Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 3 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 5 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


September 4

[edit]

06:31:01, 4 September 2022 review of draft by Ssffilms

[edit]


I need to change the title to a wikipedia draft I just created. It's still in the approval phase. Can I still change it or is there a way to start over? Ssffilms (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssffilms: it doesn't matter, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved to the correct tite.
What you do need to do, however, is declare any conflict of interest you may have. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions.
Also, please note that your username may be against policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:04, 4 September 2022 review of submission by Aporesing60

[edit]

I am representing Noah and have disclosed my COI. Subject has some new media coverage, I would like to add and resubmit but article says to ask for Advice and not to remove the message. Here are the 2 new media coverage that he got: [1] [2]

In addition, the last declining admin said his previous articles are paid, but according to Noah he has not paid anyone for coverage. Admins should not make claims like this without any evidence or details as to why they think the articles are paid. Good faith is supposed to be assumed when there is no such evidence. Please let me know if you can accept the article with these 2 additional articles. Aporesing60 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aporesing60: I wouldn't say either of the new sources is fully reliable, one being a student rag and the other a local sports site (blog?). But my view here doesn't matter, as it is the rejecting reviewer that you need to convince.
As for your paid editing remarks, I don't know what comments by the declining admin you're referring to, but the fact of the matter is that an article on this subject was earlier created by an editor who is a likely sockpuppet of an account that has been community-banned for undeclared paid editing and socking. Such evidence tends to refute AGF. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Pinging @Number_57 here, who stated all prior articles are paid. Can you please review the 2 new articles and explain your reasoning why all prior articles seem to be paid to you??
Also, as I have disclosed my COI, I have been hired by Noah to help. He previously hired other people that may not have disclosed paid editing. He had no knowledge that the people he hired were not abiding by Wiki policy, so he should not be punished for this.Aporesing60 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aporesing60 This is a red herring: whether one or more of the previous attempts to create this article were UPE, or whether someone said they were, is not the issue here; only whether the latest draft can be accepted or not.
Nobody is being 'punished' for anything. (And I don't even know what it would mean to punish a draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing well it seems editor Number 57 declined it because it was done by a paid editor. That is against policy as you say. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aporesing60: no, the draft was rejected (and earlier declined) for lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latest decline comment said "Paid-for article on a semi-pro footballer. This is not what Wikipedia is for."
Isn't this saying that because it is a paid for article and he is semi-pro it is being declined???
First: being a paid for article is not a reason for decline.
2nd: Being semi-pro is not a valid reason for decline. He has 28 in-depth citations, if you add the 2 new ones.
But regardless, why don't we put this to a vote now, considering there are now 2 more citations. So in its existing format, would you say he is notable now? Aporesing60 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Number_57 Oh wait are you saying "Paid for article" meaning it was done by paid editor? If so that should not be a reason for decline as I have disclosed my COI. If this was the issue, then it is resolved now. So please review again and if you still see issue, let me know. He clearly has a lot of coverage and meets GNG. There are footballers here on WIki with much less coverage. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There are footballers here on WIki with much less coverage" see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheroadislongSorry just trying to point out the truth, but I know it cant be used as an argument. Would you mind to please review the article in current state and with the 2 new citations. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that the subject is simply not notable. He is a semi-professional footballer who has played in very minor leagues. Number 57 15:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Semi-pro is not a reason for not being notable. There used to be WP:NFOOTY, which said if you are professional with at least two pro games you qualify, but that has been retired. The only requirement for footballers is to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. He has 26 citations in the article plus 2 new ones I provided above, most of which are in-depth and non are paid. In Addition WP:basic says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." SO with all due respect your reasoning does not make sense. You need to go based on policy. "Simply not notable because his is semi-pro" is not a valid reason. Aporesing60 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aporesing60 Semi-pro and pro are different. Also, articles don't get voted on for notability; AfC reviewers decide that. Good luck in any case. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:40, 4 September 2022 review of submission by ChadeGall23

[edit]


ChadeGall23 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @ChadeGall23? This draft has been rejected (by two reviewers independently, as it happens!) and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== 09:48:40, 4 September 2022 review of submission by ChadeGall23 ==done 

Reliable References in the Article

ChadeGall23 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable references; all the sources are user-generated.
Before editing further, please respond to the COI query on your talk page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrite the article with reliable references. ChadeGall23 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChadeGall23 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. You haven't shown that this person meets the definition of a notable musician. Don't ask us for help if you intend to move it yourself. I've moved it back, but if you insist on placing it in the encyclopedia yourself, you run the risk of it being proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a conflict of interest, you should not move it yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:25, 4 September 2022 review of submission by SaswatNTHacked

[edit]


SaswatNTHacked (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @SaswatNTHacked? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:52, 4 September 2022 review of submission by Oltrepier

[edit]

Hello! This is my first message on the Help desk, so I hope I've done everything correctly. Thank you for reaching out to me in regards to my draft: I shouldn't have pressed the "Submit" button immediately in the first place, but when I realized it, it was too late...

In respect of the criteria for footballers, I'll just have to wait for the player's first professional appearances (he's going to play in the Italian second tier) before submitting the draft again, won't I?

Oltrepier (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Unfotunately WP:NFOOTY is now deprecated and waiting for their first appearance will not move the needle notability-wise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Understood. I'll keep taking care of the draft, anyway, should any major changes occur.
Are the sources I included appropriate enough, though?
~~~~ Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:38, 4 September 2022 review of submission by DecafPotato

[edit]

Sorry if this is a redundant question, but I geniunely can not figure out how to submit the Bidoof draft for review DecafPotato (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DecafPotato I will shortly add the submission information. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! DecafPotato (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_September_4&oldid=1109471062"