Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 30

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 29 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 31 >
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.


May 30

edit

00:28, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Kellyooouuu

edit

I'm requesting for assistance on how I may improve this article that I want to publish. Kellyooouuu (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellyooouuu: the reason why this draft was declined is that there is insufficient evidence that the person is notable. Given that local politicians aren't notable per WP:NPOL, and there no longer is a special notability guideline for football players, you're left with the general WP:GNG guideline. You need to produce multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and that have provided significant coverage of the subject. (You also need to support the draft contents better, as there is currently unreferenced biographical information, although that wasn't the reason why this was declined.)
What is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a conflict of interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Emmabellarudd

edit

Hi! Does this article appear neutral? Thank you so much for your help! Emmabellarudd (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmabellarudd: it does have some fairly peacocky expressions like "captivated audiences and shed light on the critical issue". We also don't use hashtag terms, this is not a social media platform.
More to the point, this seems to be you telling the world about yourself, and citing some sources almost coincidentally, or perhaps to show how much media coverage you've garnered. This is not what Wikipedia articles are about. You need to find a few (say, 3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise (in your words, and without putting any additional spin on things) what they've said. As long as this is just you writing about yourself, the whole thing is inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO).
And even if written as outlined above, it shouldn't be you writing about yourself, for all the reasons explained in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Danasbiz

edit

I need help editing my draft Danasbiz (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is required there is not a single reliable independent source there, and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danasbiz Your username is "Dana's biz"- are you associated with Dana Hammond? 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
associated with Dana Priyanka Hammond Danasbiz (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz then it is mandatory that you make a paid editing disclosure, by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so will result in your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how do you make paid editing disclosure? Danasbiz (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz see WP:PAID. You can do so by adding the {{paid}} to your user page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but as I mentioned before, I am not receiving any compensation for my edits. Therefore, I'm not required to add the {{paid}} template to my user page. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or any further assistance you need, please let me know! Danasbiz (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not receiving any compensation for my edits, I am not required to make a paid editing disclosure. My edits are made in good faith to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have any further questions or need more assistance with the article, please let me know! Danasbiz (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz did you write that with ChatGPT?
If you are not being paid by Dana Pryanka Hammond, why is your username "Dana's Biz"? Qcne (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. The username "Dana's Biz" was chosen based on the context of the information provided by you about Dana Priyanka Hammond, not because I am personally connected to her or her business. It was intended to maintain context and coherence in our conversation. If this has caused any misunderstanding, I apologize. Danasbiz (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you outputting replies that sound like a large language model wrote them? Qcne (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Your username was chosen when you created your account, not when you started this post. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no connection between me and Dana Priyanka Hammond. I simple created an account that came to me on top of my head that would be easy to remember for me. Again, I am very sorry for the misunderstanding because I am not trying to create any confusion or start anything that was not meant to be harmful. I just came in to input information. I did not realize my username would be a problem and if there is a way I can change it, I would. Danasbiz (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right... so pure coincidence then... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. I'll get some popcorn. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are having such a big problem with me or why your picking on me, but you sure are acting like you know me for whatever reason. If you must know. My name is Dana also. So, can you please relax and lay off of me. I am brand new here and I just created an account for the first time, I am a newcomer here so please don't treat me like I should have known the rules when I don't. Danasbiz (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you associated with Dana Hammond? What is your relationship to her? Are you Dana? You affirmed earlier that you are associated, so we just need to understand that connection. Qcne (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz: could you please explain how you came to take the photo, if you have no connection to the subject? It has clearly been taken at close quarters, and you uploaded it as your own work, with Ms Hammond posing for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you guys are very relentless just ready to chew me up and spit me out for whatever reason. If you must know also, I am the authors friend and I know her personally so I have access to her photos she has provided me with plus various of things. I am doing this on my own free will for her, that is why I am not getting paid for this. I am doing it because I feel her information is important enough to share and create. Danasbiz (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I recommend you read WP:COI, as you have a clear one. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finally letting us know. You just need to make that conflict of interest declaration by following the instructions at WP:COI. Qcne (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the WP.COI and I am making sure that I write neutrally Danasbiz (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read WP:NPOV then, as sentences like As a bestselling author, Hammond is renowned for her candid memoirs and self-help books, which provide insight, inspiration, and guidance to readers around the globe. aren't exactly neutral. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz also, please do not use AI when writing drafts. (quite obvious from this edit summary) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no problem Danasbiz (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does she own the copyright to the images she is providing you with? Usually the photographer is the copyright owner, it isn't usually the subject. I'm sorry you feel "chewed up and spit out", but diving right in to creating articles is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles first, as well as using the new user tutorial, before attempting this difficult task. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hers and is rightfully owned by her and the photographer as well. I guess I really did not know what I was really getting myself into when I came on here, but rest assure that I am following Wikipedia rules in everything and making sure I am correcting everything as well. Thank you for your concern. Danasbiz (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz: nobody is "chewing you up", but you seem to have totally misunderstood what Wikipedia is, and is not. It is an encyclopaedia. It isn't a marketing channel for you to tell the world about you, or your friend, or whatever the relationship is between you and Ms Hammond (and so far you've said you are "associated", you have "no connection" at all, and now you are a personal "friend", so who's to say which if any of those is true). DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes I completely get it. Thanks. Danasbiz (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Ss ram

