Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 19

= April 19 =

02:39:42, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Sharsuni
Sharsuni (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

02:45:05, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Sharsuni
Coz i thought the you did speedy deletion by mistake coz my page is not violating any copyright guidelines. So i submitted for re review

Sharsuni (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not being deleted for copyright, it's being deleted because it's an inappropriate use of userspace. Wikipedia is not social media or a billboard. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 03:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

07:07:09, 19 April 2021 review of draft by KapowKapow
I have been attempting to learn the ropes of article creation by submitting new pages about fashion labels not yet represented in Wikipedia. This submission was declined due to not being 'adequately supported by reliable resources' and as 'the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia'.

Would it be possible to get some examples of where I am going wrong? I have only used mainstream media outlets as sources and as far as I can tell, the quality of my sources doesn't differ from other fashion-related Wiki pages.

In terms of language, all sentences basically paraphrase the sources, none of which are advertisements. It would be really helpful if you could point out some examples of particular words or phrases that are not suitable for an encyclopedic article; and also examples of sources that are not suitable. Thanks a lot for your help!

KapowKapow (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of advertising.. "the brand quickly went from selling 200 swimsuits a season to hundreds of thousands", "The line consists of gold and silver plated bracelets, necklaces, rings and earrings, with prices ranging from £16-£60", "Melissa’s customers were requesting beachwear that’s glamorous enough to wear on a night out, so I said let’s do it!" Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

08:12:52, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Cksaad
I did review my published page and added more sources for the person I added, interviews done and articles abouth that person. does meet the requirements?

Cksaad (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

08:48:39, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal
Paraiso Pal (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

09:00:15, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 78.16.145.51
Hi there, I need help on the types of citations to prove education. Example: In 2008, Beggs completed the Leadership 4 Growth Programme at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in California. In 2010 he completed a Diploma in Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law from the Law Society of Ireland.[citation needed]

To my knowledge, a degree/ certificate is not adequate so I would be grateful to get some help on the kind of citations needed.

Thanks

78.16.145.51 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is cite the source that you got the information from, where did you get it from? Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

09:44:44, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Steven Anderson
The links and references that I included in the article was all that I could find. I'm hoping I don't have to add anymore references.

Steven Anderson (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

09:45:26, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Dalia Soliman CoE
The article I wrote was reviewed and declined. The reviewer told me to remove external links, what I did is my article now ready for a positive review? Thanks a lot for your help!

Dalia Soliman CoE (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Dalia Soliman CoE Please be patient, your draft had been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review - currently are more than 5,000 drafts waiting for a review, it can take up to several months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

10:00:54, 19 April 2021 review of submission by MRCKH
MRCKH (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

10:55:14, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal
My article is self-sufficient at the moment I would like it to be reviewed. Thanks.-->}}

Paraiso Pal (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As already stated, your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

12:43:47, 19 April 2021 review of submission by 111.119.239.74
111.119.239.74 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

14:50:39, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Alhashish
I would like to create an English version of this Japanese article(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/舐達麻). However my draft has been rejected as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Actually this rap group is arguably one of the most famous rap groups in Japan at the moment. Some of its official music videos gained more than ten million views. I think this article is quite noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Alhashish (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article consists of links to YouTube videos and a link to the jawiki article about the topic. As it stands, this is not a properly referenced article and does not establish notability whatsoever. -- Kinu t/c 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

15:09:08, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Earth and the moon
Earth and the moon (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft contains no sourced information about why this topic is notable. -- Kinu t/c 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

15:13:42, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal
Paraiso Pal (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Paraiso Pal uploading copyright files to Commons and using copyright text on Wikipedia are both serious errors Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

15:41:56, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 24.101.83.131
Hello! Sorry for the copy and pasted message below, but I have tried reaching out to reviewers about this question and am a little tired of typing it :(.

Question ---> Hello! Thank you for reading this and sorry for taking up your time. I have been working on an article with my partner for quite a while, but it has been denied multiple times. I believe you were one of the first reviewers on this article and I was hoping I could get some insight into how I can get this published.

First here is the article in question.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naoki_Terada

My first question is why has this article not been approved when the Japanese version has and is basically the same thing just translated?

Japanese article ---> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BA%E7%94%B0%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9

Also, I have been speaking with another reviewer, but I could not get a good answer from them regarding this. The other reviewer kept mentioning sources, but my partner found other similar articles that have much less sources than our article.

Article 1 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arata_Isozaki

Article 2 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazutoshi_Sat%C5%8D

Any insight or help you could provide would be great since my partner is really eager to have this published and we have been working on it for a very long time.

Thank you!

