Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 September 1

= September 1 =

00:17:49, 1 September 2021 review of submission by SIRavecavec
I am very curious, first of all how is this even possible? Our collective efforts from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Order_of_Musashi_Shinobi_Samurai to be so recklessly rejected by no sense and with such a blatant reason.

Submission rejected on 3 June 2021 by Nyanardsan (talk).

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Rejected by Nyanardsan 2 months ago. Last edited by 柴田バネッサ 18 days ago.

How is it possibe that someone from Indonesia rejects a post from Japan, written by several Japanese people, and well defined, this article is to great importance to our clan, to its members and we are quite many out there in the world. So why be so smart when is not needed? I clearly see not a single reason valid or the one picked not valid to reject such a masterpiece, approved by our clan leader! This is very disrespectful in every way possible.AND IF SOMEONE THINKS THEY CAN JUST ABUSE A STATUS OF ANY KIND HERE OR ANYWHERE IS A BAD DECISION! PLEASE LET US FIND A RESOLUTION TO THIS MESS CREATED HERE.

Viorel Cosmin Miron 00:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I rejected the article on the ground that it was not notable. I dont think I need to be a Japanese to reject an article about Japan. And the version I rejected was this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Order_of_Musashi_Shinobi_Samurai&oldid=1026730997#cite_ref-7 . Much of the information had little to do with the main topic, which is a fairly new organization established in 2019, and from my perspective the organization did not pass WP:ORG. Now the article has been expanded and the information there seems all fairly new compared to previous version I review, I suggest to create a new draft and submit it there as the previous draft was rejected. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you said "our clan" and "our clan leader". If you have conflict of interest (see WP:COI), please declare it. Have a nice day  Nyanardsan (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the issue there? maybe your english, the way both use of -our clan- since I am a member, and we have a -leader-, both are valid. And only people from our clan had access to edit the article, that was where I was pointing. Hope it makes sense more now. @Nyanardsan I will submit a new draft tonight. Thanks for the extended detail, very helpfull! Viorel Cosmin Miron 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @SIRavecavec No, this is Wikipedia and nobody owns the article (read WP:OWN). You can not say that only your clan could edit it. And it is an issue if you are personally a member of this clan, since that would make it conflict of interest. Editors are discouraged from editing articles they have close personal connection to (again, please read WP:COI). Nyanardsan (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you have authority issues a bit, yet to be overly smart is also detrimental, just saying. Humbleness is more to be accepted when you do want fruitfull collaboration with anyone on this world. Unless you are someone who lives entirely in a room with a pc, virtually... Viorel Cosmin Miron 19:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Only our organization have such information, you are not aware then, what means to be with a history in house, of over 450+ Years and having own scrolls, then yes only we have the authority, over such information and only we can make it public! Viorel Cosmin Miron 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy FYI for future editors. Discourteous editor SIRavecavec has been blocked from editing. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Request on 01:50:46, 1 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Niyosz
Niyosz (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask a question, but I reviewed the article and found it to be poorly sourced. The sourcing doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. Please see Notability (people). I'm also not sure Thapa won the beauty contests that the article claims she did. Sourcing will need to be improved. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

05:00:07, 1 September 2021 review of submission by CarolynHodges
Hello,

I again and again get into a vicious circle, some administrators ask me to delete some links and I delete them, and then some administrators on the contrary ask me to add links and I add them, and so on. The last two rejects are a good example:
 * User User:TheBirdsShedTears asked me to add the link: "I feel you need to provide sources with SIGCOV like this"
 * User User:Praxidicae rejected with comment "Blackhat SEO, paid for spam and press releases are not a suitable indication of notability."

My article itself is nothing to Black SEO or spam, it is about popular web analytics product.

Originally I used almost the same structure as for the Google_Analytics page and there were links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites.

> Mentions of a product by Loves Data company or by its founder Benjamin Mangold is a great honor in the Web Analytics world. It's like a song that you wrote was mentioned by Ariana Grande in her blog. And the same for Analytics Mania and its founder Julius Fedorovicius. Both companies (and their founders) are well-known and important figures in the world of web analytics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Komito_Analytics#Contested_deletion

Thanks you, Carolyn Hodges (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Hodges (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. Since the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further.  There seems to not be appropriate sources to establish notability.  Press releases and routine announcements do not do so. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot, thank you for the clarification, but I added such sources only because the reviewers asked me to add them. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's all that is available for sources, I regret to say that the topic would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot, No, if you check the history you will see that there were links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And it was rejected with that in the history. I don't see a pathway to that draft being accepted at this time, I would suggest moving on to something else for the time being.  If something changes(such as there being new information), you may appeal to the reviewer and present that information to them. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot, it was rejected due to "unambiguously promotional" and one of reviewers (Mcmatter) made me favor and updated this article: "I have done you the favour of cleaning up the draft and removing anything not supported by a citation and anything promotional in tone. The issue left now is there are no independent sources left to establish notability." and he removed almost all references, including links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites and after that each next reviewer asked me to add or delete links :) Carolyn Hodges (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you would like to hear from me; it was still rejected, and you've been told why. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot, It would be nice to hear any advice on how to be when the reviewers are asked to do actions that contradicting each other. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction for one reviewer to make edits to remove perhaps the most problematic content, and for the draft to still be rejected as lacking notability. Even that reviewer who made changes said that did not mean the draft established notability. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 331dot, of course this is a contradiction, if one reviewer asks me to add a specific reference and another reviewer rejects the draft due to this added particular reference - yes, this is a contradiction. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but it doesn't change anything. As this is a volunteer project, there is no central authority that directs what happens to drafts. Editors are free to operate independently within Wikipedia guidelines. As I said, even the other editor saw problems with the draft. Lastly, the only other thing you can do is appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft. If they stand by their decision, there is nothing else to be done at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carolyn Hodges (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

06:24:15, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Longh24
Hello, it was 20 days and I still can't public my draft, it is always rejected. Do you have a solution, please? Longh24 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

07:15:41, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Nubinharose
Nubinharose (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC) This is very complicated

Nubinharose (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC) THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED PLEASE HELP
 * Please be aware of the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about you. Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder when trying to write about yourself, because you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. Most people cannot do that effectively. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:20, 1 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmira42
Kashmira42 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. Please be aware of the autobiography policy, however.  Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about you. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

14:23:15, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid
Sidhudiid (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't asked a question; please edit this existing section to reply, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

14:45:33, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Khyatijain069
Khyatijain069 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

15:43:34, 1 September 2021 review of draft by Anna1824
Hi! My request has been waiting for a review more than for month. Maybe it has any mistakes? Could you explain or help me, please? :) Anna1824 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please continue to be patient; requests are reviewed by volunteers, who do so in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The delay is due in part to the sources all being in Russian. Most of us do not read Russian.  But after reading the article, I don't see how the person it notable enough.  We have articles for other Heads of Kyiv City Administration, but Prokopiv was only Deputy Head.  Please see Wikipedia's guidelines about politician's notability. Notability (people). TechnoTalk (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

21:50:08, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Israelinfonews
hey I add source that you said it reliable. (Android Central)

Israelinfonews (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A forum post is not a reliable source. You really should read through WP:RS until you understand it. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered any further. It is probably best that you move on to a different subject. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)