Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 17 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 19 >
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 18

[edit]

01:27, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Odewale Olayinka Isaac

[edit]

I want my new website to be on wikipedia but it kept rejected Odewale Olayinka Isaac (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odewale Olayinka Isaac
You need to disclose this conflict of interest immediately on your talk page or user page.
Additionally, unfortunately your website isn't notable yet. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 18 July 2025 review of submission by A-4224

[edit]

please help me with the next process to submit this draft A-4224 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest having a less promotional tone Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this article being approved in its current state. The sourcing is, to be frank, a mess. The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY, press releases, simple listings in databases that just show the company exists, and more than one source that doesn't go to any specific content. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Vivekvvarriyer

[edit]

I was already submited the backlink of 10+ articles may I know why its not engoh Vivekvvarriyer (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivekvvarriyer Please see the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Most of your in-line citations are hanging randomly at the end of the draft. They should be in-line with the text. Then choose three sources that meet Wikipedia:42 - a small draft like this doesn't need 20 sources and 8 external links. qcne (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Floy mushi

[edit]

iam trying to upload my article but it is rejected. Kindly help Floy mushi (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Floy mushi. Wikipedia doesn't host memorial pages. Our articles are summaries of existing published sources, nothing else. I would recommend if you wanted to host a memorial for this person, you create your own website? qcne (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 18 July 2025 review of submission by BrodieEdits23

[edit]

Just delete the page. :-| BrodieEdits23 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for deletion. qcne (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 18 July 2025 review of submission by 188.17.221.8

[edit]

Hello, can you help me? I do not understand the problem, the links in the article have a detailed, secondary and independent assessment. I have also inserted books, articles, and journal publications about this in various sources. 188.17.221.8 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting(if you are the creator and principle editor of the article). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you help me? I do not understand the problem, the links in the article have a detailed, secondary and independent assessment. I have also inserted books, articles, and journal publications about this in various sources

13:04, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Acasola

[edit]

Hello,

my article has been rejected even though i tried to deep dive and find the best referencse i could for this article. I just wanted to ask if articles about the company's past under the name "MBE Worldwide SpA" could cause a problem with regard to compliance with the guidelines, given that Fortidia is the new brand name of MBE Worldwide SpA.

I don't know if I what i said make sense.

Thank you Acasola (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acasola. Only declined, not rejected. The issue with the draft is that your sources do not provide significant coverage of the company: they are mainly press releases. We need independent sources that give some kind of critical analysis/debate/discussion/review. qcne (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry could you please explain to me what do you mean with critical analysis/debate/discussion/review? like, if you could give me an example of some other company references.
could you please check if the refences i have right now, i edited, are now quite ok? i'm not sure that none of these work well.
thank you for your help Acasola (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All your references are just routine business coverage of acquisitions and all based on press releases and interviews. That is just churnalism and useless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:ORGCRIT which outlines an example of the types of sources we need. qcne (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you.
Is it a problem that the sources refer to the company name MBE Worldwide and not Fortidia? So these would be sources that used the old name of the company.
Thank you Acasola (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, @Acasola. We require sources that are in-depth and independent. You haven't included any that meet that as of yet. qcne (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for other sources.. Acasola (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Ycsblr

[edit]

Submission rejected Ycsblr (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ycsblr. That's not a question, but yes I rejected your draft as being ChatGPT/AI generated with not a single source. Please carefully read Help:Your first article. qcne (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 18 July 2025 review of submission by BlockyTheMCFan

[edit]

I need help making the information please 

BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan I rejected this draft, as there is absolutely nothing to indicate this movie even exists. qcne (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your crazy thats mine BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not question. qcne (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop (Personal attack removed) BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific question you'd like to ask? qcne (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan: Do not throw insults at reviewers (or anyone), and do not delete previous reviewers' comments like you did mine. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan: No sources, no article, no debate. The article itself reads like word salad and is self-contradictory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Pksois23

[edit]

