Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 3

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< January 2 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 4 >
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.


January 3 edit

03:29:44, 3 January 2023 review of submission by The Storyteller Sudarshan edit

I work for Sudarshan The Storyteller who is a popular photographer in South India. Creating an article about him is always something we wanted to make sure his assistants and other young budding photographers know of his work and follow him for his guidance for photography. Please help us create a page for him. Thank you.

The Storyteller Sudarshan (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@the storyteller sudarshan:
declare your conflict of interest. see here for how.
once you have done so, then we can continue. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Storyteller Sudarshan So you are not the storyteller? Your username implies that you are. David10244 (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused now. I was told that only a second party can create a username for him and hence I used my team name to create a wiki page for him. I represent the team of The Storyteller. Should I create it from my own ID or create a user ID with his name? 2405:201:E013:4811:F1CE:1915:9D27:B02F (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify a bit, a second party (not himself) should create the draft of the article, and submit that draft to be reviewed.
A username is separate from an article (or a draft) name. You could have chosen a username like "Green Banana" or "Mary1234" and then created a draft named "The Storyteller Sudarshan" to be reviewed. You are trying to create an article about him (not for him); you are not trying to create a username for him.
A Wikipedia username (user account) must only be used by one person, and the password should not be shared with anyone else. Teams cannot share one account.
Since you are not The Storyteller Sudarshan, you should click here and ask to change your username to something else (the new username must not sound like a company or a team; it represents you as a person). You do not need to use your actual name.
Then you need to follow the instructions here to declare a conflict of interest as related to The Storyteller Sudarshan, as mentioned above. These steps are not as complicated as they sound.
After those two things are done, you can then ask again for advice here, as lettherebedarklight said. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:55, 3 January 2023 review of submission by BappleBusiness edit

This article was rejected by User:Slywriter and I would like a more in-depth explanation and possible reevaluation. First they said, Multiple rejections have been ignored for this to be resubmitted. This is simply incorrect. The article has gone under intense revision by myself and User:PantheonRadiance since the previous submission months ago, following the instructions mentioned by previous reviewers. These revisions also resolved most of your other concerns.

Unless there is some sort of formatting problem that I'm missing, the claim that the Sourcing is terrible doesn't make sense. All sources in the article are reliable, demonstrated through inclusion on WP:RS/PS, WP:RS/N, or WP:VG/RS (I've checked once again, and the very few that were not included are now removed from the article). It was also said that the subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia; this may have been correct previously, but the plethora of reliable sources added to the article certainly demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. You said that external links is a farm of social media sites, and this would normally be cause for concern, but since he is notable for being an internet personality, WP:ELOFFICIAL overrules this. Nevertheless, I removed all links but his YouTube, Twitch, and his website.

I don't see valid reasons for the draft, in its current state, to be denied. Help is greatly appreciated.BappleBusiness[talk] 03:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BappleBusiness Note that the issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. What are your three best sources with significant coverage of this person? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably first identify the October 2022 Variety interview and March 2021 Polygon article as evidence of substantial coverage. He is also the subject of many articles by PC Gamer ([1]), Kotaku ([2], [3]), Dot Esports ([4], [5]), which are reputable according to WP:VG/S and WP:RS/N. BappleBusiness[talk] 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time looks to be a passing mention, Variety is an interview, Polygon is a passing mention Several sources are tweets, YouTube videos or stat sites. The attempt to document every single published mention makes it impossible to find what sources actually contribute to notability. So I stand by the statement and I also do not see why anything beyond their YouTube and Twitch would count as proper External Links as we are not their marketing department. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not disallowed on Wikipedia (WP:PST). Even so, the primary sources are used in conjunction with secondary sources—except for subscriber/follower counts, a context where the usage of primary sources and reputable stat sites is commonplace. As for significant coverage, see my other reply. BappleBusiness[talk] 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are only okay in certain circumstances, and never to establish notability. "In conjunction" with secondary sources is original research 331dot (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources were not being used to establish notability. The primary sources were either for follower/subscriber/view counts, or they were citing what was linked in the secondary sources they were paired with. These pairings were not original research, because the citations were not adding any additional information; they were only for convenience of the reader. Nevertheless, I have now removed all primary sources except those for the aforementioned counts. BappleBusiness[talk] 03:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BappleBusiness Interviews have limited use, and don't contribute to establishing notability, because Wikipedia is interested in what others have published about him, not what he has said. David10244 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do contribute to establishing notability when it contains secondary, independent coverage (WP:INTERVIEWS). The Variety article in question does this in spades, and so it contributes to establishing notability. BappleBusiness[talk] 08:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there independent coverage in the Variety article?Reads like a typical interview, I see no independent reporting of substance. Also please review the AfD as many of the sourcesa, content and events discussed twere already deemed by the community not to establish notability Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INTERVIEWS is an essay, not policy. Even if it were, it's certainly true there can be non-interview stuff in a story that contains an interview- but you haven't shown that. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, free to disregard us and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, as this process is voluntary for most- but it would then be at risk of an AfD discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and Slywriter: Hi, I was one of the editors who also added sources to the draft alongside BappleBusiness. GeorgeNotFound IS notable because there are multiple in-depth, secondary, and independent sources written about him and his web content per WP:BASIC and WP:WEB. Using the sources BappleBusiness identified, here's a source table proving his notability. Keep in mind this is a small selection and there are more reliable sources that exist.


Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Kotaku - June 3, 2021   Did not respond to request for comment, nor is he affiliated with any staff at Kotaku.   Per WP:VG/RS   In-depth article containing secondary sourced summary and synthesis about a Twitch stream he made, which describes web content he himself made per WP:WEBCRIT. ✔ Yes
Dot Esports - October 11th, 2022   Unaffiliated with publication.   Per WP:VG/RS   In-depth, secondary source article about GeorgeNotFound's background, including his career, analysis on his video content, and what led him to become an internet personality (multiple credible claims of importance) ✔ Yes
PC Gamer - January 13, 2020     Per WP:VG/RS   Secondary source summary of a video George himself made describing one of his videos - suitable per WP:WEBCRIT. ✔ Yes
Variety - October 13, 2022   IS Independent - GeorgeNotFound isn't affiliated with anyone from Variety. See comment below.   Per WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS.   Despite containing some primary sourced quotes, most of the material is secondary thoughts/analysis from the author. In-depth article discussing his YouTube content, background and impact and their other future endeavors, while also adding secondary material contextualizing his popularity in terms of internet fame and the emergence of social media and its influence on society. In-line with investigative journalism akin to 60 Minutes, per WP:INTERVIEWS. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Also, we need to clarify something. Interviews are not automatically non-independent - this is a mistake most editors continuously make because they fail to distinguish between ones with a vested interest through relationships with the person being interviewed (such as Q/A interviews), and in-depth secondary sources with extra analysis thrown in. The WP:INTERVIEWS essay was invoked because none of WP's guidelines on independence make any mention of ALL interviews being non-independent. That essay essentially states that interviews should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because they may range in independence and primary/secondary material. And evaluating the merits of the Variety article, I find it to be independent and contribute to his notability. The draft should've never been rejected in the first place. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PantheonRadiance I'm sorry but I do not think your assessments are correct. Interviews are the person speaking about themselves- having a vested interest or relationship with the interviewer is not relevant(that would be a WP:COI issue, not an independence issue). If this person is speaking about their video, that would potentially be valid content for an article about the video, but not him. I'm not sure why people are so invested in this draft but if you truly feel that five reviewers and us here are in error, it sounds like you should roll the dice with AfD and place it in the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm wondering why so many editors have contributed to this draft- to find a draft a user must generally already be aware that it exists, is there discussion of it somewhere, on or off wiki? 331dot (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I believe you're conflating independence with primary sourcing. Per Wikipedia's definition, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." If a vested interest exists, a source isn't independent. If an interview has the person speaking about themselves, that's more of a primary sourcing issue than an independence issue. For example, an artist talking about one of their own works. Interviews consisting of no secondary-sourced material shouldn't prove notability, but an interview with analysis and commentary should count as secondary and independent of the subject. That's why interviews shouldn't automatically be discarded as non-independent - it depends on the type of interview.
Also, I came across the draft because I occasionally check draft pages for various WikiProjects, sometimes to see whether a draft has potential or not. In my browsing, I discovered the AfD for GeorgeNotFound, then checked to see if any new sources existed that didn't in the previous AfD. I edited the draft once to add said sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to further take up this page to extend this debate(and I in no way mean to imply that you do, just saying). As I said, if you feel that five reviewers and us here are in error, you should roll the dice and move the draft yourself; alternatively you can see if yet another reviewer will see things your way. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that I believe this review was in error. In fact, I agree that the four prior rejections were correct in their identification of sourcing and notability issues; I came across the draft after these rejections. The page at the time of the previous rejection was in a completely different state than the page now, especially in terms of the sources—just look at the versions. If I was reviewing a draft that was previously rejected, the first thing I would do is look at the changes since the rejection. Your and Slywriter's insistence that we're "ignoring" the previous rejections ignores these major changes, showing that the draft was not, and is still not, being properly reviewed.
I'm confused why you only engage with this one Variety source and not the other sources (both from PantheonRadiance's source assessment table and the rest of the draft) that demonstrate notability. Even when you look at that source, it has a plethora of commentary (I've highlighted it for you) and is independent (i.e. Variety doesn't have a vested interest in the subject). You're opting for the "I'm right and I don't have to explain why" defense instead of properly engaging with these points. This gives us an unreasonable and frankly unprofessional dilemma: we either wait another two months to get a proper review due to your refusal to engage with us, or to move the page ourselves and likely be presented with an AfD due to the page's previous disputes and this rejection. BappleBusiness[talk] 09:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really interested in how I discovered the draft, I view the subject's videos and edit Wikipedia frequently, so I was curious if he had an article or draft. I can't speak for other editors; however, I'm personally unaware of the kind of canvassing you speculate. BappleBusiness[talk] 08:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:03:01, 3 January 2023 review of submission by PLBounds edit


