Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 25 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 27 >
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 26

[edit]

05:18, 26 May 2025 review of submission by 102.223.57.42

[edit]

My draft was declined due to "undeclared WP:COI. The image in the article, which was verified via email, indicates some level of COI that is not declared. Please declare that first." How do I rectify this? I have a COI on my user page and image has been accepted previously. 102.223.57.42 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Substantiator, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
You say you "have a COI on my user page" - what does that mean? I can see that COI has been queried on your user talk page, but you have not responded to it. Please do so now.
If, on the other hand, you are Colette2204, then yes, I can see that you have disclosed your COI both on the draft talk page and on your userpage. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I am Colette2204, appreciate your feedback. Colette2204 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I remove Substantiator from this draft so all messages come to me? I am working on getting this draft compliant so it gets published. Thank you. Colette2204 (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 26 May 2025 review of submission by New7Blue

[edit]

Hello, just looking for further clarification. My article was denied for not having multiple sources, I think. Do I need more evidence of my topic's existence or of it's relevancy? I suppose I just need to know more specifically what is needed. Thank you! New7Blue (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@New7Blue: I declined your draft (not yet 'article') because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. None of the sources cited in this draft meets that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I updated the draft with several more resources and information that I believe shows notability! Looking forward to hearing back from you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New7Blue (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Тимерхан

[edit]

Hi! I would be glad to get feedback about the article draft written by me. Тимерхан (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Тимерхан: you received feedback when this draft was reviewed last month, namely that there is insufficient evidence of notability. If you have made changes to it, and would like it to be reviewed again, you need to resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I want to sum up may mistakes before resubmission not to receive negative template again Тимерхан (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for human review of Draft:Ali Datoussaid

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to request a human review of my draft at Draft:Ali Datoussaid. The draft was declined automatically due to a potential conflict of interest flag, but no human reviewer has looked at it yet.

I am the subject of the article and fully aware of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest and notability guidelines. The draft was written to be neutral, minimal, and strictly sourced from reliable independent references (Petit Futé, Fokus 50+, L’Avenir). No promotional tone or primary links are used.

I would appreciate a human editor reviewing the draft and advising if notability is established, or what improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and help. — User:Alidatoussaid Alidatoussaid (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alidatoussaid: believe it or not, I am a human reviewer.
The drafts I deleted, one in English, the other in French, were 100% unadulterated self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you to promote yourself, your books, etc. or in fact anything. If you continue in this vein, you are likely to get yourself blocked pretty soon.
Yours Humanly, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Okay, I think I see what you mean with your comment about "declined automatically". In your new drafts Draft:Ali Datoussaid and User:Alidatoussaid/sandbox2, created after I deleted the earlier ones, you've placed the declined template onto the draft yourself. (Were you using AI to generate these, by any chance?) So in that sense you are right, these versions have indeed not been reviewed by anyone (human or bot), although they've also not been "automatically" declined, unless 'automatically' means you yourself. Hope this helps to explain the mystery. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three links are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage. The first one is a directory listing in a travel guide's directory, which does nothing but show existence, not notability. The second is mostly quoting you, which is certainly not independent. The third is just a name on a massive list of names.
Wikipedia articles start with the independent articles, and are then written using the information in the independent articles, with facts within the article cited to a source for that information. None of the facts in the short article are cited to reliable sources supporting their inclusion; the insufficient references are just thrown in at the end like a pile of clothes in a laundry hamper. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Hajabs

[edit]

I've been make the big changes to my article onto completely neutral POV, also, I've been provide the technical specifications. Please review my article. Hajabs (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly, on their user talk page(which is linked to from your draft). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to find indpendent, reliable sources at present you have none. Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Felis Creations

[edit]

Hello I am reaching out to ask what I need to do for the references to fix the "Cite uses generic name" issue on two of my links. The news outlets do not provide author names so I was wondering if I am better off to remove the author First and Last Name option? Felis Creations (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Felis Creations: you don't necessarily need to do anything, as this isn't a dealbreaker-level issue, but basically the errors flag up that 'editor' and 'bureau' are highly unlikely to be authors' surnames; they rather suggest that the articles don't have bylines and are just regurgitated press releases or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 26 May 2025 review of submission by JRHoughContributor

[edit]

I thought the last one i submitted was good. Please advise me what I need to do to be approved. JRHoughContributor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JRHoughContributor: the last submission was made without any improvement, which is completely pointless and only serves to nudge your draft one step closer to an outright rejection.
In the one before that, none of the sources work, meaning that the information cannot be verified. Which is what I already said in my comment accompanying the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Kárpáthy Kamlo

[edit]

the person who reviewed my page did not tell me what i did wrong Kárpáthy Kamlo (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kárpáthy Kamlo, Please see WP:RS, WP:LLM and WP:PROMOTION. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for publishing fiction, or whatever this is. Besides which, we summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously said about a subject; your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Fmarsha

[edit]