A question on notability for AFL players, as far as I can see from WP:AFL and WP:ATHLETE and by my interpretation of "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", it should include any player who has debuted in the AFL? Is the reason the article was declined that there are not enough sources to prove that he has indeed played in the AFL, or that the fact that he did does not make him notable? I guess if Logan Evans is notable too then Moraes should be too? Pksois23 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pksois23: what those guidelines say is (and I'm paraphrasing for clarity) that people who play at high enough level are likely to have been covered in sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. It doesn't mean that they have necessarily been covered, and it doesn't mean that they are somehow automatically considered notable by virtue of this fact. In other words, you still need to cite sources that satisfy GNG. In the case of this draft, it only cites primary sources, which don't count towards GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto what DoubleGrazing said, you would also need to satisfy WP:Biographies of living persons, which doesn't accept the subject itself as a source except for matters no reasonable person with no knowledge of the subject could challenge. You would need strong third-party sources in any event. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pksois23: Re-signing for proper ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you guys! Pksois23 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 18 July 2025 review of submission by StartUp Founders

[edit]

Which information should I edit? StartUp Founders (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StartUp Founders: this draft has been rejected, and will shortly be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Michelkabondobakimbe

[edit]

i'm a bit confused Michelkabondobakimbe (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelkabondobakimbe: what are you confused about? As the reviewer said, this is totally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Your draft is a somewhat odd mix of CV/resume and personal profile, and we don't publish either of those. We also very strongly discourage editors writing about themselves, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Mattygezart23

[edit]

why did you reject it Mattygezart23 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattygezart23: because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and especially not for things that haven't even been made yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Verdunmh

[edit]

Article got denied. My main concern is that there is only one place website listing notable/award-winning librarians in Michigan. While I don't expect that page to go down at any point, I'm worried that if it does, that information will be lost, and I believe it's of historical value, especially for genealogists and librarians. The information seems more suited to Wikipedia than genealogy databases, however. I tried to follow the guidelines, but this is my first page, and I didn't want to copy the source material (a list of names) directly, so I just listed awards, instead of the individual names, even though the ultimate goal is to get people's names and achievements listed.

Would the article have been better broken down into multiple pages for the specific awards and winners? My plan was to create pages for those as well, and then create pages for the individuals who won. What's the best way to make sure this information doesn't become lost over time? Again, my main priority is to make sure the achievements of people in the library profession are recognized. Verdunmh (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Verdunmh: The best way would be to host your own website for this information. If the third-party sources don't exist, then we have nothing to summarise for an article and can't even consider one. You could create articles for the specific winners regardless of what ultimately happens to this draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there was a third-party website that I referenced, and I summarized it. That's why I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong. Verdunmh (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdunmh: Note that I used the plural above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. So if I get another source, like a YouTube video, would that be enough to get it approved? How many sources are needed? Verdunmh (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, at a minimum, we're looking for three sources that each meet reliable; independent; significant coverage. qcne (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Got it. Have 10 sources listed now. Hopefully, that's enough to start the page. Verdunmh (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources and news articles I can use. I just linked to the official website. Verdunmh (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdunmh: The official website in this case is not considered third-party (i.e. has no financial, professional, or social connexion to the subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 18 July 2025 review of submission by 9aija

[edit]

My draft is still getting declined. Can someone help me go through it now and tell me if it’ll be approved now ‘cause I’ve made the significant or the right changes. I missed some things but I have added it. 9aija (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Akkermansia

[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. I'm a bit puzzled and would appreciate further clarification: How could a distinguished scientist with multiple published books, extensive media coverage by major national outlets, and independent secondary sources highlighting groundbreaking research be considered lacking significant coverage? The subject has been featured prominently in respected media outlets, which clearly meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Could you kindly advise what specific additional references or criteria you feel are missing, given the extensive media and literary coverage already provided? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated to ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Akkermansia (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing in media does not make him notable. If you have sources that describe why media outlets chose him to appear on them, that would be better.
Large sections of the draft are unsourced. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_18&oldid=1302975005"