQXK0PANk

@Concernsavant: you didn't ask a question, but your draft was declined for sounding like an advertisement. As for the list of sources you posted here, none of them look reliable (Prezi, Google Sites, "welcomebones666artworld", and Quora are all unreliable). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wahcenter.net/tag/bienvenido-banez/ and https://licricardososa.wordpress.com/category/pintura/ and https://www.thenursingoffice.com/dragon-gallery-new-york/there-s-more-to-art/satanic-desire/ and https://www.coursehero.com/file/106130519/artspdf/ and http://www.dreamsanddivinities.com/category/uncategorized/ and https://artfacts.net/artist/bienvenido-bones-banez-jr/547969 and https://spacecowboybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Simultaneous-Times-Newsletter-20.pdf And "THOMAS COOPER SOCIETY NEWSLETTER - WINTER 2013 (University Libraries- University of South Carolina). Document Type Newsletter Publication Date Winter 2013 Editorial Board: Jeffrey Makala Correction: On page 6, an artist's name was spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is "Bienvenido Bones Banez." -(Letter from Dr Robert J. Wickenheiser wrote Recommended Citation University of South Carolina, "University of South Carolina Libraries - Thomas Cooper Society Newsletter, Winter 2013". http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/tcl_news/17/. Concernsavant (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and he is a category of autistic artist here's the link https://wikimedioc.com/album/Bienvenido%20Bones Concernsavant (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do us a favour and stop throwing random sources at us. "It's an advertizement" is an indictment of the writing, not the sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing a shittonne of sources presented with little context. Will BHFH them when I get an opportunity. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://wikimedioc.com/album/Bienvenido%20Bones 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/the-philippine-star/20180722/282454234778020 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://lucidculture.wordpress.com/tag/surrealism/?fbclid=IwAR1vl4q2EX5tnS8lnqSaRL18o6CeTijWjjtO7mG7Cqw6KrChHE-kg192P9E 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://thejoeyherrera.blogspot.com/2011/07/?m=1&fbclid=IwAR2_9dKPYNL1f4UTaJDiYvPeMp3sqKWXGSfqKPbv1Xh5cgQGuX45vfMo3Fc 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://realitysandwich.com/visionaries_art_fantastic/?fbclid=IwAR2ADsLMEXcda0k970aIt8Zys33yZSD7YY7OW8CZViRSkelHgiX506Yoz_g 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our world famous High End of Art World Magazine in "Art & Antiques" issue March 2016. "What’s New in the Surreal World" Surrealism isn’t dead—it’s dreaming. By Terrance Lindall https://studylib.net/doc/8353044/what-s-new-in-the-surreal-world And Young University is a private research university in Provo, Utah; it's already in the Scholars Archive-- "What's New in the Surreal World" by Terrance Lindall it's already in Surrealism & Postmodernist in the Scholars Archive ·https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8407&context=etd · And also "Lowbrow" art movement in Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbrow_(art_movement) using this "Wikipedia Sources" this Art & Antiques issue March 2016 https://studylib.net/doc/8353044/what-s-new-in-the-surreal-world 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://artgallery.qcc.cuny.edu/Exhibitions/Exhibit-Pages/2012-Visionaries.html?fbclid=IwAR2TNqQsSpHdX12-ls6Y-sw4BTsPy8uYzX3FRYTB38iZxuM5h6mr4z8CH6Y 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our world famous High End of Art World Magazine in "Art & Antiques" issue March 2016. "What’s New in the Surreal World" Surrealism isn’t dead—it’s dreaming. By Terrance Lindall https://studylib.net/doc/8353044/what-s-new-in-the-surreal-world And Young University is a private research university in Provo, Utah; it's already in the Scholars Archive-- "What's New in the Surreal World" by Terrance Lindall it's already in Surrealism & Postmodernist in the Scholars Archive ·https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8407&context=etd · And also "Lowbrow" art movement in Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbrow_(art_movement) using this "Wikipedia Sources" this Art & Antiques issue March 2016 Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed the art world notable magazines https://studylib.net/doc/8353044/what-s-new-in-the-surreal-world 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://carterkaplan.blogspot.com/2014/04/emanations-third-eye-review-by-phillip.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR0DcB6jWBHhCGIAadoWzpSVDDeIf26mz0NEbMw74KWjUzbFCiZH4HpPGQ8 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you clearly refuse to listen I am going to make the case to the reviewers looking at the draft instead, though I strongly doubt they need it. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Exactly NONE of the sources you provide are any good. And this doesn't address the promotional nature of the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
collapse more long-winded source spam —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALiCzsZmkZPo4wZsMTpx0r03l1U49FCshQ:1663581456607&q=Why+is+Wikipedia+controversial%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiklJruy6D6AhU-p1YBHUJYBE0Qzmd6BAgbEAU&biw=1231&bih=646&dpr=1 Is Wikipedia 100% reliable?
So is Wikipedia a credible source? Many of the entries are well-documented, checked for quality and — as opposed to reference books — often completely up-to-date, but, 20 years after its creation, the online encyclopedia is not 100% reliable, because information can be manipulated, and sometimes almost undetectably.Jan 14, 2021
What is a better source than Wikipedia?
Encyclopedia Britannica Online
Yes, Britannica is a reliable source, and is certainly more reliable than Wikipedia.May 9, 2022 There are many free online encyclopedias to fit different needs and you may have more choices than you expected. Here is a list of seven free Wikipedia alternatives.
