Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 20 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 22 >
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 21

[edit]

00:39, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Ajcomeau

[edit]

I don't understand why the references in this draft are inadequate. This is an article about an episode of the TV show M*A*S*H, like many other episode articles on Wikipedia. I actually used the entry for "The Winchester Tapes" as a template. What other references do I need to add? Ajcomeau (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajcomeau: this draft is completely unreferenced, apart from one rather irrelevant factoid, and even that cites a source that doesn't even mention the subject. As such, it fails our core requirements of verifiability and notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ajcomeau. As for other episodes, please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Parvin joon Naficy

[edit]

Why My Article is Declined. This is a complete bio of Parvin Joon Naficy. And I added all the document. If this is not article this is a bio so give me a help how to live this bio Parvin joon Naficy 04:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parvin joon Naficy: I'm assuming you're asking about the draft in your sandbox, User:Parvin joon Naficy/sandbox, which was reviewed a week ago? (You also have created Draft:Fatollah Naficy on the same subject, but that was never reviewed.)
The draft is not ready for publication, because it is insufficiently referenced, and there is therefore no reliable evidence that the person in question is notable. You cite three sources, the first of which is obviously relevant, but it isn't clear to what extent the other two cover this person, and since all sources are offline, it is difficult to ascertain this. What's more, you've cited each source only once, suggesting they each cover only a limited amount of the draft content, and you've piled the citations at the end rather than inline after the information each source supports, making it impossible for the reviewer to know where all this information has come from and how much of it is actually supported by the sources, versus not.
On a different matter, judging by your username, I assume you are related to the person you're writing about? If so, that gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which must be disclosed. This was already queried on your talk page, but you seem not to have responded. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 21 July 2025 review of submission by BradOdis

[edit]

Hello, I have included multiple credible sources that are not merely one-line mentions. The company's past works, location and relationship with publishers were reported in these sources. It is nearly impossible for game development companies, who do not own the IP of the games they worked on, to receive the so called in-depth reports about the company itself. The fact that Konami filmed a behind-the-scenes video about the developers of the game, SILENT HILL f, is not only proof that the company is recognized by Konami, but also evidence that the company is receiving huge media exposure. There has been talks/ discussions about the company in game forums and related videos. This is an appropriate timing to add a Wikipedia page of the company to give the public organized information about it. To gain more in-depth coverage about the company will require hiring of PR agencies, which is against the vision of Wikipedia. As a result, I'd like to request a re-opening of this page for review. BradOdis (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BradOdis: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The sources are interviews, press releases, product announcements, etc., none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:08, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Ericamary70

[edit]

i dont understand the issue Ericamary70 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericamary70: This is a very blatant advertizement. We take a zero-tolerance approach to being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augie K Fabela

[edit]

Hi again!

My draft on Augie Fabela has been declined again. The reason provided was once again lack of notability, saying Mr. Fabela is not mentioned in other reviews of the film. However, there are multiple ones that discuss him and his relation to Zimin. Here are a few: https://filmthreat.com/reviews/connected-2025/, https://www.filmfocusonline.com/post/connected-review-friendship-documentary, https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/08/film-review-vera-krichevskaya-s-connected, https://www.movie-blogger.com/connected-2025-film-review/, and many, many more. He is literally one of the two subjects of the film, which centers around Zimin reminiscing with him on their journey as they take one last cruise before Zimin elects to undergo euthanasia. As I previously mentioned, Dmitri Zimin has his deserving and undisputed article on Wikipedia, where Augie Fabela is mentioned as his friend, partner, and co-founder of Vimpelcom. I understand the reluctance to accept COI articles, but request that you please look at this one in an objective way. If the text needs to be edited, if any bits need to be removed or updated in order for the article to work, please edit away or let me know and I'll happily do so. All I ask is that this article be considered for the subject notability and not for my conflict of interest. Thank you - M VEON.MNS (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Adding to this that apart from Augie Fabela being the subject of award winning documentary “Connected”, along with friend and business partner Dmitri Zimin - for which many reviews are available online, he has also written two books, one of which (The Impatience Economy) is an Amazon bestseller; he is co-founder of one of the very first telecommunication companies from the former Soviet Union to be listed on the NYSE; he has been quoted and mentioned in multiple pieces about VEON, a telecommunications company publicly listed on NASDAQ, (https://www.brecorder.com/news/40332589, https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/-kyivstar-nasdaq, https://ru.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1089118.html, and many, many more). He has spoken at countless public events and been covered by Yahoo Finance, (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/veon-shareholders-elect-board-2025-152000875.html) and NASDAQ themselves (https://www.facebook.com/Nasdaq/videos/behindthebell-vimplecom-co-founder-chairman-emeritus-aug/10154610846847429/, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/veon-ltd-shareholders-re-elect-board-and-chairman-augie-fabela-2025-agm). VEON.MNS (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @VEON.MNS. Just responding to the paragraph above:
  • Documentary about him: possibly relevant, if truly indepedent and issued by a producer regarded as reliable.
  • Written books: irrelevant (unless independently written about)
  • Amazon bestseller: irrelevant
  • co-founder of anything: irrelevant unless independently written about
  • quoted: irrelevant
  • mentioned: irrelevant
  • Has spoken: irrelevant unless etc.
  • "covered by" - depends what the "coverage" is. Is it independent, and in depth, or is it just a passing mention, or based on an interview or press release?
Please study WP:42 to understand what kind of sources are an non-negotiable requirement for an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have studied the reliable sources guides inside and out. That is why I can't understand the rejection of the sources I've provided. The film "Connected" was made by a well known director Vera Krichevskaya. The film is narrated mostly by Fabela as it is literally about his life and friendship with Dmitri Zimin. All the sources written about him refer to his business activity or philanthropy, as well as the huge effect he and his company had in Ukraine, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and many many others. I would encourage you to look at the actual draft and sources, and also to research the man, if you'd like. I am only asking for my request to be considered objectively. Many thanks and appreciation. VEON.MNS (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Rashiwiki123