edit

Hello All,

Today I got to know that "Draft:Niranjan BS" that I had submitted to Articles for Creation for review has been declined to failure to provide reliable secondary references regarding notability of the subject. I kindly request you to read below my humble opinion regarding this.

Additional criteria for notability state "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" and elaborates it per WP:ANYBIO for any biography as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." The subject of this draft, Niranjan BS, is a prominent South Indian television actor who has won quite a few awards as listed in the draft, but I would like to bring to your kind attention 2 specifically noteworthy awards (noteworthy because they were awarded by well-known independent organizations) - which are "Kala Nekara" award (from Karnataka Art Weavers forum) and "Padmamohana TV Awards" for Best Debut Hero from Padmamohana Arts (another prestigious organization that has been conducting several social and cultural programs for around 30 years in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states and presenting state wide awards). These 2 organizations are independent of the TV Channels that telecast the subject's shows, thus imparting a real significance to these awards as they hence stand apart from the other awards too that he had been conferred with.

Also, additional criteria for Entertainers (actors) state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As listed in the draft, the subject has played significant roles mainly in TV shows (3 of which including the current one are as the male lead, hence significant roles) but also in other forums like short films and briefly in movies.

All these cover a span of around 10 years, but unfortunately secondary sources like books, etc, are not usually written about actors within this relatively short span for actors, so could not find any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but could find many primary sources like magazine articles which I have included in the draft, and importantly, many of these references are exclusively about the subject himself and I did not include anything that made just a passing reference about him or include any gossip-type articles, carefully read and corroborated information in these articles before deciding on their veracity and their inclusion as references; a couple references that would seem like passing references were included only as a sincere attempt to provide proof for his involvement in whatever show/activity that the reference is about and truly not any insincere attempt to provide too many insignificant references). I honestly adhered to all Wikipedia rules to my knowledge and ensured that I do not include even a single piece of information for which a reference could not be found online, and in the process, I myself left out many references which did not seem satisfactory or authentic to me or ones that just made passing references about him. If this draft gets approved, I promise to devote my time and attention to update it as and when other additional references (primary and secondary) become available. Hence, I request you to kindly consider approval of this draft because not only the subject meets the above 2 additional criteria for notability but also the draft only contains 100% verifiable facts and made with real sincerity towards adherence of rules. I once again humbly request to consider the above 2 Wikipedia Additional criteria regarding notability for entertainers as the basis for approving this draft.