Wikipedia is an excellent place to go for information, but many researchers don’t feel comfortable citing it as a resource due to its open contribution model - in other words, anyone can edit Wikipedia. They just don't feel that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, whereas a source like Britannica generally is reliable.-- https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives Is Wikipedia the most trusted source? BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA NOT BELONG TO NOTABLE
The online encyclopedia does not consider itself to be reliable as a source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings. Researchers, teachers, journalists, and public officials do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA NOT BELONG TO NOTABLE" https://www.google.com/search?---cs=0&sxsrf=ALiCzsZXiPU1V9Fk8DSrizPbHklRIAdIKQ:1663581745029&q=What+is+a+better+source+than+Wikipedia%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicjdP3zKD6AhX_mlYBHUHqDkoQzmd6BAgEEAU&biw=1231&bih=646&dpr=1 Credible References
Electronic Text Cente.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
Free Internet Encyclopedia.
How Stuff Works.
Merriam-Webster Online.
Online Books Page.
Thesaurus.com. 'BUT NOT WIKIDPEDIA BECAUSE OF NOT BELONG TO NOTABLE"
World Book Encyclopedia. https://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/subject_matter/literature/reference/ 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.artofimagination.org/Pages/Banez.html 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And "THOMAS COOPER SOCIETY NEWSLETTER - WINTER 2013 (University Libraries- University of South Carolina). Document Type Newsletter Publication Date Winter 2013 Editorial Board: Jeffrey Makala Correction: On page 6, an artist's name was spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is "Bienvenido Bones Banez." -(Letter from Dr Robert J. Wickenheiser wrote Recommended Citation University of South Carolina, "University of South Carolina Libraries - Thomas Cooper Society Newsletter, Winter 2013". http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/tcl_news/17/. Concernsavant (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KUNSTHERZ by Prof Gerhard Habarta Forever In Our Memories and Forever In Art World of Prof Gerhard Habarta and notability strongly believes in our three core values, representation matters, diversity matters and equality matters. Thus in doing so we can encourage greatness, foster inclusion, and explore the beauty of the diaspora and that is the reasons why we should thanks again and notable books on Lexikon Surreal Edition One and Two, & the new published 2021″KunstHerz”, and other important art books as a notable museum galleries in the world. If you want to see more information on the art biographies in KunstHerz by Gerhard Habarta: Including Pablo Picasso, Beksinski, Henry Moore, Ernst Fuchs, Salvador Dali, Brigid Marlin, Otto Rapp, Peter Gric and only Filipino American Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed on the German version of KUNSTHERZ!! We should thanks from Prof Gerhard Habarta and this is very informative and interesting subject area: Biographies, Literature, Literary studies-Non Fiction. & Genre: Non-Fiction / Politics, Society, & Economic-- Kunstherz (https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2jZPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA573&lpg=PA573&dq=bienvenido+bones+banez+jr+KunstHerz+Gerhard+Habarta&source=bl&ots=jQqXN8QN44&sig=ACfU3U3xnGxpofJHmHklaJdInxTQ41DO6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwkrmzi7j4AhWVSmwGHQPMD9EQ6AF6BAgWEAI#v=onepage&q=bienvenido%20bones%20banez%20jr%20KunstHerz%20Gerhard%20Habarta&f=false) And https://www.quora.com/profile/Bienvenido-Bones-Ba%C3%B1ez-Jr/Forever-In-Our-Memories-and-Forever-In-Art-World-of-Prof-Gerhard-Habarta-and-notability-strongly-believes-in-our-three-c-1?ch=15&oid=79864046&share=5accb94f&srid=OsnH&target_type=post 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed in Lexikon Surreal edition One & Two https://www.lexikon-surreal.com/k%C3%BCnstler-l%C3%A4nder/ 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Similarweb data of monthly visits, wikipedia.org’s top competitor in August 2022 is britannica.com with 51.6M visits. wikipedia.org 2nd MOST SIMILAR site is QUORA quora.com, with 812.3M visits in August 2022, and closing off the top 3 is sciencedirect.com with 81.7M. {TAKE NOTE QUORA & Wikipedia similar site.] 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, in 2004, the president and executive director of Williamsburg Art & Historical Center in Brooklyn, while viewing Ben’s painting, commented to a fashion photographer that Banez is the “greatest living surrealist from the Philippines.” This comment from contemporary Surrealism’s prime mover, Terrance Lindall, himself the organizer of Milton’s biggest birthday bash, may have been trivially said. But today it is substantiated by yet another achievement in Banez’s career: his name, profile, and sample work are recently published in a German edition of “The International Encyclopedia of Fantastic, Surrealist, Symbolist, & Visionary Artists” or Lexikon Surreal for short. Thus, Bienvenido Bones Banez,Jr. again the only Filipino in the inventory, now appears along with Surrealism greats such as Salvador Dali, Max Ernst, HR Giger, Ernst Fuchs, Bosh, Picasso, and Robert Venosa, to name a few, in the same book. Esthetically mesmerizing the colors are in a Banez canvas, the perverted figures and miserable faces of humankind are as morbid and offensive to good taste. Apparently, the artist schemes to capture the viewer with wonder; then, in succeeding moments, pounces on his cognitive faculties with horrors of the wages of sin. This rare Banez visual irony fits well with Surrealism as originally defined by spokesperson Andre Breton: Beauty must be convulsive. In this context, Banez earned his ticket to the