[edit]

Hey Admin

please give me advice to publish my article

Thank you Rashiwiki123 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You were given advice by previous reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 19:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A

[edit]

I wouldn't find reliable sources in this topic but in Nepal parliament doesn't always published about there leader but majority Parliamentary party leader who is not minister is known as leader of the Ruling Party in the National Assembly so, quite hard find source about it. How would I improve if there no any reliable sources. 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources that provide coverage of a topic, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I provide some news source which related to this topic, for example I already say that majority coalition who Parliamentary party leader is not minister is known as leader of the ruling in the national assembly, whereas minority or opposition Parliamentary party leader is known as leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying this is an equivalent position to Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives; I'd look to that as a guide. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly like Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives but same as it. For example Devendra Dahal was is Parliamentary party leader of CPN (UML) and also Leader of the Ruling Party in the National Assembly but due appointment as minister he not recognised as leader of ruling party but now Krishna Prasad Sitaula who parliamentary party leader of Nepali Congress and also recognised as leader of the ruling party, who is one of the Parliamentary Party leaders inside coalition parties. 27.34.72.60 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 82.60.205.119

[edit]

my bosses are putting a lot of pressure on me for the brand to have a wikipedia page, could you please assist me in understanding what exactly you need from me to be able to have this page? 82.60.205.119 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your bosses too. I'm sorry they have put you in a difficult position, but we aren't concerned with deadlines or other requirements imposed on you by others. If you are editing about your company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed on your user page(see WP:PAID).
Brands/companies do not "have pages" here, pages that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet our criteria, like a notable company. You have not demonstrated that the company is notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
Your bosses may also want to read about how the presence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Scroll kgitla

[edit]

How can I add or attach a photograph on my draft? Scroll kgitla (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about photos until the draft is accepted into the encyclopedia. They are an enhancement, not a requirement.
You have bigger issues than photos- "rising" anything almost never merits an article. A subject must have already arrived and be noticed in order to draw the coverage in independent reliable sources needed to support an article. You need to summarize what independent sources say and show how he is a notable musician.
Social media is also not acceptable as a source. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Spworld2

[edit]

I have prepared this draft of an article on religious harmony in the South Indian state of Kerala. I need help checking it to see if it is of the quality to publish and publishing it. Spworld2 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is an essay that advocates for a particular point of view. It does not neutrally summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 21 July 2025 review of submission by MichaelMorris96

[edit]

New notable citations have been added to the topic. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should attempt is asking the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection, directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Mkalcher

[edit]

