Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 26 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 28 >
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 27

[edit]

00:07, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

How many reliable secondary sources do I need to have in an article? I'll get rid of any unreliable primary sources. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan Start by reading WP:YOUTUBE and you will begin to see why it is unlikely to be useful as a reference.
Your draft needs summaries what is said about the subject in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It's not about quantity, it's about quality 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 27 May 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

[edit]

I would like to publish the lyrics for songs by singer-songwriter Loulou Lailani. How do I do it? HeiLouSimp (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, unless they are willing to donate their lyrics to WMF or provide them under a Wiki-compliant license. Otherwise, it's WP:COPYRIGHT infringment. Nor can they even be housed here on a user page or in your sandbox, which is public. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Work97111

[edit]

The draft cites multiple articles from mainstream news outlets, showing widespread media coverage. Need help to understand what additional criteria need to be met to establish notability. Work97111 (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Work97111 in order for a source to meet the notability criteria it needs to meet all four criteria listed in the decline: reliable, secondary, independent and have in-depth coverage directly about the subject. Common issues are they are press releases/announcements, interviews/based on what the subject or those affiliated say or not in-depth. I have not gone through the sources but that might be the issue. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Sadiowiki

[edit]

I recently submitted a draft article on Jeff Campbell (Apostle), and it was declined by ToadetteEdit due to concerns about notability and the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I really appreciate the review, and I’m hoping to get clarification on how to improve the draft for resubmission.

The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadiowiki/sandbox

I’ve cited sources including La Voz, The Denver Post, Longmont Daily Times-Call, HuffPost, Westword, and award acknowledgments from the Bonfils-Stanton Foundation and Denver Arts & Venues. Some are in-depth features, while others cover public events or cultural contributions.

Could someone advise whether any of these sources already meet notability criteria if formatted correctly with inline <ref> tags? And if not, what types of additional coverage should I be looking to include?

Any guidance on strengthening the article for acceptance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Sadiowiki (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadette was absolutely correct. Most of these sources aren't really good for an article about Jeff Campbell. Most of these are just barely mentions of Campbell; more than half of the cites are to material that, if we accept as establishing notability, would establish notability for the breakdancing crew, not him. Some of the cites don't even mention him at all.
Wide swathes of the article include factual information with no source provided whatsoever. Do you have a link to the article you cited that was published sometime during the year 1984? The entire legacy section is especially problematic here, full of WP:PEACOCK terminology and absolutely nothing is supported with a cite. Note that awards themselves don't provide notability unless those awards are Wiki-notable by themselves.
There are also some copyright violations involved here; this a very serious issue. The newspaper one is already being taken care of, but you uploaded photos by David Stevens and a photographer named Dakiri with no evidence that these photos were released with a Wiki-compliant license, and in fact, characterized as these photographs as your own work. If these were photographs made at your request for pay and you are the copyright holder, you must substantiate these. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 27 May 2025 review of submission by JacA12

[edit]

Dear All,

it has now been nearly two months since my proposal for an article on Guido Ascari has been rejected, referencing the guideline WP:BLP. Since then, I have removed the unreferenced and unsourced information as I could not find any reliable source for them, and I have include some other additional sources here and there. I believe now the article satisisfies the standards and the guidelines. Thank you for your help. User:JacA12 (User talk:JacA12). JacA12 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. You have resubmitted it and it is pending. Please be patient, asking for a review will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Cpeedexpert

[edit]

I’ve recently created and submitted a draft article about a person, but unfortunately, it was not approved. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and help me understand which areas need improvement or correction to meet Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines.

I've tried to include reliable sources and factual information, but I may have missed some key points or formatting standards. Could someone please review the draft and provide feedback on what specifically needs to be fixed — whether it's notability, references, tone, or structure?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and support! Cpeedexpert (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think they pass the criteria at WP:GNG, it's not at all clear that they do? Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Queenbird

[edit]

I'm really frustrated as I have had others as well as ChatGPT check that it's worded in a neutral way and we have a number of independent sources. I'm directly involved in the project but I have the declared on my user page. What is the number one reason and an example of why it's been rejected so I can productively do something. Otherwise I am not very happy with wikipedia contribution Queenbird (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queenbird You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this for you.
Mission statements are wholly unencyclopedic, as all it is is the organization telling what it sees as its own purpose. I would just remove this.
Mostly the draft just describes the activities of the organization, which does not establish that the definition of a notable organization is met. See WP:ORGDEPTH specifically.
The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic(an organization, in this case) showing how it is notable. One portion of the draft tells of the influence of the organization but doesn't say much about what that actually is. I would focus on that as independent sources see it, not as the organization itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much more helpful. is there a way to have you review this before submitting again? Queenbird (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting is the way to obtain a new review; we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and please don't add unsourced promotion to Maskless lithography relating to your draft topic. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Queenbird Not the most relevant but I would not suggest using chatgpt to check your wording. It in itself is biased after all. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 27 May 2025 review of submission by CR98gs

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to undestand why the page has been delcined as I tried to keep the content factual referring to existing articles and sources. CR98gs (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CR98gs I mean just read it. It sounds like an ad(let's be real here, it probably is one.) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not; it is meant to explain what DigiPHY technology is, how it is used, and how it is adopted. If you read the iPhone page, you will see that the content is even more specific and developed, and it is not an advertisement for this reason. CR98gs (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOMISSION Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Monitoramento artista 2.0

[edit]

Nao foram elencados os motivos da rejeicao, preciso de mais informacoes para adequar o artigo. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cia José Francisco Lippi
@Monitoramento artista 2.0: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English.
And for the same reason, your draft(s) have been declined as they are not in English (by in Portuguese?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. compreendido. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 27 May 2025 review of submission by StevenTiger

[edit]

Submitted page was rejected for lack of referencing, but every statement that requires referencing (by Wikipedia criteria) WAS referenced, almost all citing published articles from the professional medical literature. I used the Cite function in edit mode, filled in the fields, and the "publish" version shows all the references listed at the end, by numbers corresponding to the superscript bracketed numbers in the text. So I genuinely do not understand what is wrong. StevenTiger (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, the sourcing is VERY poor with vast swathes having zero references. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 27 May 2025 review of submission by BRICKWALLBEAR5

[edit]

This isn't a self submission, i started doing random young hockey players careers. BRICKWALLBEAR5 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random young hockey players are almost certainly not notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make hoaxes. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 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_27&oldid=1293487796"