theater of the absurd where Hieronymus Bosch and company once sat and dreamed. It is notable that Banez, despite his psychedelic colors, is not and was never a drug abuser. His recent works indicate he has evolved from common representational surrealism into unique abstract surrealism as his figures and images lose physical and material volume, reduced to their astral constituency–something that only the very rare eye of contemplation could see. It is said only 2% of the world’s total population could see with contemplation’s eye. His abstraction of surrealism is a direction not commonly trodden by surrealists down history. This is the future that Banez should look forward to, to discover new horizons where he as Man is created not to languish in murky infernal depths, but to fulfill his vivid godly inheritance. It does not set him apart from his fellow Filipinos but pulls them up as artists universal as any other race. Lexikon Surreal is authored by Gerhard Habarta. Measuring 9 x 6.75 inches, it is printed hardcover, with ribbon. It contains 1,122 artist biographies from 69 countries in 464 pages, with 950 black-and-white and 458 color reproductions. https://archive.org/details/paradox-of-creative-3-2 and https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Surrealist%22&sort=-publicdate and http://www.musicalplayphilippines.com/2013/03/contemporary-art-exposition-by.html and https://wahcenter.wixsite.com/encyclopedia-surreal and https://www.vagallery.com/bienvenido-bones-banez-jr.html and http://colorsofpain.info/10.html
Excerpted- You Tube https://youtube.com/watch?v=35awKVW0NKA&feature=share 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't consider ourselves a reliable source, and your entire argument above, sources included, refuses to acknowledge anything I've said in favour of attacking Wikipedia on a matter which has long been settled. Given the concerns raised in the AfD and the tenour of your behaviour here, I have to ask: What is your connexion to the Williamsburg Art and Historical Centre and/or Banez? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are concerns the people oppressed by your biased and your discrimination. And hope you consideration for Autistic Artist Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. will be qualified by your consideration and here's the reasons from Wikipedia articles: The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Bias is manifested in both additions and deletions to articles.
Once identified, the bias is noticeable throughout Wikipedia. It takes two major forms:
1]a dearth of articles on neglected topics; 2]and
perspective bias in articles on many subjects
Since Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, choosing to take part in Wikipedia rather than being forced to, for social class (only a relatively small proportion of the world's population has the necessary access to computers, the Internet, and enough leisure time to edit Wikipedia articles), articles about or involving issues of interest to other social classes are unlikely to be created or, if created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability.
As of 2006, of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations, while only two of the sites were non-profit news organizations.[citation needed]
Perspective bias is internal to articles that are universal in aspect. It is not at all apparent from lunch (see tiffin) or the linguistic term continuous aspect that these concepts exist outside of the industrialized world.
A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined, or greater than all of Europe combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone or European topics. However, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, coverage of comparable Western wars remains much more detailed.
Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. Publication bias and full-text-on-the-net bias also make it more likely that editors will find reliable coverage for topics with easily available sources than articles dependent on off-line or difficult to find sources. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to go through the deletion process of Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
----As Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have said in an open letter:
How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, THEY ARE NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE of the DIVERSITY of the WORLD. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a worldwide movement to create and share free knowledge.
While obviously it is no longer true that fewer than 20% of the world's population has access to the Internet, the overall issues remain. ------ Hopefully you understand the points of view we should be open mind to become diversity.... 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all you can do is copy-paste Wikipedia policy pages at us and scream bias as opposed to giving us an actual coherent argument, then you haven't been listening to what you're being told and further discussion about this is not going to be productive. And you haven't answered the question about conflict of interest. Barring a complete and utter sea change in your reading comprehension, I will be reverting all further edits from you that do not address these issues (the refusal to engage with legitimate criticism, obvious conflict of interest, and bothering-by-the-book) off this page as disruptive. We're not going to waste time debating and explaining policy to someone whose ability to comprehend what is being told is minimal or leased-out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Concernsavant "[We hope your] consideration for Autistic Artist Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. will be qualified by your consideration..." We hope your consideration will be qualified by your consideration? What the heck does that mean? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:56, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Chito Kaii


