Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 6 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 8 >
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.


July 7

[edit]

01:23, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Heilige Nikolaus

[edit]

The Article I've written for Wikipedia has been rejected becaues:This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. I don't quite know how to correct this. I've sited with links to newspapers, and websites, but...

I just don't know what is wanted. Heilige Nikolaus (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's at Draft:Mark Schultz (playwright). Drmies (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only secondary source I see is from the New York Times, for that Kesselring prize, and I cannot judge if a. that award is notable and b. that award bestows notability on the recipient. The rest is not from reliable secondary sources, and "Earth and Altar" looks like just another blog. Please see WP:RS. Oh, here is a review from the NYT that helps notability, but it's surrounded by a ton of unacceptable links and promotional text. The article looks like a resume. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:27, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 82.173.160.29

[edit]

Landslides are a fascinating subject and Wikipedia even has a long list of landslides, but it seems that if there's no English text available, the landslide in question is considered to not have happened, eg. ignored by scientists.

I just spent several hours to translate

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordskredet_vid_Stenungsundsmotet

into

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Landslide_at_Stenungsund_junction&action=history

and I added 15 references, but sure enough, in stead of helping me to turn my draft into something worth publishing, somebody is trying to put my work on fire.

Who can please help to get this translation job finished? Help is not we destroy your work, so you can start all over again or Bring a lawyer to defend your attempt at helping Wikipedia I give up here 82.173.160.29 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor! I don't see anyone trying to "put your work on fire" - one editor did remove a stray weblink, but then promptly reverted themselves. All 15 references seem to still be there. Your draft has been declined for not having suitable references - is that what's upsetting you? If that's not it, could you try explaining to us?
Could I also very strongly suggest you not consider bringing lawyers into the process - we take legal threats very seriously, and you may be blocked if you say that you are intending to consult a lawyer over the matter. Using this page will be a much faster and more effective strategy to get your draft published, if you can find good sources! The sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language, but please keep in mind that English Wikipedia has some of the strictest referencing requirements to prove something is notable. If you are unsure about why your references were not considered suitable, I would be happy to go through them with you. Drmies is a very experienced reviewer, so there will be a reason the draft was declined this time. If you implement their feedback, your draft may well be approved next time. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, StartGrammarTime! Please allow me to clarify that "Bring a lawyer" was not to be taken literally. This was rather a sarcastic joke, as to express my frustration that several hours of work are just swiped off the table, for reasons I don't understand. Please read my defense below, written after a short night of sleep.
It is not like quick clay landslides are a minor issue in Norway and Sweden. Such landslides have caused disasters in the past, claiming dozens of lives. Stenungsund had a narrow escape here, with no fatal victims. If the landslide would have pushed a little further, it would have taken down houses with sleeping inhabitants in them. The question about what caused the landslide is halfway being answered, but further research may cause the Stenungsund landslide to be in the Swedish newspapers again, maybe a couple of times.
One should also consider that E6 motorway is the main connection between Norway and Sweden. It's like you cut off I95 on the American east coast. The Swedish king would not have showed up at the reopening of a local village road. To claim that the cutting off of such an important road, with a detour that lasted almost 9 months and caused a great disturbance in local villages, would be just quoting your local village newspaper is a thing that I fail to understand.
Please beware that questions about how long this E6 motorway will last until the next landslide strikes are still open; There seems to be on ongoing minor scandal about missing geological research that should have been performed before even building the E6 motorway. Many sources are in Swedish. It could have been easy to swamp this article with 20 more references, from newspapers that do have serious reputations inside Sweden, but I deliberately chose to quote mostly English language sources, with an exception for Swedish if that source had pictures of video that is very telling for the story.
This landslide may not have been in The Guardian in London, or in The Washington Post, but it was noticed by CNN, also an American news chain with a reputation. If making it into The Guardian in London, or into The Washington Post were to be the criteria for being a notable event, we could delete half of the articles in Wikipedia. I think I have even seen an article in Wikipedia's policy, that we should all work together to avoid that Wikipedia becomes a project with a perspective centered around one single country, as Wikipedia is a worldwide project. This is what I find so valuable about Wikipedia: Here I am, living my life in Europe, but whenever I am curious enough to look something up that is far outside my daily life, Wikipedia is the treasury that has it all, even if many articles seem not very notable to me.
I don't understand what is expected from me. I will definitely not invest more time in an article that gets refused anyway. I still think that I have laid the foundations for an article that needs some editing and has the potential to meet all of Wikipedia's criteria, but I have a life outside of Wikipedia and will not waste any more energy. Wikipedia is said to be a community project, but all that I see happening is people being strongly discouraged to move a finger to contribute, because there will always be some editor, well respected within his or her own small circle, to take down any effort to contribute. If they cannot find valid reasons to do that, they will lure you into an edit war and ban you from Wikipedia, as if that would make me cry. If you feel like it, go ahead and ban my IP for life, in all languages that I have edited in. It would save me tons of time!
Hereby I will put my "baby" in a crib and let the river decide if the baby will float or drown. Anyone feeling tempted to edit my article about the landslide at Stenungsund junction, please go ahead. I don't care if my IP is registered to reflect the time I invested. I would just be delighted if this article would get it's translation from Swedish into English, in any sort of form. You might even argue that an English version could be much shorter than what I had written so far, because some details are not as relevant to the outside world, as they are for people in Sweden. That does not mean that one could convince me that a quick clay landslide that has been a revolving issue in Swedish newspapers over the last 8½ months is not an event notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia in some form. There is a red link in the list of landslides on Wikipedia. I hope somebody will make that link turn blue! 82.173.160.29 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion continues at the "Teahouse" and the good news is that user CommissarDoggo has jumped in and started to help me. Thank you/tack så mycke! :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse 82.173.160.29 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Boris Fevraly

