Help desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 21

16:13, 21 April 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

עומר תשבי (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Shalom Meckenzie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined due to so called "lack of sources". However, there are many sources on the article. Furthermore, Meckenzie is a leading shareholder in a huge company, with significant coverage in all main financial websites Both in Israel and The US עומר תשבי (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking at this draft: Subject falls into a community-authorised contentious topic (Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Alexbarg

Alexbarg (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Michael Bargeron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined because of not providing reliable sources for the information, however the sources of information were from the official British Shooting website and from a BBC news article solely about the person who the Wikipedia page was about. The initial reason for the Wikipedia page to be created was because there was a separate page which referenced the individual in question with a hyperlink which said there was no existing page for the individual. Please can you advise? Alexbarg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NATH for the criteria they need to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 21 April 2024 review of submission by 37.252.90.42

37.252.90.42 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Muthumudalige Nissanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello There, I have just translated Wikipedia article written in Sinhala, Sri Lanka language. Unfortunately Wikipedia rejected it , I am new to Wikipedia and trying to do something better to social, specially as a translator I am trying to translate a Wikipedia articles which is written in Sinhala to English for free, Please kindly help me to improve the knowledge and find what is the wrong with my translating's. Here is the link to original article > https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A_%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%81%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9A 37.252.90.42 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't seem to mention Muthumudalige Nissanka? Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Varshu018

Varshu018 (talk · contribs)
- Jhanak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is not being accepted since a long time Varshu018 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done anything about the reviewers comment "The Times of India cannot be used to source entertainment articles - please find more reliable sources" Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 21 April 2024 review of submission by MartinJeremy78

MartinJeremy78 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Diana Elizabeth Martinovich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article was declined. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinJeremy78: it was declined for lack of evidence of notability, as explained in the decline notice. We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you about it. I have provided you several sources that confirm my articcle and data about Mrs. Diana Elizabeth Martinovich. It seems to me you have something personal against Diana Elizabeth Martinovichm,because there are persons with much less accomplishments and with much less notability that are published on Wikipedia. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Topg1985

Topg1985 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:William John Titus Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An Editor, HouseBlaster, is repeatedly commenting on and editing my draft. It feels like disruptive editing and a personal issue. There seems to be a query about notability, but I am sure the topic is notable.

All my Love,

Topg1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have nothing against you or Bishop. However, I have significant doubts about whether Bishop is notable. I have created a source assessment table of the sources currently in the article, and I previously assessed four others in response to a question at my talk page. An article on this subject has been deleted after a deletion discussion, and has been deleted at various titles over the years (including William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer); this list is from the deletion discussion). House Blaster (talk · he/him) 23:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseBlaster and 331dot,

Thank you for your comments. The subjects notability has nothing to do with previous attempts to create the article. I understand your concern but I am convinced he is notable.

All my Love,

TooG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: with respect, it doesn't matter whether you're convinced he's notable; it only matters whether you can objectively demonstrate his notability through sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DoubleGrazing,

I hope you are well and thank you for your message. That is affirmative, I can objectively demonstrate notability through sources.

All my Love, TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have deleted your latest additions to this page. Please do not start a new thread, just add to this existing one. And certainly don't add two new threads that are identical. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Which of my additions are you referring to?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know your own edits?! A moment ago you opened two new threads on the bottom of this page, saying:

"The editor HouseBlaster, has stated he has a personal issue with me and my editing. He keeps commenting on and trying interfere with my draft."

Quite apart from everything else, that's not even a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

My apologies, I did not notice that it had been deleted. My page had not updated. I feel it is worth noting that the editor in question has commented that if I re-submit the draft he will force a deletion discussion.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: nothing wrong with that. You should not resubmit a draft that has been rejected; that's what rejection means. And if you do (resubmit), that is just saying that a deletion process will consequently be instigated.

BTW, do you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Your user page says you're a paid editor, but it's not clear whether and how that relates to the subject of this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

The editor in question has stated that he does not think I am taking him seriousely. This is a personal issue and nothing to do with me or my draft or Wikipedia. I have been editing the Encyclopedia for a while now and never had a problem like this. It makes me feel bad. The subject of the draft is a musician, and I have been requested by an artist management to write a draft about him. So there is no COI.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: could you please be a little less vague – what is this "artist management" you speak of? What is their relationship to Bishop? And what is their relationship to you, and how come they made such a request? So far it's sounding very much like there probably is a COI, we just need to establish its precise nature.

As for any personal issues between two editors, this isn't something I'm prepared to get involved in, and it also isn't something we can assist with here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Hi I have already declared COI on my user page. I work for his management team. I do not know the artist, or why they made the request.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: yes, I know you had disclosed some paid editing on your user page; my question was whether it relates to Bishop. (I say "had", because for some mysterious reason you've now removed that disclosure.)

