Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 18 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 20 >
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.


May 19

[edit]

02:05, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:5620:4100:C5FE:9B03:914D:9BAA

[edit]

ww 2607:FEA8:5620:4100:C5FE:9B03:914D:9BAA (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question?
If you believe that you have found and added suitable sources, you should ask the editor who last rejected the draft, @Rich Smith to reconsider the draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This article is entirely sourced to sources that merely speculate about a hypothetical Windows 12. We do not deal in rumourmongering and wild guesses. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:00, 19 May 2025 Protest of declined article - 'Stuart Lyndon'

[edit]

Hi, I would like to protest a decision made in February to decline an article I created for New Zealander racing driver Stuart Lyndon. Draft:Stuart Lyndon


While I do agree that there are fewer sources than I would have liked, the thing is, the notability page says: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject [which I have], excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article."

Furthermore, this is New Zealand's first NASCAR driver. New Zealand's first Formula 1 driver, Thomas Pitt Cholmondeley-Tapper, has an article consisting of seven (7) sentences and 4 sources. Surely that makes him notable?

It also doesn't help that he was killed at the young age of 35. The first NZ drivers in many motorsports lived long lives; Thomas Tapper (F1) was 90, Simon Crafar (MotoGP) is 56, so of course they would have more of a chance to be included in motorsport literature.

Lyndon was unfortunate enough to die in Atlanta on a day where most stock car fans were watching the NASCAR race at Riverside, CA. No footage was publicly available until 2019. Honestly, outright refusal is unfair when you consider the litany of drivers who have been approved pages.

For example, another non-American ARCA driver was killed in 1985: Francis Affleck - and he has an article that is much smaller.

Following his death, Atlanta International Raceway took steps to improve safety by fixing the track design that took his life. Today, superspeedways don't use dirt walls, largely as a result of his accident.

Kiwinascarfan197 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwinascarfan197: It looks like you have done some work on the draft, including adding at least one source, since it was declined. You are free to submit it for review again – protesting against the draft's decline in February is less likely to end in its being accepted than resubmitting it in an improved state. --bonadea contributions talk 15:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kiwinascarfan197. I echo Bonadea's advice to resubmit. But note that is New Zealand's first NASCAR driver. New Zealand's first Formula 1 driver does not in any way contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word.
You refer to "approved pages": they are probably not. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, most of which were created long before the current standards for notability were decided and started being enforced: unfortunately, as this is a volunteer project, few people are willing to spend much time wading through these, improving or deleting them: see other stuff exists. To take Thomas Pitt Cholmondeley-Tapper, thank you for pointing out this example. I have tagged it as inadequately sourced, and possibly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 19 May 2025 review of submission by HRShami

[edit]

My draft has been rejected based on "citations not indicating notability". However, Muhammad N. S. Hadi is a fellow of American Society of Civil Engineers and Engineers Australia and thus meets point 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Can someone please take a second look at this? I did not resubmit because there were no major edits after the draft was declined. Thank you. HRShami (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami: I tentatively agree that this person may well be notable. However, rather than asking us to overrule the review, I think it would better (not to mention more courteous) if you were to approach the reviewer directly to discuss this. If you still don't get nowhere, come back here and we'll consider it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a pedant but...it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:54, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Mattias18978

[edit]

Hi, My draft says it needs reliable sources, how can I show my sources? Mattias18978 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 128.75.76.42

[edit]

Hello, I’ve updated the draft article on Infinite Mac.I would appreciate assistance from experienced editors in reviewing the full page. Specifically: Are there any sections or sources that should be removed, corrected, or improved 

Are the external links appropriate and in line with Wikipedia guidelines?
Is the page neutral and verifiable

Suggestions to improve the structure, tone, or formatting are most welcome. Thank you in advance for your time and guidance! 128.75.76.42 (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in Russian, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. You need to either translate it into English (and reference it properly), or submit it to ru.wiki instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Тимерхан

[edit]

I added more links approving importance of article. Please help to check article. I would be glad to get feedback Тимерхан (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resubmit the draft to get another check on it. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Corrupt98876

[edit]

Is my page good enough to get accepted Corrupt98876 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews here- please wait for a reviewer to examine the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:26, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 217.165.159.215

