Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 August 31

= August 31 =

01:43:38, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Taratagaytayo
I'm requesting help for the draft mention above to be review and if there is something else lacking can someone advice me or help what else need to be done. Job.com was notable online much more to Indeed I think because it was launched in 2001 and Indeed was launched in 2004. I hope someone will take a look and review. Taratagaytayo (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While I will not discuss the draft beyond this point, Alexa Internet is defunct and no longer a valid cite. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 05:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Taratagaytayo: you don't need to announce here that your draft is awaiting review, it will get reviewed in due course. But as it happens, I did take a look, and since it was such an obvious failure to establish notability, I've gone ahead and declined it.
 * Please note that churnalism does not establish notability, nor does routine business reporting (M&A activity, investment rounds, appointments, etc.). We need to see actual significant coverage, in multiple independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

02:59:57, 31 August 2022 review of submission by MrSunny5
MrSunny5 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you have a question in mind, @MrSunny5? Genuinely interested to hear what it might be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Should MrSunny's e-mail be redacted from ? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

09:46:21, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Adnanalim444
09:46:21, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Adnanalim444 Adnanalim444 (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to write an autobiography or promote yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

14:11:35, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Tom.upload
Hello all! Trying my best to create a new page but it keeps getting declined. All my issues are to do with references and reliable sources even though I think I have enough. This is my first time uploading to wikipedia so any help would be awesome. Also if anyone reading this is a pro and wants to earn a little bit of cash for writing an article, (redacted) Tom.upload (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the draft. Wikipedia has articles(or draft articles), not "pages". Do not solicit for paid editing here, please.  Please see WP:PAID if you do so elsewhere, any one you pay to edit for you must disclose that. If you are associated with the event you are writing about, please read about conflict of interest.
 * The main problem you have is that you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this event in order to establish its notability as Wikipedia defines a notable event. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No amount of editing can confer notability on the event, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

15:13:30, 31 August 2022 review of submission by BillClyne
This query concerns a draft article called "DoITPoMS". It was submitted recently, but quickly rejected by Numberguy6. This appeared to be mainly on the grounds of it constituting an advertisement. I can completely understand this, but I'd like to suggest that it be looked at again, perhaps after I've made some minor edits to it. I did try to contact Numberguy6 directly, by submitting some comments to the Sandbox, but this may not have been done correctly. I also made an attempt to clear the idea of an article on DoITPoMS beforehand, but this also may have been submitted incorrectly.

I should first clarify that DoITPoMS is a freely-accessible website created (by volunteers) in a very similar way to Wikipedia. It provides a number of teaching and learning resources in the area of Materials Science. These have proved to be very popular with a wide range of users around the world. It has been in existence for about the same period as Wiki (ie just over 20 years) and, while its scope is clearly much more limited than Wiki, it does function in much the same way. Access levels are relatively high - of the order of 100,000 hits per day. In fact, there are many articles in Wiki that cite pages within DoITPoMS. Many such details, and an indication of the history of DoITPoMS, are included in the submitted article. In terms of independent sources concerning DoITPoMS, a handful were cited in the draft article - there simply aren't many published papers concerning it, and indeed there probably aren't so many about Wikipedia! It is true that the first one of these was a paper in which I'm the first author, but I'd be happy to remove this. I should emphasise that neither I, nor any of the many other contributors and organisers involved with DoITPoMS, benefit financially (or in any other way) from usage of the site. It is essentially a philanthropic exercise, in much the same way as Wiki. We also raise money for the running costs in the same way as Wiki (by soliciting small donations from users), although in fact the running costs for DoITPoMS are very small. These details also are included in the submitted article. I therefore feel that, while the response of Numberguy6 is entirely understandable, there is in fact scope for including an article about DoITPoMS that would serve a useful purpose, but would not infringe any of the guidelines concerning independence, vested interests, notability etc. As I say, I'd be happy to tweak the article in ways that are felt to be appropriate.

BillClyne (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @BillClyne: your draft wasn't rejected, only declined; this means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining (unlike with rejection, which is the end of the road). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: If you're involved with this initiative, you should declare your conflict of interest; I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up one misconception in your statement, there are hundreds of scholarly works written about Wikipedia, same for news articles and published books. Along with 9 billion pageviews in the month of July for english wikipedia alone. English Wikipedia has a well-sourced article about itself for those reasons, which has 200K pageviews a month.
 * All that is a long way of saying, verifiability and  notability are core policies that have no exception for not-for-profits or noble causes. A quick look at Scholar and book searches shows there are likely sources that exist to write about the subject and establish notability, though they likely do not support the extensive unsourced material currently in the article. Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

18:49:18, 31 August 2022 review of draft by Chunsus3095
Hi! I've submitted this draft for Earthworks Audio twice, and it has been rejected both times. The reason given is: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Before I edit and submit again, I would very much appreciate more specific details on what needs to be changed for the article to be accepted. Does it need more sources? Are the current sources not considered reliable? Thanks for your time!

Chunsus3095 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chunsus3095: the draft doesn't need more sources, it needs better sources. The ones currently cited are a mix of churnalism and product reviews. We need, instead, to see significant coverage of the company itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (as it says in the decline notice — did you read it, by any chance?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for the additional info! Chunsus3095 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chunsus3095 Did you click on the blue words in that decline notice that you quoted here?  Those are links to specific information. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

19:24:23, 31 August 2022 review of submission by LionelModelTrains
I submitted this draft after I added more detail about the company, but I don't know too much about them and I am hoping that someone else can add additional information so that I can successfully publish this page. LionelModelTrains (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @LionelModelTrains: sorry, but most site users won't even see your draft, so there's little chance they would be contributing to it, before it gets deleted (in c. 6 months' time). As the creator, the onus is largely on you to get the draft ready.
 * In any case, this has been rejected, and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

21:05:49, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Beachflowering
This is for the page Adrian Fontes aka Adrian_Fontes. I'm really struggling with the edits needed to make this page publish-worthy. The feedback says there's lack of biographical notoriety, but I don't understand that - Fontes is the democratic nominee in the 2022 arizona secretary of state race, one of the most-watched races in the country, and there's an entire page dedicated to the race itself. and his republican opponent in the very same race qualifies for his own wikipedia page. And fontes was in charge of administering the 2020 elections in maricopa county, the election which was the subject of the nationally famous "arizona audit." I'm really really struggling to understand the lack of biographical notoriety. Beachflowering (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Draft:Adrian Fontes. It's "notability", not notoriety(which has more of a negative connotation). 331dot (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A previous article about him was deleted because county recorder was not a significant enough office to warrant an article. Merely being a candidate for office does not merit an article per WP:NPOLITICIAN. If he wins his election, he would merit an article. Otherwise, he would need to meet the broader notable person definition. It's also true that the draft reads as campaign literature, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

22:21:11, 31 August 2022 review of draft by Earendel28
When trying to add selected WikiProject tags, it says "An error occurred (unexpected-result) Please try again." When trying again, it either says the same thing or becomes rate limited.

Earendel28 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Earendel28 not that you need to worry unduly about project tags at this stage, but if you tell me which projects you want to add, I can give it a try? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)