@Avgeekamfot @QCNE @KylieTastic

Are you serious? You guys just said before that there were too many primary sources. So I spent hours trying to find external sources that mention the institute. Now you're saying, the sources added make it seem like an advertisement? Please understand that there is NOT A LOT OF MATERIAL ABOUT THE INSITUTE ONLINE. If you don't believe that the Institute exists, or any of the history stated is false, I will gladly book you a ticket to Zurich, and you can come physically look at the Institute with your own eyes. Mkalcher (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mkalcher. Courtesy ping @Avgeekamfot and @KylieTastic.
What would you say are your three best secondary sources from the draft? qcne (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say:
1. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/08/03/the-machine-of-a-new-soul
2. https://science-stories.ch/indiveri/
3. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/neuroscientists-count-on-technology-evolution/37190572
Would you consider an autobiography of one of the institutes founders that is hosted on an external academic website a primary source? If not, definitely this also. Mkalcher (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkalcher
  1. This is a single reference to Giacomo Indiveri, an engineer at the Institute. That doesn't meet the significant coverage of the institute.
  2. An interview with Giacomo Indiveri - again, doesn't discuss the institute as a concept.
  3. A single reference.
If these are your best sources, then the institute unfortunately does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do, and the world will never know about this place.
2. "Your institute is famous all over the world for its research. What do you do differently?
The institute works in an interdisciplinary manner. When it was founded in 1995, it was the first in Zurich that was associated to both ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich. We are the home to physicists, mathematicians, neuroscientists, computer scientists, bioengineers, electrical engineers and many other specialists. They all have to complete a course in biology as we want to understand the biological principles inside the brain.
«Today, the world’s best researchers
in this field are in Zurich and in Europe.»
We owe this structure to the founders of the institute: ETH Zurich Physics Professor Klaus Hepp who fought for an institute of neuroinformatics when hardly anyone knew about this young branch of research; to the Zurich City Council and the Government Council of the Canton of Zurich which recognised the potential of this research area as well as to the first heads of the institute, Kevan A. C. Martin and Rodney J. Douglas who were both enticed away in 1995 from Oxford University.
When did you join the institute?
I came to Zurich roughly one year after the institute was founded as a postdoc from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). (...)"
This literally talks about the history of the institute?
As I said. What I have in the draft is everything that exists about the institute. If you don't think this is enough then there's nothing anyone can do, the world will never know about this place. Mkalcher (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mkalcher.
I will make a correction about my analysis of source 2 though, you're right it does discuss the institute, but being an interview with the Professor at the Institute it is not independent of the institute. Apologies for misleading you the initial assessment.
It's really common for smaller or newer institutions or organisations to not merit an article on Wikipedia. It is not a case that Wikipedia doesn't think that the institution doesn't exist or isn't important: our articles are based off secondary sources that cover the subject in detail. If there are no secondary sources, there can be no article. Does that make sense?
In the future it's very possible secondary sources will write about the institute, and that will mean it will likely meet our criteria for inclusion.
Wikipedia isn't the final say on if the world knows about a subject. It's absurd to say the world will never know about the institute just because there is no article. qcne (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mkalcher Did you take the aerial shot of the campus as you are claiming? Seems higher than could be done with a drone.
If you are associated with this Institute, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI. If you are compensated in any way for your association, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see WP:PAID.
Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are publicly accessible(like books/magazines in a library). We don't want just mentions of the Institute, there needs to be significant coverage of it, more than just detailing what it does and its activities. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkalcher, The statement "If you don't believe that the Institute exists, or any of the history stated is false" shows you are misunderstanding what is required. Subjects are required to show that they are notable per Wikipedia:Notability not just 'exists'. I have not rechecked the current sources as I'm at work but when I first declined it was all primary sources, I see that it has moved on from that, but it appears the subsequent reviewers have not seen the depth of coverage to show notability. Also as Avgeekamfot said in a comment the use of inline external links is inappropriate, the point of an encyclopedic article is not a link farm for the subjects groups - see Wikipedia:External links especially section WP:ELLIST. Is there not a single source to use as a reference for the current groups? That being said I would think the subject could be notable, you just need to find 3+ independent, reliable sources, that have non-trivial coverage. Final note is that sources do not have to be in English and I would expect converge in German at least. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"you just need to find 3+ independent, reliable sources, that have non-trivial coverage".
Please understand that I put on "everything" I could find about this place. I am student and only have so much free time, I don't think I can do anything else for this, seems like a lost cause. Thanks. Mkalcher (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mkalcher. I'm afraid that may be so. Many organisations (and people), though notable in the ordinary sense of the word, are not notable (sometimes, not yet notable) by Wikipedia's criteria.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. If such soures do not exist, there cannot be an article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I see your account has been around for three months, but with only seven edits in your history, you are still a new editor) ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no rush, if you come across sources in the months ahead you can re-visit. I've noticed a subject not having an article several times and just not been able to find enough sources - we are all reliant on the sources both existing, and being able to find them. You gave it a go which is a good thing: only by trying and sometimes failing can you learn, those that don't even try won't learn. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Noyanhehe

[edit]

Banu Wifi draft review and sourcing help Reason for requesting assistance: Hello! I recently submitted a draft article titled "Banu Wifi", but it was declined with the reason being lack of notability and concerns about sourcing. The draft is based on a real online community that originated from the Imamiyah Discord server. I cited a Substack article that documents the group and their activities. I would like help understanding:

1. What kind of additional sources would make this notable?


2. Whether a Substack article (written independently and publicly available) is sufficient as a primary or supporting source.