[edit]

Hello, i understand that a made some mistakes in creating draft, and now i don't have a permission to fix it, how can i correct page? Boris Fevraly (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boris Fevraly! Did you create the draft by copying and pasting text from another website (or from a book, or a newspaper, or something else you read)? That is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is called a copyright violation, and can get both you and Wikipedia in trouble if it is not deleted immediately.
If you want to try again, you must make sure that whatever you write is in your own words - you must not copy someone else's words. There is more information on your talk page that should help you understand what you need to do if you start writing a draft again. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote text by my self, but, as i understand, some links was incorrect. And now i don't have a permission to fix it (it looks like article delated), is it possible to return article back? Boris Fevraly (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by returning the article, @Boris Fevraly. It is not possible to return the draft you already had, because that one has been deleted due to a copyright violation. If you have rewritten the draft, in your own words, without using any words from any of the links, then you could make a new draft.
Please don't take this as an insult - I only want to help - writing new articles about alive people is very, very difficult. It is the hardest thing to do on English Wikipedia. You need very good English skills to be able to read and understand all the rules about it. I'm worried that you will have a very bad time and be frustrated, and not want to edit Wikipedia ever again. Are there other things on Wikipedia you would like to do, so you can get some practice before trying to write this draft again? Even writing drafts about things like notable places, or books, or artwork, is much easier than writing about a person. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 79.199.170.144

[edit]

I was told that submissions take months to review. This one was reviewed within hours. I suspect deliberate attempts to sabotage the entry. It was rejected claiming a lack of reliable sources. The sources are all completely reliable, mostly peer-reviwed articles and patent applications. Furthermore there is an interview on youtube from a respectable podcast series. Of course more sources will accumulate over time, but this is a first entry and the person in question is a respected scientist with numerous publications, with affiliations at Stanford and Berkeley, plus she is important as the co-founder and president on a non-profit research organisation. The non-profit has many other respected scientists as board members, it has 100s of followers on social media, it has given out stipends to scholars in the past, etc. - There is no reason to reject the entry as such, unless it is a witch hunt by envious competitors. If individual facts are not well enough documented, they can be deleted, or there could be a top entry about fixing this. Please address this problem, it seems to be a classic wikipedia attempt at sabotage. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was correctly declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for insufficient referencing. For example, the entire 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable in an article on a living person (WP:BLP). Also, some of the sources are cited in a way that doesn't help verify the draft contents: eg. #2 merely points to the root of a web domain, and when I click on the link it doesn't even work; #3 is an interview; and it's not clear what #6 is. In short, the referencing requires a lot more work.
Sometimes drafts get reviewed in a matter of minutes, sometimes this can take months – don't try to read any great conspiracies into that. And certainly don't start hurling around sabotage accusations, unless you have solid evidence to back them up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Judo Therapist

[edit]

They asked me to add more reliable sources. I added World Health Organization page https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/259085/9789290618188-eng.pdf?sequence=1, and Japanese Government website https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=345AC1000000019_20220617_504AC0000000068 I don't know what to do anymore. Please help. The English is my second language. Judo Therapist (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Judo Therapist: the sources should actually support the information in the draft, enabling the reader to see where each piece of information came from, and allowing the contents to be verified. Now you have grouped all the citations together in three groups, leaving most of the draft unsupported. Also, where and how you're citing your sources seems rather pointless: eg. the start of the draft says judo therapist, followed by nine citations – what are they supporting there? And why do you need so many? You should only ever need one citation to support one statement made; two at most, if the statement is particularly contentious or significant. Any more than that, and you start to get into WP:REFBOMB territory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Theuserwhowrites