I thank everyone involved for your time and kind attention in this matter. Ss ram (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss ram, your biggest problem here is that you say there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. Each and every article must have sources that meet the criteria of the golden rule: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You may use primary sources for very basic facts, such as if Niranjan BS did an interview and stated his birth date, but they cannot be your only sources. I have looked into your first 10 sources to give you an idea of how much work is still required.
1) is an interview, which is not independent and is a primary source, so it is useless without secondary sources;
2) is from the network that airs one of the shows he was in, so it is not independent and cannot be used;
3) is a YouTube video, and YouTube is not a reliable source;
4) appears to be a highly promotional biography, and having no individual author ('Team Nettv4u') is usually not a good sign in terms of reliability;
5) is behind a paywall, so I cannot access it;
6) is just a place you can watch videos he is in, which is useless for notability;
7) is from The Times of India, which is not considered to be reliable and cannot be used;
8) is a passing mention at best, and cannot be used;
9) and 10) are from Instagram, which can only be a primary source and even then only if it is the subject's official account, which this is not. Both of these cannot be used.
You might have one reliable source, but all the rest do not help your draft and should be removed. I know this is not the answer you want, but unfortunately this is where you stand at the moment. Before resubmitting, you need to find a lot of reliable sources - read WP:BLP if you have not already - and do not resubmit your draft without fixing all the issues. I see you have it waiting for a review right now, which means you have time to work on it! If it is declined and you resubmit it without making any improvements, the draft is likely to be rejected and that means you have run out of chances to get the draft approved. Good luck in your search for reliable sources, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @StartGrammarTime,
My heartful thanks to you for taking your valuable time and answering my query and reviewing the draft. I have 2 doubts, which I kindly request you to clarify.
I really did understand about reliable and secondary sources, but unfortunately could not find secondary sources such as books and all available sources were primary, but when I read WP:ANYBIO, my understanding was reliable/secondary/independent sources are the basic criteria, but that there are additional criteria for specific categories such as actors, etc., and that "People are likely to be notable if they meet" those standards. I felt Niranjan BS meets those additional criteria, with regards to awards and significant roles. I understand that notability cannot be proved adequately when there are no secondary or reliable sources and that it cannot be proved based on available primary sources alone. But when it comes to actors, the listed reliable sources (for India) (such as the magazines like The Hindu, etc) are not going to interview every actor out there, I am not referring the ones who did insignificant roles, but rather even the ones that did substantial roles or received awards and their choices. We do not know what would be such sources' criteria to interview any particular actor, so finding references from only such limited sources for every actor in India may not always be practically possible, but that does not mean such actors are not notable at all (here too I am not meaning popularity, I mean notability only), right?. I believe it is for this very reason that Wikipedia has those additional criteria. Because if we suppose every actor would have secondary/reliable sources and the issue is only the editors not finding them, then Wikipedia wouldn't even have those additional criteria and would have mentioned only the basic criteria as the only criteria to be met for all biographies. So if there are specific additional criteria (for actors, etc), it means Wikipedia itself is providing a rightful exception for such cases. So does not our subject deserve an article even if he satisfies those additional criteria?
Second doubt is, you had mentioned that The Times of India is not a reliable source. I understand that, but I see many articles for actors that have been approved without having any reliable/secondary/independent sources and surprisingly with ONLY The Times of India as reference (example: Rakshith Gowda). This article only has 5 references listed, 4 of which is from The Times of India and another is a non-independent source that you have listed as #2 in your reply. So when that article was approved, why should our draft, which lists more references than that and (though many primary and non-independent for the reasons stated abovve, and as you said, 1 source that might be reliable, which is The HIndu), be declined? That is just one example and there are many. My aim is really not to question Wikipedia on all of this, but I genuinely don't understand this lack of uniformity regarding rules. So when Niranjan BS meets at least the additional criteria for notability (which itself Wikipedia provides as an rightful exception when the basic criteria are not met currently), can you please intervene in this matter and see if this draft can be approved based on both reasons above?
I remain indebted for your time and attention. Ss ram (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss ram, I know it can be very frustrating when you can't find secondary sources! Sadly though, you do need them if you want this article to be approved. If there are no secondary sources, the article won't be approved. And since you're writing a WP:BLP, every single statement needs to be referenced. This is one of the reasons creating a Wikipedia article is so difficult! Of course there are many wonderful actors who touch people's hearts and make great films and shows, but are still not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Not everyone gets an article, which can be upsetting, but the notability criteria have been worked on for decades and this is what has been agreed upon by editors much more experienced than you or I.