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to creating a page on Wikipedia but have had my account for a while. I didn't see the need to add a page until I saw that our UAE-based media outfit Expat Media does not have a dedicated media page here. I just feel this reflects poorly on Wikipedia's accurate representation of licensed media companies in the UAE. Can someone please guide me on how to improve my submission. So far I've submitted it twice and have been rejected, saying it lacks "reliable sources". I do have at least three external references there from other outfits, but stories that focus solely on the media company's merits are published on the news website. You will not be able to ask a competitor media outfit to mention, let alone publish, your media outfit's news. That's just the fact. So I was suggesting to the editors to run through the news articles that have been mentioned in the submission as these will have story, video and photo evidences. 217.165.159.215 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have at least three external references there from other outfits. The two that I see, from theglobalfilipinomagazine and dubaiurlaub, are both self-promotional/interview articles that fall under WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. You will not be able to ask a competitor media outfit to mention, let alone publish, your media outfit's news. Reputable news outlets break stories which others report on; companies may also be the subject of news themselves, which could produce reliably sourced coverage from other outlets. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please note that "X does not have a ... page here" is not a persuasive argument. Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects which meet its own definition of notability - and most companies (most people, most bands, most schools, etc) do not.
If you wish to write an article about Expat Nedia, it is your responsibility to find the places where people wholly unconnected with Expat Media have chosen to publish in depth about it in reliable publications. If you can find several such sources, then write a summary of what those indpendent sources say - nothing else. If you cannot find several such sources, then you cannot establish that the company is notable as Wikipedia uses the word, and you are wasting you time trying further. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
stories that focus solely on the media company's merits are published on the news website Wikipedia is not interested in stories that focus on the media company's merit, and definitely not if they are published by the company themselves. --bonadea contributions talk 20:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Kures48

[edit]

Hello,

My subject is clearly notable, he is an elected official and major candidate running for governor of New Mexico. This is backed up by dozens of sources and news articles from major reputable organizations. I don't understand why this is rejected. Kures48 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kures48, How can you confirm this? — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kures48: This was rejected because it reads more like a political advert than an encyclopaedia article; I blame this on over-detail more than anything. I should also note that this draft falls into a contentious topic (post-1992 politics of the United States). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
Thank you for the feedback, I'll re-edit and make it seem less like a political advert. Kures48 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kures48. It may help to remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Solenereboulet

[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking help and guidance after the second rejection of Draft:Advans, which was submitted through the Articles for Creation process. The draft was written following a previous deletion discussion, and every effort was made to follow the notability guidelines strictly, especially regarding the sourcing requirements.

This latest version of the draft uses academic sources from Cairn.info (a respected peer-reviewed journal platform), articles from Jeune Afrique (a major pan-African media outlet), and data from development finance institutions like FMO, all offering independent, non-trivial coverage of the company. There is no promotional tone, and the content is intentionally brief and neutral.

However, the draft was again declined without specific feedback on which references are acceptable or not. Would it be possible to get help identifying : One or two sources in the draft that do meet the standards, and one or two that clearly don’t…nso I can better understand how to proceed and whether the draft has a chance to meet the notability threshold ?

Thanks in advance for your time, Solenereboulet (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cairn.info may be respected, but the article cited is co-authored by Falgon, so it is not independent. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
I have not looked at the other sources, but the titles of the next two suggest that they are routine business announcements, rather than in-depth coverage (though I may be wrong about that). ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 19 May 2025 review of submission by E.Dolber

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article about On Board Experiential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:On_Board_Experiential), and it was declined with the reason: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I would really appreciate any guidance on how to revise the article so it better complies with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.

This is my first article submission, and I’ve tried to use a mix of third-party sources such as Ad Age, MediaPost, Billboard, LA Times, and Event Marketer, along with clearly attributed primary sources for factual claims about services or office locations.

I have disclosed my paid relationship with the company on my user and draft talk pages, in accordance with Wikipedia’s Terms of Use.

Can someone help me:

  • Understand which types of sources may not meet the reliability threshold?
  • Identify any specific sections that need stronger sourcing or trimming?
  • Get feedback on tone or structure that may be holding back the draft?

Thanks so much in advance for any advice or support.

— E.Dolber 18:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that those of us who are here for free are reluctant to help someone who is getting paid to be here; you should first learn what is being looked for before diving in.
That said, awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. Most if not all of the awards in the draft should just be removed.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to just tell about itself, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject. Please see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Follow-up: On Board Experiential draft ==
Thank you, 331dot, for taking the time to review my submission and provide clear feedback — I really appreciate the insights.
As someone new to contributing, especially under the paid editing disclosure requirements, your guidance is helpful in helping me better understand what’s expected for company-related articles. I now see that I need to focus less on company-provided details (such as services, awards, and client lists) and more on summarizing what independent, reliable sources say about the organization — particularly those that provide significant coverage.
I’ll revisit the draft with that in mind, trimming non-notable awards and self-sourced sections, and I’ll refocus the article based on truly independent, substantive sources. Thank you again for pointing me to the notability and sourcing policies — I’m committed to revising the article to align with Wikipedia’s standards.
Best, E.Dolber ~~~~~ E.Dolber (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Compphilus

[edit]

I have submitted 3 different pages. One of them says that I don't have the right sources. I am unsure what is necessary with the current sources I have submitted. Is there anyone that can help me get these 3 pages public facing? Compphilus (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just telling what ATT does, only sourced to its website. Instead, a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Compphilus: Did you see the response you got last time you asked this question? It's here. (Note that that's an archived page, so please do not post any responses there. Feel free to post in this thread if you have questions.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Letmeknoww

