Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 August 4

= August 4 =

01:59:49, 4 August 2022 review of draft by Senpei
Hello, please let me know what the criteria is for "reliable sources." One of the sources came from Newsweek, which is an accredited publication. I am confused as to what media I should include. Please clarify. Thank you.

Senpei (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Senpei: you should probably ask the reviewer directly; I couldn't see anything too obviously wrong with the referencing. (Except to say that, per WP:RSP, Newsweek is no longer considered categorically reliable, although to me this particular article seems okay, and I don't think that would have been the reason for declining in any case.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying! Ok I have sent a direct question to the reviewer and will probably remove the Newsweek citation. Again, thank you for your engagement! Senpei (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

06:47:19, 4 August 2022 review of submission by Zohaib Alee
This article is an entity of Neo News which is already published on Wikipedia. This article is about one of its main show "G SARKAR". The program does not have any articles which could state exactly about the program. That's why I am not able to reference it properly. I have also attached some links about the discussions in the program. The show is also available on YouTube and Facebook. Zohaib Alee (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Zohaib Alee: this draft has been rejected, and you've just explained why that is. Therefore, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I thought you asked me why I want my article to be published. Can you please explain me where I am doing wrong and how should I reference it properly? So it can be published on the website. Zohaib Alee (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By your own contention, it cannot be referenced properly, because, as you say, there are no appropriate sources available to demonstrate notability. Hence, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

15:27:15, 4 August 2022 review of draft by Meistravels
Hello, can someone take a look at my article and give feedback to help get it published?

Meistravels (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for a review, which will be done in due course. In the interim you may want to address the paid editing claim. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot: who thinks alike, again? Oh, yeah. Great minds. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Meistravels: you have submitted the draft, and it is awaiting review. You don't need to come here to ask for feedback, that will be provided when the review is done.
 * You should, in the meantime, disclose any relationship you may have with the subject. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions on how to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you! Meistravels (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

17:13:04, 4 August 2022 review of submission by Lexii60
This person is a very notable person to the publicLexii60 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected, will not be considered further, and hasn't improved at all from the last time I saw it. Still has unreferenced biographical claims, sources are still absolutely worthless. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He also a founder of Ligandal where he featured on forbes https://www.forbes.com/profile/andre-watson/?sh=5c18d974bc55 Lexii60 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes profiles are irrelevant, like literally every other professionally-produced profile in existence (too sparse), and this doesn't address anything about the draft's fatal flaws. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

17:56:33, 4 August 2022 review of submission by 2601:182:CA00:F390:C092:B804:91A2:69D3
what would make it notable? a detain encyclopedic version of this article was denied and now this short version with sources is

2601:182:CA00:F390:C092:B804:91A2:69D3 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Better sources, for one. We're looking for articles that are (1) in-depth, (2) not routine, (3) independent of the subject, (4) written by an identifiable author and (5) published in an outlet that rigourously fact-checks. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

18:05:23, 4 August 2022 review of draft by Amansaggu26
I am unsure which 'subject editors' for Forbes are allowed on Wikipedia. The subject is cryptocurrency data service provider. These are the links (I asked in the live chat but I was instantly banned for some reason (I assume because I put these links). I hope I do not get banned for asking here. I am only trying. Any help appreciated :-(

https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjessel https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasgans https://www.forbes.com/sites/youngjoseph https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/imran-tariq

Amansaggu26 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've replied to them on their talk page to answer their question; they were killed off the network for posting so many links in a short timeframe by a network bot. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

18:45:40, 4 August 2022 review of submission by Friendly Engineer
Well my application to have this page posted was denied for lack of reliable sources. I quoted the daily star/express/mail and apparently they're not considered reliable by the person who reviewed my page. So, I've removed the bits including references to those newspapers and have slightly expanded the stuff quoted from Bustle (the only reliable source on the draft according the the reviewer). Aren't facts taken directly from the website reliable, also what about the stuff about the twitter account? That clearly states the number of followers so surely that isn't a questionable source. Also the reviewer didn't consider media bias fact check a reliable source despite a nature article and study commissioned by researchers into the fake news using it as a way to ascertain what's fake news and what's not. Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77660-4

I should disclose that I'm a moderator for the DEFCON Warning system but it's a voluntary position. How can I get this article published? Advice would be welcome thank you.

Friendly Engineer (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is my first page so I'd appreciate constructive feedback thanks. Friendly Engineer (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also if the subject isn't worthy of a wikipedia page can you please tell me how to move it back to my sandbox so it doesn't get deleted because I'm kind of proud of the work I've put into it and don't want it to disappear into nothing Friendly Engineer (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Firstly, the reliability or otherwise of sources is a matter of community consensus, not individual opinion. If you look at WP:RSP, you will see that The Express has been deemed generally unreliable, and the Daily Star and The Mail are actually deprecated. So the reviewer was right to discount those.
 * Secondly, we need to distinguish between sources that are factually correct and reliable, and can therefore be used to support article contents; and ones that are independent of the subject, and can therefore contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. If an organisation says on their own website (or, at a pinch, their Twitter feed) that their CEO is Jane Doe, we can usually take that as read; similarly, if they say they are HQ'd in Singapore. (If they say they're the leading organisation of their kind in the world, we certainly cannot take just their word for it!) But the point is, however many times you cite their website to support such facts, this does nothing to establish their notability; for that, we need independent and reliable secondary sources.
 * Finally, thank you for disclosing your connection with the subject. I will post a message on your own talk page which gives instructions for how to disclose this more formally and permanently (this thread will be archived soon), and how to manage the conflict of interest arising from this.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

18:49:20, 4 August 2022 review of draft by Maaroufi2004
Maaroufi2004 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This article says that he (the subject) is a "Moroccan football". It needs cleanup;  there are many non-sentences and poor grammar. I think the OP created this in mainspace. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)