Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 2

= August 2 =

02:27:30, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Fianaarmstrong1
Fianaarmstrong1 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

02:27:30, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Fianaarmstrong1

I am asking for another review on this subject because the article has been rewritten many times with corrections made to it. Also, all the information is correct in this article plus this article is not from a "selling point" INSTEAD this article is proven facts and events that Anna F. Tenney, better known to her followers on social media as Official Anna Tenney. It includes a newspaper article written about Anna. Also includes Anna's IMDb. Please review the article again. Also, please help get it ready to be published. Anna deserves to be a Wiki Article for her fans and others to look up information about her. There are many other articles : written and published about a lot fewer subjects while Anna has a career in acting and social media. what is needed again please help get this article published
 * Your submission was rejected, with no option to resubmit. Also IDMB is not a reliable source. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

02:53:52, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Santana MontanaQP
Santana MontanaQP (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please Undecline
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

06:40:19, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Friedl 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georg_Sporschill was declined (references) Friedl 11 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC) I modified section 1 and 2 in "Life" and changed the references. Are these two sections now ok and shall a proceed with the following accordingly? --Friedl 11 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They appear mostly okay, perhaps you could limit the works listed to three of the most important. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

09:06:42, 2 August 2021 review of draft by 5555534gff
5555534gff (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A single reference that gives a passing mention with a lack of WP:SIGCOV is nowhere near enough to establish notability. You likely need to expand the references quickly or risk a rejection with no more resubmissions possible. If you cannot do this the subject is likely not notable. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

10:21:20, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Rubbyfem
Hello, why was the article rejected? I wrote it from a neutral point of view. How do you advise it should be written? Rubbyfem (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The submission was rejected because it didn’t indicate notability. A rejected submission cannot be resubmitted. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

10:21:33, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Veproctor
Hi, I am requesting help on the page I'm writing about the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. I have been using the British Thoracic Society page and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology page as guides, yet both these pages reference their own websites, or archived versions of their websites when it comes to source material. I have also done this, but sadly had my references turned down several times and I am wondering how my efforts differ from the aforementioned two pages? Can you guide me on when it is appropriate to use the charity website as source material and when it is not appropriate? Thank you.

Veproctor (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , using ones own website is considered the use of a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources are not able to establish notability on their own but they can help support. I recommend you add neutral independent references from 3rd party sources. That would likely lead to an accept. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

12:46:03, 2 August 2021 review of submission by ChristianTurvill1
This article was declined and i was hoping to get some specific feedback on how to progress with its publicaiton? ChristianTurvill1 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @ChristianTurvill1 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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 12:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

12:46:24, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Bistab
This is about submission Draft:Umm Al Quwain Free Trade Zone. It was rejected because it was written that it reads like an advertisment. I tried to fix it but couldn't find anything that was advertising. It is written in same fashion as of other trade free zones in UAE. For notability, I would like to bring your notice to these sources in particular:


 * Part of a case study by a reputed university - University of Hull. Plenty of information about the organisation in this.
 * A book discussing the organization in detail.
 * - Article talking about policies of organisations.

There are more but I think they are good enough to say that the organization is notable. Please look again and help.

Bistab (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , The submission mainly relies on WP:PRIMARY sources from economic papers and lacks very many WP:SECONDARY sources. Perhaps you should remove one or two refs that look promotional as well. I think it may have been the references that were promotional rather then the content itself. Perhaps it would also be good to expand your submission as well. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

13:51:18, 2 August 2021 review of submission by AA in Prague
AA in Prague (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask what it the problem of publishing our article about American Academy in Prague. We teach students in high school, middle school and elementary school. We would like to present our school on Wikipedia. Also we have same arcticle in Czech language here https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_in_Prague. You see it´s not an ad or something like that. You can let me publish this page about our school and also let me add the photos. I mean the same which I published on Wikipedia in the Czech language.

THank you so much and have a nice day.

Šárka Němečková from American Academy in Prague
 * The main issue is that the submission uses WP:PEACOCK terms. Another issue is that you may have a WP:COI to declare, which you should do on your userpage. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:06:36, 2 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Gvrpkumar
Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Gvrpkumar please confirm that you have read the rationales int he big, pink, decline boxes. If so then please ask your question Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 20:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

17:32:24, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Derangedhobbit
Hi there!

My draft was recently declined on account of "NCORP requires (at least) two references that contain *both* in-depth information *about* the *organization* and "Independent Content"'. However, I'd argue that the below three references contain both in-depth information about the organization and independent content.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninabambysheva/2021/07/20/bitcoin-exchange-led-by-worlds-richest-crypto-billionaire-raises-record-900-million/?sh=3870a79a4e33 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/sports/esports-name-change-tsm-ftx.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/crypto-exchange-ftx-valued-at-18-billion-in-funding-round-11626800455

Could you please help review the draft once more? Thank you!

Derangedhobbit (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have addressed the issues cited by the last reviewer, you may resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

19:55:42, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Nuttyprofessor2016
Hi, he just got awarded one of top 10 business leaders in oil and gas by a magazine, and has a new interview, should I resubmit it or wait for further exposure of this person in media? He is a recurring name in newspapers and he just launched a personal website.

Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews do not establish notability; we want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

23:54:09, 2 August 2021 review of draft by PhiliponeLdrew
I have completed sandbox draft and attempted to submit project Thomas Vallance Wran for Review. When I fill in tags line Australia, Bibliography, sculpture a notice appears: 'Please check the draft page title. No such page exists' which seems meaningless. Where is it? I have looked to see where I have to create it, there is no guidance or indication as to what specific information is required to satisfy draft page content. PhiliponeLdrew

PhiliponeLdrew (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)