And as if that's not enough, you say on one hand that "there is no COI", and on the other that you work for Bishop's (?) management team.

What's going on here? If we can't straighten out this matter ourselves, I'll need to ask an admin to intervene. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topg1985 certainly has a COI.

Topg1985, you are not taking me seriously. I have told you that the answer is no. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my advice.

You have not provided any reliable sources which contain significant coverage and are independent of Bishop. Do you have any? That is the whole ballgame. If you have multiple, Bishop is notable. If not, he is not. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 12:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I hope HouseBlaster that you are feeling a little less bad about yourself and have a better feeling of self-worth. I am not sticking my fingers anywhere or ignoring anyone. I have taken onboard what HouseBlaster has said. I have certainly provided such sources, and I can find more if necessary. In HouseBlaster’s analysis he rejects reference 1, but it is listed as reliable on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources for music, and is independant and significant.

There is enough information on Bishop to write an article, and the sources are reliable and independant. When I started writing the page I placed the correct COI template on my userpage, and this was noted. The template stated that I worked for Bishop’s management. I thought it could be removed at anytime. There is no problem there. What exactly is the issue?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: this feels like trying to nail jelly to a wall...

The paid-editing COI disclosure on your user page read as follows:

{{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=Sentric Music|client=Sentric Music}}

Where in that does it say anything about Bishop? And/or where in the Bishop draft does it say anything about Sentric Music? The connection may be perfectly obvious to you, given that you work for them, but it isn't to me, hence my question.

And no, you emphatically may not remove disclosures.

Therefore, the "issue" is that you appear to be a paid editor, without a valid and unambiguous paid-editing disclosure in place. That, and your ongoing badgering of this matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing and HouseBlaster,

I will re-add the template immediately. My concern is that now is that if I edit the draft and re-submit it, then it will automatically be in a deletion discussion, which should not be the case if the subject is notable.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: your disclosure still makes no reference to Bishop.

And you can keep saying as many times as you like that Bishop is notable; that does not make him so, we need actual evidence.

I think I'll have to give up as this is clearly going nowhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly notable, the deletion discussion will end with consensus that the subject is notable and it would not be deleted.

Source 1 is the closest we have to a significant coverage in a reliable source, but I am very skeptical that it is truly independent of Bishop. It is almost a verbatim copy from source 2, which according that website's its "about us" section is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent. Therefore, source 1 is either committing plagiarism (which puts its reliability in doubt) or it is copying with permission, in which case the source is not independent. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I will mention Bishop specifically in the disclosure.

HouseBlaster, source 1 is listed as reliable by Wikipedia. It is independant of Bishop because it does not follow that just because two text share the same information that the same people are involved in their creation. Your skepticism is bordering on bad faith, but I am glad to see you are feeling less insecure!

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster,

In addition source 4 contains significant coverage under the ‘more about’ section. You’ve said the source is reliable and independant already.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 2 don't only share the same information, they share the same wording of the information. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two sources (source 1 is in yellow; source 2 is in blue). Paragraph 1 of source 1:

Paragraph 2 of source 1 appears identically in source 2 (Now signed to Sony Music's The Orchard, William was born in London, attending the Haberdashers Askes' School for Boys where he learned cello and double bass, performing predominantly orchestral works. In London he learned to play guitar wanting to write his own songs and music.). Here is paragraph 3 of source 1 compared to source 2:

Either source 1 is committing plagiarism and thus is unreliable (because any editorial standards would forbid plagiarism), or source 1 is copying with permission from source 2 and thus is not independent. (And source 2 was not copying from source 1; source 2 has existed since 2021 and source 1 is dated from 2024.)

I missed the "more about" section; thank you for drawing my attention to it. When I first reviewed the source, I evidently missed a few things. Doing a more thorough review of the source, I have doubts about its reliability (it is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or the list of perennial sources, and I cannot find any discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard). Even if we assume the source is reliable, that is a single source: we need multiple for notability. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I still think that if Wikipedia states the source is reliable then it must be reliable, but great analysis.

I have added two further sources which should have enough independant, reliable information for you and I will add more when I find them.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia say source 4 is a reliable source?

I have reviewed the two additional sources you added. qrates contains the same biography from sources 1 and 2, and thus is not independent. ReverbNation might be a reliable source; I don't know. However, it does not appear to be independent: It contains a line talking about Bishop in the first person (I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it). House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I meant to say that Wikipedia lists source 1 as reliable. The sentence you refer to from Reverbnation looks like a typo.