I want to make an article on this rare film (whose survival status is unknown to me), but I can find no further info. Just the reputable Movie Weekly and the IMDB. I still search, but feel it’s hopeless. Would the reformatting I did help to get it through? I will try to find an image if it helps.

Same goes for the draft, “Draft:Duck Inn (1920 film)” by Mermaid comedies. Chito Kaii (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chito Kaii If you can't find reliable sources, then there is nothing to base an article on. Reformatting won't overcome a lack of sources, unfortunately. The article needs to summarize what the sources say. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:36, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Sclystest1

Hi, I've just created a Wikipedia page of Socialays (application), an artificial intelligence softwared social media management application. I also review the text with the tools called reFill and citation bot; and the result was no change necessary.

I've just wanted to let you know and be helpful.

Have a nice day!

Sclystest1 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:17, 18 September 2022 review of submission by PatrickJWelsh


PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on their talk page. Provided additional sources for inclusion in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Gusfriend rejected this draft as lacking adequate sources.

I'm confused about what kind of additional sources are needed, however. It's a stub that only makes three claims. The first two are supported by citations: one is a university website, and the other is a scholarly Dictionary of Hegelian Thought (in which GdiG was deemed important enough to be given his own entry). The third claim is supported by the titles of his works (or so I would think), the list of which are taken from his CV, which is linked below and can easily be independently verified.

Thanks for your help, and sorry if the answers to this are obvious: this is only the second article I created from scratch.

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(P.S." apologies, Gusfriend, for re-posting here what I posted in response to your Talk message. It just occurred to me that pulling you into a discussion there might be frowned upon.)

PatrickJWelsh, There is a full answer on the draft which sets out what we require from a reference. IN addition sometimes their work can be a reference, often not. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Timtrent,
For future reference, you could probably turn to sports or politics to find a less offensive analogy, that is, one that does not appear to compare a person to a manufacturing plant. (In this instance, the implication that I cite GdiG as a source for his own excellence seems to me false. But that is neither here nor there.)
It's probably also a bad idea to send an academic to a Wikipedia page that claims academics are only interested in boosting their own reputations, should be handled with kid gloves, and are very possibly only here to write articles about themselves under false pretense. Ouch!
You can find a model of a more productive and encouraging response on my Talk page.
Regards — Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PatrickJWelsh I'm sure anyone can choose to be offended by anything. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent, your suggestion that people chose their emotional response is psychologically dubious, to say the least. (If only that were so!)
In any case, whatever your actual attitudes or intentions, please be aware that the response to my inquiry that you posted on Draft:George di Giovanni is perceived by this inquirer as decidedly uninviting (which, incidentally, is directly contrary to WP:ACADEME#How_can_we_solve_it?).
Cheers– Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

01:50:06, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Tiana Shao


AEWIN Technologies Co., Ltd. is a member of BSG (Business Solution Group) under BenQ Qisda group (https://www.qisda.com/en/about/executives/michael_lee). BSG covers smart office, smart medical & manufacturing, targeting to be Expert of AIoT. Based on the information above, AEWIN shall be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advise, thanks. Tiana Shao (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Shao The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does- an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, it depends on the sources. If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:36, 19 September 2022 review of draft by YuKuro


Hi, this is the my first creation of article. So I have read of all of wikipedia submit rules and policies. I carefully quoted with many reliable publishing / articles regarding this person(Christian Bessy). Could you tell me concretely what is the points of problematics?

I would like to know what is the point must be re-considered.

YuKuro (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YuKuro: the majority of the citations are to Bessy's own works, hence why the reviewer said this needs more non-primary sources. And far too much of the content is unsupported, with several paragraphs without a single citation. (TBH, I don't think those are the only problems with this draft, but they are why it was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YuKuro In the decline notice, at the top of the draft, the words in blue are clickable links. These give very detailed information. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:33, 19 September 2022 review of draft by 103.124.143.144


Need help to get the sources verified that are in a regional language (Marathi). A non-regional language moderator may not be able to verify the facts cited in Marathi language, and hence the profile may get rejected. How do we tackle this. Thank you.