3. How I can improve the tone, neutrality, or format to meet AfC standards.


I’m willing to improve the draft if given more specific guidance. Here is the link to the draft: User:Noyanhehe/sandbox

Thank you in advance! Noyanhehe (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noyanhehe I fixed your header so it provides a link to your draft as intended, instead of linking to a nonexistent page titled "Banu Wifi draft review and sourcing help". The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Large portions of the draft are unsourced. Where are you getting this information? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know those ppl belonging to this movement actually & information is 100% reliable, I've seen a blogger post as well should i link that one too? in reference Noyanhehe (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts cannot be written based on your personal knowledge or other information that is not published in a reliable source- no matter how accurate it may be or how much you trust the people telling you. Others need to be able to verify the information. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the information is 100% reliable & its not based on personal knowledge mostly is collected by other members & totally accurate Noyanhehe (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter how accurate the information is if it is not published in an independent reliable source that can be verified. We cannot verify "some people told me this, and I believe them, it's totally accurate! Trust me!" It would be like me saying that I have very good, accurate information that you are a space alien from the planet Vulcan who is disguised as a human. You have no means of looking at that information to see where it is coming from(to know that it is, of course, a lie).
I don't disbelieve anything you have said. But if it's not in a published source, it can't be in a Wikipedia article. You could try other websites with less stringent requirements, like social media or a blogging site. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so what should be done to publish this page of banu wifi? Noyanhehe (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no reliable sources, there is nothing that can be done. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noyanhehe I have rejected this draft. qcne (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 21 July 2025 review of submission by JKR98116

[edit]

Draft article was rejected for reliance on primary rather than secondary references. In trying to amend, I find that I could edit the article itself, but when I attempt to edit the references, I am offered only: (references section) with all of the contents absent. How can I edit the references? JKR98116 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{reflist}} only collects references that are properly cited above it in the text; you would need to edit the references at the spot they are cited in the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 193.60.93.98

[edit]

Hi there,

I would like to ask for more specific feedback regarding this comment: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Moreover, I received this particular comment on this draft project as well: "Many unsourced claims and excessive use of external links." Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you please provide more context, give particular examples and let me know how to improve the next iteration of the Wikipedia page?

Thank you in advance. 193.60.93.98 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you need to cite your sources so that we know where the information is coming from. For example:
  • Anoop Chandola (December 24, 1937 – January 31, 2024) - where did you find his birth and death date?
  • He was born into a Brahmin family and raised in the mountainous region of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India. - how do we know that?
  • He attended the Christian Messmore Intermediate College of Pauri, a Methodist school run by Indian Christians of Chinese origin. - how do we know that?
  • After completing a year of intermediate education, he joined D.A.V. College of Lucknow for his second and final year, majoring in Hindi literature. - how do we know that?
  • He later pursued undergraduate studies in Economics, Sanskrit, and English literature at the University of Allahabad. - how do we know that?
You will see I have not even gotten past the lede and already there are a lot of claims that need to be sourced. Have a look at WP:42 and WP:REFB for how to do this. Please also see WP:EL for the policy on external links - you must remove these from in the main text, so for example 'Ford Foundation Scholarship' should not link to their website. If their site mentions Mr Chandola's scholarship, you could use it as a source with proper citation (WP:REFB). I hope this is helpful and wish you happy editing. Meadowlark (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Theanikbd

[edit]

If i m doing anything wrong input or any supporting according to your policies. Extremely sorry. Please advise me for further Theanikbd (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Nikhilan007

[edit]

Hi Team,

Why was my page declined? This time, I added the sources, too, but still it didn't get approved. Can someone guide me on what all points I should keep in mind before publishing?

Best, Nik Nikhilan007 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nikhilan007. Step one: find sources that are reliable, indepedndent, and contain significant coverage of USICOC. See WP:42.
You have not so far done this: The Dallas Innovates piece is mostly not about USICOC, and where it is, it is not independent. The profile is a primary source which almost certainly comes from USICOC, and so it not indepenent. I haven't watched the video, but I doubt whether it contains in-depth independent material about USICOC. And the News India Times piece does not even mention USICOC, and it is hard to see why it would even be cited.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 21 July 2025 review of submission by HSCNU2402

[edit]

Hi there,

The reviewer rejected my creation because of "advertisement" reason. There are lots of existing wikipedia pages regarding living or passed professors. My creation is nothing different than the others (see some references below). Why is my creation considered as "advertisement" despite with lots of notable references and citations?