I still have a few more I can add.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I buy that it is a typo; I can't say I have ever heard of someone writing from the first person by mistake. However, I know of plenty of times people are told to write about themselves in the third person (to name just two, biographies for company websites and theater playbill blurbs). The source also sounds like something written by (or at least in collaboration with) Bishop; an independent writer would not know details like [Bishop] didn’t think anything of it at the time.

When Wikipedia says a source is "reliable", we mean "usually reliable". In all cases, the context matters. In fact, a direct quote from the guideline is The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Even though the source might be generally reliable, we can't blindly say it is reliable in all circumstance. If it is copying from a different source, it would inherit the reliability and independence of the original source. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

With regards to your first paragraph, independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.

With regards to the second paragraph, thank you for the information. In this case I assume the original source is reliable and independant as I can find no direct links to Bishop.

All my Love,

Top G1985 Topg1985 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is taking creative liberties and not reporting factually, it is reporting speculation as fact, which makes it unreliable. Either way, the article does not contribute to notability.

As for source two, as I said above:

according [source 2's about section, it] is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent.

Best, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 16:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

Taking creative liberties is, I agree, not a report of a fact. Still, that is exactly what journalists do. I don’t think they are reporting speculation as fact, it’s pretty clear it’s just the journalist speculating.

As for chinamix.com, I can find no link to Bishop directly. I don’t wish to argue but how can you be sure ‘they don’t host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinamix.com’? You can’t really say much about the organisation from just a website.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think an independent, reliable source with significant coverage about Bishop would look like?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the time has come to draw a line under this and stop flogging a dead horse. The draft has been rejected, and IMO correctly so. No convincing evidence of notability has been produced, only unsubstantiated claims by a paid editor (whose COI took far too much effort to establish, I might add). The whole thing is becoming tendentious and this thread is looking more and more like bludgeoning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

On the contrary, and with all due respect, I am trying very hard to establish what is meant by a reliable, independant and significant source. So that I may edit Wikipedia in the best way possible. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with paid editing, and I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time without being a paid editor. I can produce a very long list of articles about musicians which use sources which I have been told are unsuitable, but I don’t flirt with controversy or use blunt weaponry.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap articles exist for that argument, there is zero evidence that the artist passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Theroadislong,

I hope you are well. Please stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best.

All my Love,

TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've blocked Topg1985 indefinitely for any number of reasons apparent in this thread, but DE was simplest. Star Mississippi 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 April 2024 review of submission by BretDvr

BretDvr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:PolyAI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unclear which of the types of sources I am missing, or which you would like more of. I've linked to several outside sources that discuss PolyAI and its products/work, not just internal websites or press releases. I would be happy to provide more information, but I need to know what to provide. BretDvr (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BretDvr Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Once those are left out, the draft just tells of the routine activities of the company, which does not establish notability. We need sources with significant coverage of your company- coverage that goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me see what I can get. BretDvr (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article from Business Weekly, Taiwan, be enough to establish PolyAI's notability? (If necessary, I can add material from it to the article I previously submitted.) The original link is in Taiwanese, but I've also added a link to a translated version. Hope this works.

https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/archive/Article?StrId=7008288

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PAdnoed5WI2PuvDDnP-NEU32a1VI_iqK/view?usp=drive_link BretDvr (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Monelle

Monelle (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Sonia Malkine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me what "copyrighted information" was included in the article I submitted? I seem to remember being told that the wording was the same as that on Sonia Malkine's website. That website was owned and written by me (Sonia Malkine was my mother). It has since been taken down as a result of having been hacked. Is there any possibility that my article could now be included in Wikipedia? Thank you for your attention. Monelle (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Monelle (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monelle A publication must be CC BY-SA compliant in order for its contents to be copied here and even then the content may not be suitable for use in a Wikipedia article per WP:NOT (more specifically WP:NOTPROMO) and the Neutral point of view policy. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

It follows that writing an article starts by looking for such independent sources, and if they cannot be found, there is no point in going any further. It is unlikely that very much on your mother's website will be relevant to a Wikipedia article ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:39, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Jadooee

Jadooee (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jill Viles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received this message," This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.".

I just edited the draft, but I do not want to resubmit and risk it getting deleted if the issues are still present. Is there a way I can ask for it to be reviewed without penalty? Jadooee (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. As long as you are making progress and there is a chance the issues can be resolved, you shouldn't have an issue. I will say that the draft is loaded with promotional language("stands as a remarkable figure who has astounded many scientists and health professionals"; "she achieved the extraordinary feat", etc). An article should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible, without embellishments. Much of the draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see WP:BLP.

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]