103.124.143.144 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter in what language the sources are, when so much of the content is unreferenced, and so many of the sources cited are not reliable (Blogspot, YouTube, Amazon). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:32, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Greenyonder

Hello, the draft for the UK band "Emperors New Clothes was not accepted although this band released more that 2 LPs with the label "Acid Jazz records", but it happened before year 2000. I have issues locating trustworthy sources of info. At the time there were news papers' articles about this band. If these articles only exist on paper form, can I point to a scanned version, or does Wikipedia only accept references as web links to existing website plateforms? This is a general question about older events only referenced by journalists at their time of release. Your help would be welcome. All the best Greenyonder (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Greenyonder: this draft currently cites sources which are no considered independent and/or reliable for the purposes of establishing notability per WP:GNG. While the band may (?) be inherently notable by one or more criteria of WP:BAND, we still need to be able to verify the information, especially but not only that related to the criterion/-a by which their notability is asserted.
If you cannot find online/digitised versions of the papers you mention, you can cite OFFLINE sources also, but you need to provide sufficient details of each source, so that others can locate and verify the sources if needed. Scanning and uploading article copies is not necessary. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:04, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Pchowla


I just wanted advice on how to clear this for creation when the editor said the material is not notable. The draft references articles in major Western news media (Guardian, Financial Times, Forbes) as well as non-Western sources (e.g. Premium Times in Nigeria). I can add references for many other media, but that would seem to be excessive referencing for the same factual information about the Panel. Below is a list of news sources referencing the Panel but not included in references. I would like some guidance about how many to include and where in the article to include them in order to have the subject of the article considered notable enough.

Bloomberg: UN Tax Convention Needed to Solve Global Problems, Panel Urges https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/un-tax-convention-needed-to-solve-global-problems-panel-urges

Electrek: Why global finance reform is crucial for green energy and climate action https://electrek.co/2021/02/25/global-finance-reform-green-energy-climate-action/

EURACTIV: Global agreement on corporate tax rates needed, UN report states https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/global-agreement-on-corporate-tax-rates-needed-un-report-states/

US News:The Global Private Sector Must Foster Financial Integrity https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2021-03-10/the-global-private-sector-must-foster-financial-integrity

Le Monde « Quatorze recommandations techniquement réalisables et politiquement viables pour lutter contre les flux financiers illicites » https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/03/10/quatorze-recommandations-techniquement-realisables-et-politiquement-viables-pour-lutter-contre-les-flux-financiers-illicites_6072601_3232.html

Newsweek : Corruption and Tax Abuse Slow Action on Poverty and Climate Change https://www.newsweek.com/corruption-tax-abuse-slow-action-poverty-climate-change-opinion-1571802

OECD : Financial integrity for sustainable development https://oecd-development-matters.org/2021/03/02/financial-integrity-for-sustainable-development/

Project Syndicate: Tax Havens Are Sabotaging the SDGs https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sdgs-tax-havens-illicit-financial-flows-development-by-yu-yongding-2021-03

Deutsche Welle: Des stratégies pour financer la lutte contre la Covid-19 https://www.dw.com/fr/des-strat%C3%A9gies-pour-financer-la-lutte-contre-la-covid-19/a-56733614

CNBC Africa: UN FACTI Panel outlines action against systemic abuse https://www.cnbcafrica.com/2021/un-facti-panel-outlines-action-against-systemic-abuse/

CNN: Panel de la ONU pide a países frenar la corrupción para afrontar crisis por coronavirus - CNN Video https://www.cnn.com/videos/spanish/2021/02/26/corrupcion-onu-crisis-coronavirus-gobiernos-paraisos-fiscales-dusa-juan-carlos-lopez-sot-cnne.cnn

Efe: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/economia/expertos-de-la-onu-proponen-medidas-contra-el-fraude-y-ingenieria-fiscal/10003-4473557

G1 - Globo.com: Ações contra corrupção podem ajudar combate a Covid-19, pobreza e crise climática, diz painel da ONU https://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2021/02/25/acoes-contra-corrupcao-podem-ajudar-combate-a-covid-19-pobreza-e-crise-climatica-diz-painel-da-onu.ghtml

MSN Noticas SFP pide transparencia a centros financieros internacionales https://www.msn.com/es-mx/noticias/mexico/sfp-pide-transparencia-a-centros-financieros-internacionales/ar-BB1e1a0d

Clarín: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal https://www.clarin.com/agencias/efe-expertos-onu-proponen-medidas-fraude-ingenieria-fiscal_0_CKMdetWDm.html

Pagina 12 Cuánto se pierde por los paraísos fiscales https://www.pagina12.com.ar/326120-cuanto-se-pierde-por-los-paraisos-fiscales

Grupo La Provincia: Un panel de la ONU insta a recuperar recursos del fraude fiscal y el lavado de dinero https://www.grupolaprovincia.com/economia/un-panel-de-la-onu-insta-a-recuperar-recursos-del-fraude-fiscal-y-el-lavado-de-dinero-667606