Trying to understand the reasons for article denial and what needs to be done to improve its chances of acceptance. There are already existing similar articles about Theravada Buddhist monks which are referencing similar resources. Thank you! Fmarsha (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fmarsha Other articles existing has no bearing on your draft, as those too could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by volunteers, which you would be unaware of. See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.
You will need to tell your relationship with the monk, see conflict of interest. I see that you took a picture of him.
The reason for the decline was that the sources used do not seem to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer and clarifications. I see that for a living person, a self-published biography is considered a reliable source. Will referencing a self-published auto-biography improve the chances of article acceptance? I don't have any relationships with this person other than visiting the monastery where he is the abbot, and trying to help with writing this article. Fmarsha (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographies can't establish notability, as by definition an autobiography is the person speaking about themselves. Autobiographies can be used for other purposes, but not establishing notability. A "self-published" autobiography might be more problematic; autobiographies are typically reviewed by an editor or other author before publishing- a self-published work isn't, necessarily. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article on reliable sources and I genuinely wasn't able to understand how are the sources I used not reliable, they seem to tick all the marks. There is no controversy or differences of opinions involved. Any guidance would be appreciated Fmarsha (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are
  1. a page from the website of his monastery which simply names him as the abbot, not independent, not significant coverage
  2. wouldn't load for me so I can't examine it
  3. another page from a monastery website associated with him, which does provide some biographical information but not a great deal of significant coverage; not independent of him
  4. a very brief mention of him, not significant coverage
  5. a brief biography of him(not as brief as the above one), not significant coverage, unsure if the website would be a reliable source
  6. another brief biography of him that also lists and makes available talks he conducted, no significant coverage
  7. another brief biography of him
  8. a website that makes available and documents talks he conducted, not independent, not significant coverage
  9. a copy of a talk he conducted
  10. a copy of a book
  11. anoother volume of the same book
None of these sources contribute to notability; and only a few of them are useful at all(those with biographical information). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Sarah Lexis

[edit]

Tell me the reason of rejection Sarah Lexis (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not an article, it is a blatant advert. WP:NOTADVERT CoconutOctopus talk 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, regarding paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Manthanvashistha009

[edit]

Can u please give me some advice regarding to this articles. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 It is nominated for speedy deletion after rejection 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Liveuserqwe

[edit]

I am the creator of this page. I believe it does not qualify for speedy deletion under the criteria because [brief reason, e.g., "the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people due to coverage in independent, reliable sources such as X and Y"].

Please consider reviewing the page with this context. Liveuserqwe (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Lasitha rajapaksha - founder and ceo, which has been deleted. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And OP blocked as a sockpuppet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Divnanoc

[edit]

Submission declined, because "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements". (1) The Article is about one of the notable English painters from 1930-60s, a member of Royal Institute of Oil Painters (ROI). Exhibited at the Royal Academy, Royal Institute of Oil Painters, Royal Society of British Artists[8], Royal Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts etc. He also was a Head of Epsom School of Art, one of the significant art college in the UK. Currently in collection of some British Museums, like National Museum Cardiff etc. Very surprising that the person doesn`t match Wiki criteria. (2) All of the sources are reliable, independent and unconnected to any conflict of interests, included two two British art encyclopaedic books containing the biography`s details of subject. (3) Purpose of article: to return almost publicly forgotten name; to eliminate confusion between the two artists of the same name. Divnanoc (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Divnanoc That he may well be notable is a different thing from your demonstrating that he is notable. I have not yet done a deep dive into your references, but please check them against WP:42.
The purpose of the article is not what you think. If he is notabke and passes WP:NARTIST the purpose is the pure purpose of having an article n him. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc I am not persuaded that the references are up to the standard required. You will probably disagree. To assist, please look at WP:GA and find an artist of his era, where you ought to be able to discern the difference in referencing. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but not very convincing. According to this point Taylor Swift is the greatest musician within all the mankind`s history. Or at least certainly better than, umm, like Zbigniew Preisner (he has weaker referencing) or Léon Boëllmann, for example. But she is not, despite the tonnes of wasted papers and online critics that could make couple of hundreds referencing details to her bio. Birch lived and worked like 80% of his colleagues ascribed in encyclopaedias of first part of XX century and I really doubt that more information could be squeezed . Divnanoc (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc You are very welcome to seek to engage in debate. However, you came here to ask for advice, or, truly, you gave a statement about why you feel you are correct. I gave you an answer which you believe insufficient. Two other reviewers have given you opinions on your draft, and, so far, you are the only one of us marching in step. Most people take the advice they are given. I have no concerns whether you take the advice or not. The review process is iterative, intended to guide you towards success, if success be possible. I suggest you avail yourself of iterations of review. Others may differ from the opinions given thus far and accept it at once - who can say?
The first reference in your draft, by the way, is a spam link to a selling site, and needs to be removed. As for references from his era, internet archivists are digitising more, but nothing prevents your use of print media as a reference. Find material about Birch, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of him and you will succeed. Indeed, you should have found that first. There is a strong probability that this draft has been created WP:BACKWARDS, and that you are seeking references for what you wish to say.
Oh, I'm very sorry, but... means that you are using the words of apology but not meaning them. That is nether civil nor collegial. We seek to be both. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but TimTrent's right on the money here. Notability in Wikipedia has nothing to do with "worth" but by coverage in reliable sources. And I say that as someone who has a couple albums of Preisner's work, once filled in as the piano for a group playing Boëllmann's quartet in college, played the Suite Gothique poorly on another occasion (my pedal work is atrocious), and own nothing of Swift's works. We follow the sources on Wikipedia, we don't decide on worth ourselves, and we live in a world in which there's a lot more reliably sourced coverage of Nickelback than Allan Pettersson. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_May_26&oldid=1293311181"