[edit]

Rejection of my article Letmeknoww (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Letmeknoww: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference) or YouTube (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Mgtibbits

[edit]

Requesting second review of declined article (no reason given)

Hello, I’m requesting a second opinion on this declined draft:

User:Mgtibbits/Monica Tibbits-Nutt. It was declined without a reason. The subject is a cabinet-level government official with significant coverage in sources like Smart Cities Dive, NBC Boston, CommonWealth Beacon, and WBUR. A reconsideration request has been added to the top of the draft. Thank you very much! Mgtibbits (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgtibbits: You have no contributions to the English-language Wikipedia other than this thread, and the page you link to has never existed. You also don't have any edits to any other Wikimedia Foundation-run wikis beyond this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I have found the relevant draft: Draft:Monica Tibbits-Nutt. What is your connexion to MassDOTComms (talk · contribs) (which I should note is a blatant username violation)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské,
Thank you again for your response and for reviewing the draft.
To clarify: I am Monica Tibbits-Nutt, the Secretary and CEO of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. I was not aware that the user MassDOTComms was created, though I understand your concerns and agree that the username violates Wikipedia’s naming policies. However, once I became aware of the username violation and the issues with that earlier draft, I made it a priority to address them directly and appropriately.
I have had my own account since 2021, I have acknowledged my conflict of interest, and written a new draft that follows Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, sourcing, and notability. I’ve placed that draft in my user space, where I’m working toward submitting it to the Teahouse for review by a neutral editor once I meet the participation requirements.
In the meantime, I’ve posted a reconsideration request on the current draft to understand any additional issues and am making good-faith edits elsewhere across Wikipedia to reach autoconfirmed status. My goal is to ensure the article is developed ethically and in line with the community’s expectations.
I appreciate your time, and thank you again for your guidance. Mgtibbits (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As before, there's nothing in your userspace and no edits other than to this page. (Contribution histories on Wikipedia are public, so they'd show up if you actually did those edits. Are you working at a different, non-Wikimedia-Foundation-run wiki? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that you're only looking at a page preview? You need to click the button that says "Publish page" for the sandbox page to be created. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more likely they're editing on a non-Wikipedia site such as EverybodyWiki or an internal wiki. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Crimsonsage626

[edit]

I would like you to remove all evidence of me trying to publish this article (Sha ir-Jekar) from your site. It comes up as spam when you google search. Crimsonsage626 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sha ir-Jekar
@Crimsonsage626: If Google is indexing a draft, something has gone horribly wrong. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Google sees Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Philosophy and religion The google search snippet says Draft:Sha ir-Jekar (Occult), Start, 2025-05-19, 2025-05-18, Crimsonsage626 (12), 4921, 2 past declines. Possible spam. Draft:Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri (Renowned ..., though that entity no longer appears on the AfC sorting page
@Crimsonsage626 Why are you making this request? The draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Wikipedia:AfC sorting and its various subpages strike me as something that should default to NOINDEX for the exact same reasons draftspace is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I agree. I have no idea whom to tell 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Crimsonsage626 You need to understand what happens when you publish material here. "...you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL..." Part of the correct attribution is that your words are attributed to you. What you are asking is that someone else unring the bell you have rung. Since one cannot unring a bell I foresee disappointment in your life.
Google does not index drafts. The page it indexes does not show your draft. A search in the last few minutes showed that int no longer appeared.
Now, since you are anonymous with your user name you are not connected to anything unless you choose to reveal to the world that User:Crimsonsage626 Is Arthur-Sixpence Featherstonehaugh-Beauchamp-Colmondely (someone I have made up and thus someone I donut you are).
Thus, I ask you with great respect, since you are linked to nothing whatsoever, "What are you so upset about?" And a secondary respectful question, since no-one made you attempt this draft, "Why do you feel that folk should clear up behind you?" That draft will vanish in six months, unless someone edits it which resets the clock. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 102.218.37.251

[edit]

Why is my article being declined 102.218.37.251 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because from a look, your sources don't really discuss Kratel (and the one that does was authored by him or on his behalf), and three of them completely lack any content what-so-ever. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Terrorry

[edit]

edit Terrorry 20:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorry This revision was rejected. Now you have added more material and no references. No reference = no article.
If you want to appeal the rejection please ask the reviewer who rejected it. Otherwise it will not go any further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrorry And do not upload pictures where you do not have the rights, formal rights, to upload them please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 152.133.8.4

[edit]

to find what is reason of stop? 152.133.8.4 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is hagiographical in tone and improperly sourced. You cannot just slap 49 references onto the end of the article and expect that to be acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_May_19&oldid=1292076028"