Todo Noticia: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal https://www.todonoticia.cl/2021/02/25/expertos-de-la-onu-proponen-medidas-contra-el-fraude-y-la-ingenieria-fiscal-por-efe/

Interpress: Blanqueo y paraísos fiscales, el lado más oscuro del sistema financiero mundial http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2021/02/blanqueo-paraisos-fiscales-lado-mas-oscuro-del-sistema-financiero-mundial/

L’Orient : le Jour recommandations de l’ONU pour un nouvel ordre financier https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1253453/les-recommandations-de-lonu-pour-un-nouvel-ordre-financier.html

Agence Ecofin: Le FACTI Panel propose une réponse globale face aux risques qui pèsent sur le financement du développement durable https://www.agenceecofin.com/actualites/2602-85607-facti-panel-propose-une-reponse-globale-face-aux-risques-qui-pesent-sur-le-financement-du-developpement-durable

AllAfrica.com UN Panel - Bankers, Lawyers, Accountants Enabling Financial Crimes 'Must Be Punished’ https://allafrica.com/stories/202102250599.html

Pchowla (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pchowla I recommend reaching out to the editor who rejected the draft and providing the three best sources that show in-depth coverage by reliable and independent sources about the subject. See WP:THREE and WP:42 for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @S0091. I am tagging here @MaxnaCarta, the original editor. I thought the sources cited in the article - The Guardian, the Financial Times, and Forbes - were three of the best independent sources (including two different articles each in Forbes and in the Financial Times). Near as I can discern from the reliability guidelines, the news articles meet the guidelines. And they are independent journalism outlets. Would be happy to add more references if needed. Pchowla (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pchowla those sources largely regurgitate FACTI's reports and/or are largely what a FACTI representative states so are not independent. Also, one of the Forbes articles (Sarfo) is not a reliable source because it was it was written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON). What is needed is in-depth coverage about FACTI, not what they have written or said. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @S0091, I see now. I thought a news article about the Panel and its report were the standard for notability (ie. an independent news source finds this notable). I have seen a lot of Wikipedia content which would not meet this standard as applied here, but I'm happy to try to bring this draft up to a standard that works. Some follow-up questions:
(1) How about paywalled sources? On the Sarfo article you mention as not reliable: this is actually a reprint in Forbes from another source. Ms. Sarfo is an editor at a separate specialist technical publication (Tax Notes - https://www.taxnotes.com/) which has 100% paywalled content. Sometimes they republish their material at Forbes (which then turns her title from 'editor' into "contributing editor"). The original version is at taxnotes (published March 8 2021). I think this qualifies her as a subject-matter expert as per the linked guidelines - see her profile https://www.taxnotes.com/opinions/my-tax-path-spotlight-contributing-editor-nana-ama-sarfo/2020/08/25/2cw9k). I don't think it is better to reference the paywalled version at taxnotes, but I can change this?
(2) Are academic blogs considered reliable and independent? A Harvard-based academic runs a blog on anti-corruption policy. He did a two part post analysing the Panel and its recommendations. See: https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2021/04/06/commentary-on-the-facti-panels-report-and-recommendations-part-1/, https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2021/04/08/commentary-on-the-facti-panels-report-and-recommendations-part-2/. This is analysis, not just news, but I thought a blog would be not considered reliable.
(3) Would official references from resolutions of intergovernmental bodies be considered relevant for notability? The Panel and report has been referenced in a number of official resolutions from the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I can add these if that is helpful.
Thank you for any relevant guidance. Pchowla (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pchowla can you please repost these sources on the draft's talk page? This is getting too in-depth for the help page, but yes, pay walled is fine. S0091 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @S0091. I have added in the material on draft of the page and on the talk page. But I can't submit for re-review because of the past editorial decision. Pchowla (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pchowla Blogs are not OK, no matter who writes there (generally no independent fact-checking or corrections in a blog). 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:08, 19 September 2022 review of draft by 82.48.49.63