PLBounds (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Draft:The_Foundation_for_Research_on_Information_Technologies_in_Society?action=edit Good morning, my original draft of this page was declined. I made changes as indicated -- removing external links and toning down "self-promoting" language -- and resubmitted. Regarding the "paid contributions" aspect, this is a conundrum -- the IT'IS Foundation and its partner institutions do important work that should be known about, but these institutions are currently unknown to the general public. I am writing the first drafts of pages because I know about and have access to the information. Further "cleanup" to scrub self-promoting formulations is absolutely welcome. (Also, I am available to act as an editor on other articles...). The next page on my list of pages to draft is for Schmid & Partner Engineering AG (SPEAG). Among other things, SPEAG manufactures instruments that measure the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones and other wireless devices to assess whether the devices are in compliance with safety regulations. Chances are that phones used by yourselves and everyone you know were tested with SPEAG equipment. Doesn't the wikipedia-reading public deserve to know about this? How should I proceed? Should I draft only stubs of pages to start with then flesh them out later? PLBounds (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PLBounds: it may help if I clarify an important principle behind Wikipedia's publishing policy. We are never the first outlet for disseminating new information; we only summarise what other sources have already published. Therefore, if your subject is "unknown to the general public", meaning there isn't information publicly available about it, then Wikipedia is not the means for rectifying that, no matter how "important" their work may be. Another way of saying the same is this: if you can cite sufficient (in quality and quantity) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, you may have an article included in the 'pedia; if you cannot, then you may not. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:39, 3 January 2023 review of submission by 41.210.147.95 edit


41.210.147.95 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:56, 3 January 2023 review of draft by VladGSanford edit


I don't know what I'm doing. I just wanted to submit a Wikipedia page for my old band. I'm obviously doing something wrong as it was declined.

VladGSanford (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VladGSanford: the reason why your draft was declined is that it is effectively unreferenced, and for that reason there is also no evidence that the subject is notable; both are cardinal offences in the Wikipedia context.
Also (and this wasn't a reason for the decline) if you have an external relationship with the subject, then this gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which needs to be disclosed. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VladGSanford If you can find published material where others have written about your former band, you can write a draft based on what those publications say. If you can't find sources like that, I'm afraid you won't be able to create an article that will be accepted. Good luck. See this info for more information. David10244 (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_3&oldid=1132458219"