[edit]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I recently attempted to create an article on the 'Impact of Technology on Modern Travel Agencies,' which unfortunately got rejected. Could you please provide me with advice on improving my writing style and any general suggestions for creating better articles in the future? I'm particularly interested in understanding how to better source information, maintain neutrality, and format articles correctly. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Theuserwhowrites (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft reads rather like the start of a school project/essay. Your sources are poor, blogs are very rarely considered to be reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several reliable independent sources have said about a subject - nothing more. It should never contain any argumentation or conclusions, except possibly a summary of arguments or conclusions set out in a single reliable independent source. It should not even attempt to synthesise conclusions from different sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to submit more references for the subject and also make the article more notable as i have more notable references. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga You should discuss this with the rejecting reviewer. Alternatively, start the draft again in a new draft - Draft:Nicholas Omonuk (new) - completely from the bottom up. Or do both things.
"Notable references" is an interesting term. Do oyu mean "References with prove Omomuk to be notable"?
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Youtube is deprecated as a reference, and not particularly useful as an external link. Currently you have six citations from four sources. Broader sourcing is better. Those six citations span eight lines of text. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before the question is asked, I should probably pre-emptively clarify an apparent contradiction between this reply and my earlier one from a few days ago. The author, then, asked "Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected.", which I interpreted (possibly incorrectly) as the intention to duplicate the contents of the rejected draft and submit it as 'new', to which I said no. Now the advice from @Timtrent is to start a new draft with entirely new content. I believe both pieces of advice are correct, and not contradictory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 7 July 2024 review of submission by S-Aura

[edit]

Hello! Wikipedians, please recheck the draft Werner_Stiehler it was translated from German Wikipedia. Although it was thoroughly reviewed and approved on the German site. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S-Aura: please don't post the same question in multiple places; I've just responded to this on your talk page, only to find that you've asked the same here.
Two sources, each once cited, is nowhere near enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, or to support the draft contents (especially in the case of a living person, per WP:BLP).
Whether there exists an article on this subject in the German-language Wikipedia (and whether or not it was "thoroughly reviewed", which we don't know) is neither here nor there, as each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements. To be accepted here, the draft will need to have substantially better referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You must acknowledge the German original as the source, see WP:HOWTRANS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Oneequalsequalsone

[edit]

Hi, not sure what else I need to do to get this article on mainspace? I think this person is a notable and important British journalist and author. I could add more detail to the draft but I think these sentences are enough to showcase his qualifications Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oneequalsequalsone: you haven't even submitted this draft, so that would be the first step in getting into the main space.
Not that there's much point in doing that yet, as there is no evidence that this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. Two author profiles and one article penned by him do not notability make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Taivur Islam

[edit]

I wash about to upload my picture Taivur Islam (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivur Islam: don't; Wikipedia is not a social media platform where you can tell the world about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). Try LinkedIn or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 2A00:A040:1A3:CE9A:F9C4:129D:39C4:479D

[edit]

publish that page cuh 2A00:A040:1A3:CE9A:F9C4:129D:39C4:479D (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources to support its content. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Kapyidu

[edit]

Hello, I am trying to submit an article for creation about a disabled woman artist. User SafariScribe has rejected the article three times in less than a month with inaccurate reasons. The reasoning given is that the subject does not have reliable sources, however the subject's art is cited by multiple independent, non-interview, secondary, reliable sources. This repeated rejection without adequate explanation is beginning to feel like harassment. Is there anything I can do? Thank you for any explanation you can offer. Kapyidu (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kapyidu I can see why you say that about references. Regrettably only a very few of them are useful in verifying any notability.
Book sales sites fail completely and are not useful references. They should be removed. They constitute advertising.
Interviews with Sweeney have limited or zero value
Beware reviews of her books. Almost always they are not about her, but are about the book
I think that leave three promising references from which you can build.
It isn't harrassment. If it were we would be handling it. It is, perhaps, not the most helpful set of reviews I have seen, though. They are correct, but might have been worded more fully in the comments 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kapyidu, I apologize if my actions came across as harassment. I understand how frustrating it can be when your draft is declined. Welp, I noticed your question in the decline notification but was busy at the time, so my bad, and I'm sorry for not responding sooner. @Timtrent has provided an explanation, and I will let another editor review the draft. Additionally, please always/don't fail to consult the reviewer or the help desk before resubmitting a "declined draft" if a reason is given in the decline box. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the sources,it might be the case that the book Brittle Joints is notable but not the author? Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply yes. The book is notable, at least starring in up to three independent reviews. @Kapyidu, I think you should create the book's draft either, while the author's link redirects there. After some while, the author may then be notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kapyidu You may find this to be strange, that a book can be notable if the author is not, or that an author can be notable but their book is not. It happens often, and always causes surprise
Your job is to decide which you wish to write about. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and discussion. This does not seem correct to me.