You mention other articles which seem to have only unreliable sources. It's true that there are many articles which aren't up to the current standard. Some were created a long time ago, and some have slipped through the cracks. If they were submitted today, they would probably not be approved. If you spot an article like this, you can try to improve it or you can nominate it for deletion. There are millions and millions of articles and everyone here is just a volunteer, so we really need help to find articles that should be improved or removed. Every time someone points out an article that's not up to our standards, we have a chance to do something about it - so thank you for finding that one!
I am only an editor like yourself, and I do not review AFCs; I just try to help out here when I can, because the reviewers are very busy. What I can do is have a look for sources with you, and help you decide whether what we find can be used. I can also tell you that the sources don't have to be online, and they don't have to be in English - they just have to exist and be something that Wikipedia editors and readers can find if they want to know more. Do you think there might be articles written in magazines, or offline newspapers, or even a book? We can keep talking on your Talk page or on mine if you would like, and I'll help you if I can or point you towards someone else if I can't.
At the moment I think the best thing to do is to keep looking for sources, and wait to see what the reviewer has to say. If they feel the sources are a problem, they will tell you. If they feel Niranjan BS might be notable on the basis of the awards he's won, as you say, they might ask for more evidence of the awards, or information about them to help with the decision. Good luck, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime,
Thank you so much again for your detailed reply. Yes, my problem is lack of secondary resources currently for Niranjan BS, like I said he's an actor less than 10 years in field, and though his work is so much appreciated, there are no secondary resources now. But as for the facts I provided, though they are from primary and nonindependent sources, I made sure to cross-check with the actor's own interviews (which I did not include in references as I thought it's better to cite other sources than his own interviews) that they are correct and included only such information and left out all other news which were present in those references itself but which were not reiterated by the actor anywhere. So as for the facts, they are all true. But I also understand the facts you have stated. I could find other language articles too but again all which would be classified as primary sources only, unfortunately.
So I am really in a quagmire now and do not know what to do, after all the sincere attempts in creating this draft, took a couple of months to collect all those and prepare the draft and then a patient wait of 3 months now, even during which I kept correcting the draft for even minute mistakes.
And for the re-review, I really had no idea until today morning because someone else has submitted it for re-review. I have no idea who submitted it for re-review or for what purpose. When all the issues are not resolved, I know it could be detrimental and so I undid that submission, so currently it is no pending any review and it is just in declined status. I hope as the actor grows in his career, more reliable sources become available, but right now, I am at loss of words and really so disappointed.
I remain so thankful to you and wish you all happiness. Thank you, again.
Ss ram (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss ram, you are welcome and I am happy that I was able to help you. I am also very sorry that you are feeling a little lost and disappointed. Creating an article on Wikipedia is very difficult and takes much more time and effort than you would expect.
Can I suggest an idea? It seems to me that since Niranjan BS has only been acting for a little while, he might become notable in the future even if he isn't now - have a look at WP:TOOSOON and you will see that this is a common situation. You already have a draft written, and as long as you make a small edit to it every six months it will not be deleted. You could also save a copy to your computer if you're worried about missing the six-month mark. If you keep an eye on his career, and maybe look for more sources every six months or so, you will be ready to submit your draft when the sources are available. In the meantime, there are thousands of articles that might interest you, and editing Wikipedia is great practice for working on your own draft - you will soon start to understand all the policies. You might also learn about some other exciting actors and be able to improve their articles! That's what I would do, anyway.
Whatever you do, take care and I hope to see you around Wikipedia again :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime,
I really cannot express in words how much thankful I feel towards you, for all the time you have taken to try and help me out and for all your valuable suggestions. This is so kind of you. I too had decided the same, to safeguard the draft and to wait for the right time that reliable resources become available, but that resolve got strengthened after reading your reply. Sure I will follow all that you have told me. I once again thank you from the bottom of my heart and I pray that you be blessed with happiness and success in all your endeavours, not only here in Wikipedia but throughout your life. Bye and take care..
~~~~ Ss ram (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please read as "noT pending any review"
Ss ram (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Carrot6290

edit

Hi! I dont understand how is this not notable enough if Patrick Levacic is international master in chess and also professor in university. Also there are lower ratet players with wikipedia page that have lower titles than IM: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Trivedi 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Francesconi 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinjan_Rajkumar_Gohain#cite_note-Hindu2009-09-19-3 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Concio&action=edit