Wikipedia is full of articles about authors whose references are pretty poor: I've come across several ones which, undeniably, are poorer than the one I submitted, without too much effort in finding such names. I can report examples if need be. Needless to say, deciding if an author is worth a Wikipedia article is a delicate matter, but it is subjective above all: there can be no comprehensive, absolute criteria. Just a tiny percentage of authors can have "top" credits, like Nobel Laureates, Poet Laureates, and winners of important prizes (e.g., the Pulitzer Prize). Over 90% of the authors covered by Wikipedia don't fall in such a league, nonetheless they have their article, because they are published authors, I mean, published in notable, respected journals, quite regularly, and have authored one or more "real" books. So, if an author has been widely published internationally and has authored several books with real publishers (not publishing services or subsidized publishers), for me they're worth a Wikipedia article (as what I said at the beginning proves). Moreover, literary magazines publications are more relevant than books themselves, in most cases: there's no "cheating" about that! World Literature Today, for instance, won't publish any author whose work has little or no value, and that certainly is a renowned, independent source! I just included three remarkable publications: World Literature Today, Quadrant and Acumen, because I thought that three are enough (Wikipedia is not a list of publications, websites, etc.), being top literary journals in their respective countries (and covered by Wikipedia itself). By the way, Zanelli has been published also in three of the most renowned South African literary journals: New Contrast (South African Literary Journal), New Coin and Carapace, a few times in each of them. All the sources I cited, to be honest, are actually independent from the subject: the Library of Congress, for example, would never store and list self-published or subsidized books, and that's another authoritative source (the most authoritative library in the English language, I'd say). As to actual "references", i.e. coverage in a variety of secondary, independent sources, again that's not the case for most literary authors: you can find news about them and their work in literary magazines and on literary websites, but hardly in general media, unless they have won the National Poetry Competition, or the T.S. Eliot Prize, or have sold tens of thousands of books (which happens, maybe, to one out of a thousand published poets, including most of those covered by Wikipedia). So, really, I'd like to understand better what kind of references would actually "work", seeing that, for instance, the one by The Poetry Society (the most important literary organization in Britain, along with the Royal Society of Literature) is not considered one of those! Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that if the article had been created by a credited Wikipedia editor, it would have been OK, but it has been submitted by a simple poetry reader with very little expertise in the creation of articles on Wikipedia, trying to do it in the best and most accurate way regardless. Anyhow, as I said, I'd be most grateful if someone could further explain why the references I've found are not good, or not enough. Where has a literary author to have been published and covered if not in some of the most prestigious literary journals (like World Literature Today) or by the most important literary organizations (like The poetry Society of the United Kingdom)? Thanks to anybody who will take the trouble to reply

82.48.49.63 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there is indeed inappropriate content on Wikipedia. This does not mean more should be added. If you would like to help us out, feel free to work to identify and address poorly sourced articles that do not meet notability guidelines.
Basic profiles and listings do not establish notability. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, actually for an author my suggestion is first creating an article about their most notable work. If an author's work is not notable, then it is very likely the author is not notable. See the the notability guidelines for books. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:15, 19 September 2022 review of draft by Cutekosto3


Cutekosto3 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made all appropraite changes with citation. Can I please resubmit?

Thank you!

Hi @Cutekosto3, yes, you can resubmit by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the draft's decline notice. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:03, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Waterbucket123


Waterbucket123 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waterbucket123 do you have a question? I see your draft was rejected which means it will not be considered. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:31, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Tanzim Arman

I will write my own about why reject it Tanzim Arman (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanzim Arman Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. See WP:NOTPROMO. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:00, 19 September 2022 review of draft by MiadYUgce


First of all i keep getting american wikipedians instead of european ones second of all i know my draft has source because i am actually a historian in macedonia i am 25 years old and i have alot of experience in history and i have sources from alot of books and alot of people like in youtube some guy called mario macedonian lessons. please submit my draft and thanks

MiadYUgce (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MiadYUgce There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer is of a particular nationality, nor any way to even know for certain what nationality people are. The nationality shouldn't matter in any event. The main problem with your draft is that it does not read as an encyclopedia article, it reads as an essay. It also seems to duplicate an existing article, Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i do not know that article. And also i dont know how to make a encyclopedia article. Thats why i made it in a essay type MiadYUgce (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MiadYUgce: Demanding a user of a specific nationality look at your article is asking for trouble. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MiadYUgce Your article does not cite sources from a lot of books. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i got told i need 3 sources so i put all the sources i had MiadYUgce (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:27, 19 September 2022 review of draft by Gpcontributor


Hi, what more sources can I add to make this work? I have the show being talked about on Good Morning America here: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/video/stock-tips-starters-81183969-- "The Hour" media outlet also covered the GMA appearance here:https://www.thehour.com/business/article/New-Investor-Show-Going-Public-Makes-a-Splash-16624993.php... Will that help? A friend of mine reviewed the article and also included the show on Forbes, how it is distributed on Entrepreneur.com, and more. What is the best way to share this information in the article? Gpcontributor (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gpcontributor I fear that you may be too close to your show to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires- but the article needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. That usually means it should summarize in depth, unsolicited reviews of the series. I don't think the two source you provide here qualify; though I can't view the first link you provided, the second seems to be an interview with the host of the program, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

05:35:47, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Hamza131974


Hello, I am trying to position table on the right side of the text and so far I have not been successful. I have red some help articles on the subject but I did not made any progress. What do I have to do, and how to do it? Thank you for your help. Hamza131974 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hamza131974: not strictly an AfC question, you would be better off asking as the Teahouse, but all the same — are you perhaps trying to build an infobox, like the one seen in eg. Lauri Markkanen? If so, then you want Template:Infobox basketball biography. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the answer. I will try Teahouse. Hamza131974 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that infobox template wasn't what you were after, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:58:32, 20 September 2022 review of submission by 60.60.181.197


60.60.181.197 (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hello And sorry to Bother Please i would like a chance to put this article on Wikipedia. I think this subject qualifies for an article and probably my article is not the most clear So I want to improved. But he s one of the latest prince Obolensky and i tried to put every source available.