24.101.83.131 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own set of rules, set by the community of editors who contribute there, so an article may be suitable for the Japanese Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So it is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

15:47:44, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal
Paraiso Pal (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See the answer to your question above. Repeatedly posting the same (non-)question here won't change the fact that the draft was rejected. -- Kinu t/c</i> 15:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

16:15:43, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Acolytetchy
Hello,

I recently submitted the draft to the page Oded Kafri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oded_Kafri) for review, and it got declined with the following reason: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.".

I'd like to know more details about what I could change/add to the text to make this page possible to be submitted. Oded is currently a public person in Germany as an artist. Most of the information I could get were articles where his concerts / acts were taking place, some biography texts from interviews and relevant YouTube videos (over millions of views). I tried to take a good read at the requirements from Wikipedia, but it's been not so easy to understand how to do things correctly. It's my first time submitting an article and it's been a little bit overwhelming, but I wanted to do this for him, because as a street/studio performer the page would be of much meaning to him and to his career.

If there's a way of knowing more exactly what is sounding too "advertising" on the writing style, or what else is stopping the page from being accepted, that would be nice. Thanks, Acolytetchy (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Acolytetchy (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an example of advertising "Oded has built a strong presence on YouTube mainly from videos made by spectators in the streets of London and Hamburg, where he used to play frequently." this is totally unsourced and YouTube videos confer zero notability unless they have been reported on in depth and with significant coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

19:58:40, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 173.188.130.24
173.188.130.24 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow advertising. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK for more info. And please never copy texts from outside onto Wikipedia. Doing so is almost always a copyright violation. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

21:15:56, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Maaj01
After my first draft of this article had been declined I added multiple secondary, international sources. However, the article has again been declined, which I do understand, as a Youtuber might not be in the primary scope of Wikipedia. The subject is unfortunately not very well covered by sources such as newspapers, thus making it a challenge to for me to confirm the article.

However, I do find the subject notable, as the reach is severe and comparable to other Youtubers who have been covered in a Wikipedia article. What can I do to improve the article and my editing- and researching skills? Thank you in advance!

Maaj01 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Maaj01 all you can do is to look for references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, loud and clear. Thank you for the help! I'll see if I can obtain more reliable sources and referencing. Have a good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaj01 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

22:08:47, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Pilotmichael
Pilotmichael (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Help getting article approved. Why is the article being rejected in a matter of seconds? I made many changes from all the advise given, including changes from the person who rapidly rejected the article. Please help. I have met the Wikipedia criteria and have made all the changes suggested by everyone involved. Pilotmichael (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pilotmichael as you have seen I nominated the draft for deletion before you submitted it for review. That discussion was already in train. I have rejected it for the same reasons in the deletion discussion, a discussion which you are wholly at liberty to comment in. You are advised to stick to policy based arguments since emotion almost never wins the day.
 * Why within seconds? I was looking at my watch list at the time you submitted it for review and it popped up as having been submitted. I rejected it because it is a blatant advert, and for completeness. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote your book. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you nominate it for deletion? Seems I was submitting at the same time and you were nominating for deletion. Why do you want it deleted, especially when I made the changes that you suggested. I have made numerous changes. Did you read them? I made the changes you suggested. Why would you reject it when I made the changes you suggested? This is not blatant adverting. The books are notable, and they meet the the Wikipedia standards. I have provided these facts surrounding this book series, including that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What more do you want? I and others have contributed to this article and have incorporated everything suggested. Pilotmichael (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pilotmichael I have returned to look at this draft several times and to study the edits you have made. I saw that it was becoming a more and more highly polished advert, and I nominated it for deletion because I saw no hope of this draft ever passing our criteria. As a an editor with a conflict of interest you are standing far too close to what I am certain is the book series you have authored and have stated you receive no compensation from to be able to write a neutral draft about it. It is possible that I am mistaken, so I have chosen to let the wider community decide. Wikipedia works on consensus.
 * You are entitled to contribute to the discussion, where your views will be heard and weighed by the editor, usually an administrator, who closes the discussion and implements the will of the community. As I have said before, you need to argue based upon policy, not upon emotion. A deletion discussion is a process taking a minimum of a set period of time, unless certain criteria for closing it more quickly are met. You have ample time to marshal your arguments. Please join the discussion.
 * Looking at your contributions since 29 June 2016, all of them have been geared towards promoting this book. That is a long time to be an editor here without editing any other article. It can be concluded that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, but are here solely for your own ends, and that your account is being used solely for promotional purposes. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 05:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, your first recorded edit here was 29  June 2016.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 05:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions since 29 June 2016, all of them have been geared towards promoting this book. That is a long time to be an editor here without editing any other article. It can be concluded that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, but are here solely for your own ends, and that your account is being used solely for promotional purposes. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 05:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, your first recorded edit here was 29  June 2016.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 05:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)