Please, notify me what am I writing wrong or different than these guys that doesn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Carrot6290 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro i think you need to add news articles about Patrick Levacic Freedun (yippity yap) 11:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrot6290: International Master is not enough to establish notability, WP:NCHESS would require the Grandmaster title instead.
The draft (stub) doesn't even mention his academic career. If you can show that he is notable per WP:NACADEMIC, then please produce evidence of that.
Otherwise notability relies on the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Freedun

edit

There are full articles about the song in reliable music sources why was this not accepted? I think it's important for Wikipedia becuz it is the first Miike Snow single in a while Freedun (yippity yap) 11:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun: you need to show that this is notable per WP:NSINGLE, which the current source aren't enough to demonstrate. Being "the first X single in a while" is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Which I think is true here. the issue is the song isn't really popular so i dont think it will chart on a music chart anytime soon. but now it says i can approve it by myself by moving into a main article am i allowed to even though its declined Freedun (yippity yap) 11:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedun: the first source provides no coverage of the single, it only mentions it as part of a list. The other two are better, although #3 calls itself a 'blog', which normally means no editorial oversight etc., so how reliable it is, is anyone's guess. Even being generous and accepting both #2 and #3, that's only two sources, and we normally require three at least. So I'd call this at best borderline. If you want to move it to the main article space, that is indeed your right, but don't be terribly surprised if it gets bounced back to drafts, or worse, deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok. I'm going to add a few sources because i only added ones i needed and then i will move to main article space hopefully it doesn't get deleted! Freedun (yippity yap) 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedun You exercised your right, but it does not pass WP:NMUSIC. It is returned to Draft. Your job is to prove that it passes by use of references. No proof? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 30 May 2024 review of submission by WilliamEHillis

edit

Greetings! I posted this article last night and it was rejected by this morning. The subject is the chamber of commerce for the 22nd-most populous city in the U.S., which is also a leading Hispanic cultural center. The reason provided was:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting."

I had included five citations for this article from three different sources. (This is not meant to be a long article, just an introduction for now so that I and others can link other relevant articles to it.) I've twice cited a sixty-year history of the organization published in the local historical society's journal, a citation from a local newspaper of record, and two from the organization's website. The problem finding other external sources is that few reporters outside the historical society have reason to write articles at length on the subject of the chamber itself, rather than on recent activities, such as changes in leadership.
Once the article is published, I and others will be free to add more information about the Chamber's activities, such as its various committees and recent accomplishments, to the extent that these are reported by third parties.
I will close by adding that it seems odd that such an influential organization with such a long history in such an important city doesn't have an entry already.
Friendly regards,
William
WilliamEHillis (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamEHillis: Wikipedia articles essentially summarise what other, reliable and independent (and ideally secondary) sources have previously said. If such sources do not exist, then it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and hence not possible to publish a Wikipedia article on the subject.
Our standard requirement to establish the notability of a subject is three sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline. Of the citations in this draft, #1 and 4 are the Chamber's own website, which is clearly not independent; #2 and 3 are the same, and therefore count as only one source; and #5 is a representative from the Chamber explaining why they've rebranded (again, not independent, and in any case just routine business reporting). That makes it probably just a single qualifying source, possibly two, and either way not enough to satisfy GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your reply. I'd like to address this: "If such sources do not exist, then it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and hence not possible to publish a Wikipedia article on the subject."

Firstly, just to be clear, I myself am a third party, not employed by and never having been paid by the Chamber.

Secondly, please bear in mind that the subject is a 125-year-old industrial and commercial organization of a leading city in a relatively isolated region of historical significance to U.S. and Mexican history. That seems relevant to any objections.

Thirdly, it sounds like you're dismissing the article in the newspaper of record for having reported from the subject, which the newspaper of course regarded as an authoritative source; and that you're dismissing the anniversary account in the historical society journal as the only authentic third-party source (which also most likely relied on reports from insiders).