The comment is not specific enough for me to make further modifications before resubmissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Uzzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jones_(economist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Chen_(engineer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang-Lin_Tien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Berdahl

Best, HSC HSCNU2402 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that.
Your copyright information for the image is invalid- you will need to go to commons and give evidence that the photographer, not the subject, released the image. If you cannot do that, you must request its deletion. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say the professor is your advisor- this likely makes you a paid editor as he gives you grades and advice as "payment". 331dot (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. However, what you said seems unrelated to the reviewer's rejection reason.
"The whole url is not needed when linking." Well, I can try modify it. Or anyone can if public. That is also not the given reason of rejection.
Also, if something similar published in wiki, there should be a reason for that. People see these pages and will have the idea to create similar topics. So still the question is valid: what is the difference between my creation and the others which got published? By knowing this difference more specifically, I will have a better idea of how to modify. This question cannot just be answered by "Each article or draft is judged on its own merits".
COI disclosure was made and I will deal with the image issue. And I am not paid in any form of doing so. This kind of unjustified statement can be used in anyone who created pages for other professors and other notable people. Most importantly, that seems also not the given reason of rejection.
Again, specific reasons related to the rejection reasons (advertisement, notability, etc.) will be better since I have already included many independent, published sources like the others. HSCNU2402 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HSCNU2402, I will try to clarify some things.
The other articles you have found did not go through the AfC process. They were either created before the process existed, or they were created outside the process - which may be done by editors who do not have a conflict of interest. The main difference is that those articles were created according to the standards of their times (between 2002 and 2018), which are not the same as the current standards. All new articles must comply with current standards. Your draft does not yet do so. We would very much like it if all the older articles on Wikipedia also complied with current standards, but there are not enough editors to find and update all of them, unfortunately.
Some things you will need to do, as a starting point:
  • Remove all external links in the main text of the draft - please see WP:EL for more information
  • Cite all claims made in the draft, preferably to sources that establish notability - please see WP:42 and WP:REFB for more information
For example, you write, He is widely recognized for: Developing micro- and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS). The citation is to a paper he has written. This does not back up the claim that he is widely recognized for it; you need to find a source that says 'Espinosa is widely known for developing micro-' etc. You must do this for every single claim in the draft, including his birthplace, his career information, his company, the awards he has won, and so on. If you can't find a source for a claim, it's best to remove it.
I note also that the reviewer thinks that you may have used an AI/LLM to help you create the draft. Could you please let us know whether there has been any AI/LLM input, for example working with ChatGPT? Meadowlark (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the very specific guidance! Now I know how to modify. And no, not AI or LLM generated draft. I drafted this based on similar wiki posts. HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HSCNU2402 Sorry, my comment about not needing the whole url was referring to your links in your post to other Wikipedia articles only. You just need to place the title in double brackets, like this, [[Nobel Peace Prize]]
Does your professor not grade your work? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not taking any school classes anymore. HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Dhil Knight

[edit]

This page was declined I was just adding a series to Wikipedia which is a web series that first aired from 1994 to 2006 and revived in 2022 as a reboot series I was paid to edit and add articles Dhil Knight (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhil Knight: No sources, no article, no debate. The entire "article" is a massive run-on sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 22:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 21 July 2025 review of submission by AIAEditor57

[edit]

Why the sources indicated do support Wikipedia Notability:

Significant coverage: Each covers Damiano's work and leadership roles in detail—not just brief mentions.

Independent and credible: The articles are from museums, reputable community journalism, academic institutions, and civic organizations.

Documented leadership: They verify his roles as AIA national president, AIA College of Fellows chancellor, and chair of the American Architectural Foundation.

Disciplined context: The articles describe his architectural projects, public sculpture installations, exhibitions, and lectures—substantiating his professional and creative impact. 

AIAEditor57 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AIAEditor57. Independent: anything from a museum where he has exhibited, or an institution or organisation he is employed by or a member of, is not independent.
Please don't use LLMs anywhere on Wikipedia, including talking to us here: we want to talk to a person, not a machine. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Anikmsharfuddin

[edit]

Positive and no commercial issues Anikmsharfuddin (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Gracebarlow

[edit]

I tried to add references but it says I did it wrong. Can you help advise me on how to properly add the references to the article? Gracebarlow (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you are related to the subject.....please declare a conflict of interest on your user page(User:Gracebarlow). See WP:COI.
As advised, please see Referencing for beginners to learn more about referencing. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_21&oldid=1302692272"