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If those are the only sources available, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:37, 20 September 2022 review of submission by 211.221.56.50

09:56:37, 20 September 2022 review of submission by 211.221.56.50

Hi, I've made changes to the draft using references taken from Korean sources, since the game is based in Korea. I was unable to find the sources written in English. If you have any advice on how to make the page better, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. 211.221.56.50 (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:07, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Fico Puricelli


Fico Puricelli (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Fico Puricelli? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my question is which sources I should be looking for prose books. That's all. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fico Puricelli: well, any sources would be a great start, given that the draft currently cites only the author's own website, until we get way down to the 'Reception' section.
Slightly less flippantly, books can either be notable per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, or by meeting one or more of the criteria listed in WP:BOOKCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:37, 20 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SerenityCrew


Been writing an entry for a corporate client for a while now and slightly puzzled why the entry has been declined when its competitors and companies it partners with (Kaltura, Synamedia, Ateme) all have active pages. Am a journalist myself when not taking the corporate shilling and have vigorously tried to be as objective in its entry as possible. We're over a year into this process now and I honestly can't see a difference between what has been submitted and rejected here and what has been submitted and accepted on behalf of other corporations.

Any guidance gratefully received...

SerenityCrew (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SerenityCrew: "its competitors and companies it partners with all have active pages" is irrelevant — see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This draft has to satisfy the notability requirements in its own right, which the reviewer(s) evidently deemed it doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding "Viaccess-Orca provides solutions and services primarily for the broadcast and video industry" see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:00, 20 September 2022 review of submission by KarstenBerlin

I would like to know why my draft does not get accepted. It describes a compilation album as there are many pages on compilation albums on wikipedia. It is not a repetition as one reviewer was assuming as the cover is completely different from the other compilation and there are more songs on this album. Unfortunately I was unable to upload the cover as wikipedia told me there is no page for my upload. It seems draft pages are insufficient for uploads. I guess that would make it easier to see. KarstenBerlin (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KarstenBerlin: if I understand correctly, the reviewers are saying that this draft duplicates Essential (Jethro Tull album), whereas you're saying they're two different albums, despite the same name — correct? (You can see why this might be confusing.) I think we would need to see demonstrably reliable, and inarguably clear, evidence of that; I'm not sure the sources currently cited are quite up to scratch. I don't think the different cover design is conclusive proof, as some albums were released with more than one design. The release dates could also refer to original vs. re-release (I'm not saying they do, just saying they could). If you can produce the necessary evidence, and assuming you can reference the draft more clearly (it currently has no inline citations, making it difficult to see which source supports what information), then there would certainly be a case for giving this draft another review. For more advice, see WP:REFB RE referencing, and WP:GNG RE notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:43, 20 September 2022 review of submission by Adhi krishnan


Adhi krishnan (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Adhi krishnan? This draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:58, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Wovart


Hello, I'm requesting assistance changing the name of my Draft. It doesn't include the artist's middle name and thus the system is trying to connect it with other Anthony Young articles but the artists full name that they us is Anthony Peyton Young. I tried following what I had found but the option to rename the article can't be found from my end.

Any guiandance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you

Wovart (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wovart: seems this has been done already by Robert McClenon.
For future reference, don't worry about the draft title, it can be moved (which is what you're calling 'rename') to a different title when it's published, which is when it gets moved to a different name space anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:49, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Sillyrabbid69


Sources attached are from verified reputable outlets. Can you verify what specific changes need to be made to get this page published?

Sillyrabbid69 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sillyrabbid69 The sources are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Such sources must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Interviews do not establish notability as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So independent articles are preferred? Out of curiosity, how do interviews with said subject not establish nobility? As an example, Cartoon Brew. They are a highly regarded magazine in the world wide animation industry. They don't just interview "anybody". Would a source like FamousBirthdays.com be considered a reliable source over an interview with said subject? Sillyrabbid69 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No...due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sillyrabbid69 Interviews are by definition not independent- they are the subject speaking about themselves. Interviews are not forbidden from articles, but they do not establish the notability of the subject. If you want to use an interview with him to cite his birthday, it might be okay, but an independent source would be preferable- because people can and do lie about their ages. A prominent media outlet interviewing someone does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1111486673"