If this standard is upheld for all public-sector and non-profit organizations (agencies and departments, schools, churches, charities, etc.), then there would be no articles about any of those subjects, because nearly all of them rely ultimately on internal sources. Otherwise, that information would be regarded as hearsay. No-one can report about the history or the founding of an organization, or of internal changes or external policies and programs of that organization, without authoritative access to that information. For that matter, there should be no Wikipedia citations from autobiographies. But reporting on these isn't the same as reporting witnessed public events or natural phenomena. As examples, I submit the current Wikipedia references to their article on the WELL, which contain multiple citations from the WELL itself and related parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL.

So where do all the articles about these subjects come from?
WilliamEHillis (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamEHillis: it seems you may have missed my point. I'm not saying that the organisation in question isn't important or well-known or long-established or anything like that; I'm sure it is. I'm saying that if sources of the kind I described don't exist, then what is there to summarise, to base a Wikipedia article on? Please read the WP:ORG guideline which pertains here, and which clearly states that (and I quote):

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists ([...]). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.

As for what other articles may exist, and how they may be referenced, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is, alas, a fallacy: we do not assess drafts by reference to existing articles, but rather by reference to the currently-prevailing guidelines and policies. Inevitably there are all sorts of problematic articles among the nearly 7 million in the English-language Wikipedia, but they are no reason to create more such problems.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Best Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum requirement for an article is significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources, preferably three, two of which are from outside the local area. You can read more about these criteria at WP:NORG. This is how we establish that a subject is notable, which all subjects must be.
Additional noncontroversial information can come from the subject itself -- an organization's own history would be acceptable to include the date it was established, etc. -- but the minimum requirement for notability must first be met. For your example, The Well, there appears to be significant coverage in Wired, the NYT, and The Atlantic.
The chamber may be incredibly important to the city of El Paso, but still not notable for an encyclopedia. The same is true for any organization. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: I've checked the notability rules for organizations and companies,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:

"...
A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization"
Password is the scholarly journal of the El Paso Historical Society. The article cited is a six-page anniversary history of the Chamber with citations from that journal.

Regarding the newspaper article, "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."

The El Paso Times is a regional newspaper with international subscribers and coverage, comprising the Paso del Norte region of El Paso itself; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.

I will be glad to add other references to the Chamber from the El Paso Times if that will be sufficient to qualify the Chamber as notable.

WilliamEHillis (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The local historical society's 6-page article could count as your one instance of sigcov that is local. You need ideally two non-local (and not the same). To me, the El Paso Times can't be considered non-local when it's covering organizations in the city in which it is published, and in this case it's pretty run-of-the-mill coverage: a name and logo change for the local chamber. I just don't think the coverage is there to support a claim to notability outside its local area for this organization. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! So as I offered, if I include other references in the Times, or other third-party publications or newspapers of record, perhaps in other regional cities, to events of significance over the course of the Chamber's 125-year history and those more recent, will it then be reconsidered, as these will comprise four or more citations (taking the current number as three)? I'd just like to add that the broader cross-border region in which the Times reports comprises 2.9 million residents, so larger than San Antonio, Texas. The name change needed to be documented. I feel like these changes would meet the black-letter requirements of notability that you and DoubleGrazing have pointed me to. WilliamEHillis (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can keep trying, but you may be wasting your time. And if at some point someone decides you're wasting other peoples' time, too, they'll just reject the article outright. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last question then: would any news sources, or organizations, persons, or events as their subjects, within this cross-border region and its history be considered notable under WP rules by you and your fellow reviewers? This would be useful for me to know before I proceed. WilliamEHillis (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you're asking...are you asking whether any subject that has three instances of WP:significant coverage in wp:reliable sources that are wp:independent of the subject and include two instances in sources outside the local area supports a claim to notability? In general, yes, though there are exceptions such as WP:ONEEVENT. See WP:NBLP for rules about living people, WP:NEVENT for those about events, WP:NMEDIA for those about news sources, WP:NORG for those about organizations. The requirements differ slightly among them.