WP:BASIC states “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No where does it say “non-interviews” but even by that standard and by Timtrent’s reading, she has significant coverage in three (multiple) secondary sources in major newspapers and comics publications. She therefore passes WP:BASIC and qualifies as notable. No further qualifier is needed.

However, additionally, she is also an graphic narrative creator. Subject is notable for writing the only existing graphic memoir about an extremely rare disease, which follows the idea and spirit of WP:CREATIVE #2 “The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Furthermore, Subject also passes #4.c “won significant critical attention” as provable by the many reviews including from Publisher’s Weekly. Graphic Narrative is not Hollywood, significant does not mean an Oscar. Therefore in addition to qualifying by the standards of WP:BASIC, subject also passes WP:CREATIVE twice in her field as a Graphic Narrative Author. Subject is notable and warrants a page.

I will also simply note that Wikipedia has documentable bias against approving articles of women, as for example noted here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321?journalCode=rccc20 Kapyidu (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined a number of times perhaps you could list the three sources here that give significant coverage? You are of course free to move it yourself to main space where it would be at risk of WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bias will endear you not, the report you link to above from 2017 documents problems with the creation of an article Centre for Women, Ageing and Media which was deleted via an WP:AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Women, Ageing and Media (2nd nomination) 9 years ago, I fail to see the relevance to your poorly sourced biography here? Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that this comment says “your” poorly sourced article as opposed to “a” poorly sourced article, which suggests a personal attack.

The mention of bias is relevant because the article was rejected three times without explanation and without response to questions by the same user. This user has also just rejected that article without ability to be re-submitted while we are in the middle of a discussion.

Wikipedia is intended to be objective, and endearing shouldn’t be necessary to get an article approved.

User TimTrent stated that three resources qualified.

If the article cannot be approved, then it cannot be approved. But this does not seem right to me by the stated qualifications of Wikipedia, and I find it concerning that questions are provoking what seems to be attacks and retribution.

Kapyidu (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Gabriel601

[edit]

There was no comment left after declining. I need more insight on how the page article can be improve. I saw a lot of reference but i need to know clearly does the 8 reference provided doesn’t meet the WP:GNG. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601: there doesn't have to be comments with the decline; the decline notice speaks for itself.
The sources cited are a mix of routine business reporting and churnalism (and one 'page not found'), none of which contributes towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm what do you mean by (one page not found). Would like to know more or you can make a contribution by adding or removing what you meant and I will see that from the edit history. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 May I suggest you check each of your references yourself, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Will do that. Just wanted to know if the 8 reference are not useful. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 You need to decide whether your draft is about the company or the person 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, IMO there is a straightforward though uncertain case that this subject might not be notable based on the sources. How can a Dubai businessman have sources of a Nigerian nature when there's no connection mentioned in the article? PS. This is just my opinion and does not affect the writing of the draft. Also, when evaluating sources, please refer to the website's name accurately (e.g., "gyardian.ng" as "The Guardian" (Nigeria), not "guardian.ng" as "The Washington Post"). Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well understood @SafariScribe. But would like to make a point as well. Example, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum who is the president of Dubai is being talked about on the Nigerian newspaper because his business inline is associated with Nigeria. Ulugbekhon Maksumov is being talked about on the Nigerian newspaper because his business of collaborating with the Nigerian government in delivering amour vehicles is well known. Few days ago he appeared on the Nigerian national TV AIT which made me found more interest in writing about the subject. Your reason for the decline was absolutely right. I just wanted to understand more as no comment was left. But now i clearly understand and would check if it can be addressed while i make my research on Google. Regarding referring to the website name accurately. Thank you very much as I would be very careful on that. Peace & love. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 69.7.65.195

[edit]

My article has been rejected twice. I have several unique references attached to the article and removed anything from Facebook, etc. What is the issue with article publication? 69.7.65.195 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. There is no indication Josh meets our notability criteria for musicians, which you can find here. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and Amazon, IMDb, Bandcamp, YouTube, Discogs and blogs are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_7&oldid=1234183590"