Realize that the creation of articles from scratch is difficult for newer editors who haven't yet had a chance to learn all of our policy. There are 6million articles on Wikipedia, and there are 50million back of house pages like this one, supporting those articles. Many of them are devoted to content policy, which means there is an extremely steep learning curve here. We often advise new editors to start by improving existing articles in their area of interest to allow them to learn without becoming frustrated that every time they turn around, there seems to be yet more policy telling them they've just wasted a ton of time. We appreciate that you want to make sure the El Paso area is covered adequately, but you might go take a look at WP:WikiProject Texas and maybe see what others are doing in the El Paso area. Valereee (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might the following not be considered relevant in this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
...
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.
WilliamEHillis (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you both and any others to continue discussion at Draft_talk:El_Paso_Chamber, as I understand that this is the advised procedure to follow before proposing declines or deletions of pages for reasons of notability re: WP:NEXIST, WP:NPOSSIBLE.

WilliamEHillis (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: newspaper reporting and self-reporting about an organization, there appears to be an overlooked distinction in the guidelines between promotional copy, and facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
* An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").
‡ ^ A person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be self-published as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.
WilliamEHillis (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Jherwen

edit

I HAVE MY REASON TO UPLOAD MY PAGE AS AN ARTIST. PLEASE Jherwen (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn off your caps lock. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please see the autobiography policy, nor do we have any interest in social media or marketing efforts to enhance your career. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jherwen Wikipedia has chosen to delete the draft you submitted, so I am unable to see it. It was deleted as being Unambiguous advertising or promotion). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Jrodriguezrentas

edit

Hello, I haven’t heard anything from the editors. I’ve added information that was pertinent for it being a notable person. Can this be moved out of draft? Jrodriguezrentas (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that resubmission is not possible. If you believe that you have addressed the reasons for prior declines at a fundamental level(not just superficial changes), you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrodriguezrentas: Your references being mainly unlinked and incomplete seriously complicates matters. Any news articles that are online should have active links to them (the ones in the draft are somehow disabled) and any references from periodicals or books should be cited with the appropriate template ({{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}). We have a minimum amount of required information for offline cites (For periodicals: outlet title, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and pages the article is on. For books: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrodriguezrentas: Editors use Google Scholar to measure the impact of a doctor or other scientist. Amler should set up a Google Scholar profile at https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=new_profile&hl=en so that citations to his articles can be tracked and the articles will appear together in Google Scholar. LeapTorchGear (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 30 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener

edit

Good day, Concerning the sources, I can only provide those that are official, such as the school's website; they only have a Facebook page. Additionally, the references regarding the school's achievements are limited to Facebook and YouTube, which are the only sources I found adhering to the Notability Guidelines. I would also like to extend my deepest apologies for my previous questions and edits. It is my first time writing and drafting what I believe to be a reasonable page for moving to the Article space. I request that this draft be reconsidered for approval, and I would appreciate any assistance to enhance it.

User:Jojit_fb Can i ask for your assistance

Thank you in advance. RexScrivener (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener this is the fifth time you have asked about the draft. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is not "a reasonable page", as it does not meet WP:NORG nor WP:GNG. As you said yourself, the only sources are YouTube and Facebook, neither of which we can use. Please stop asking about the draft, thank you. I'm also not sure why you pinged Jojit fb, as they aren't an AfC reviewer. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Matandi2001

edit

I need assistance to edit my Page title from "Weep Not, Child" to "Weep Not, Child (The Novel)" due to the existence of a page with a similar title as the former.

During my review of the article, I widened thematic areas besides using the requisite citations but was unable to find the right button to edit the title.

Any help will be highly appreciated.

Best regards, Johnson. Matandi2001 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about the novel here Weep Not, Child. Theroadislong (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is an article by the same title, which, however, is not as comprehensive as mine. But the issue here is: I want to change the title of my article to "Weep Not, Child (The Novel)." How do I change the title?
Regards. Matandi2001 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Matandi2001. The best thing for you to do is to improve the existing Weep_Not,_Child article. Qcne (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to, it is pointless creating a draft of an article that already exists, you can edit and improve the actual article here Weep Not, Child. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_30&oldid=1227324410"