Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 14

= November 14 =

01:26:35, 14 November 2022 review of draft by Sandiners
Why my articles always been declined? Sandiners (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sandiners Welcome to the AfC Help desk. One source to Youtube is not reliable, independent or prove notability. Submitting it multiple times with no improvement will not work. If you don't improve it, but submit it again, it will be rejected. This means you will not have the option to submit again. Learn more at Verifiability. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  03:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sandiners We don't cite music videos. Repeatedly submitting a draft without making a serious effort to address its issues is grounds for it to go to MfD. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 03:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

04:52:37, 14 November 2022 review of draft by Karmaker
Need suggestions improving the article. TIA

Karmaker (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Karmaker. Good job on significantly expanding the article since it was declined. However, there are a few things that still need improvement. Mainly, it doesn't completely read from the WP:Neutral point of view. Phrases like focused on managing development programmes, building operational and financial sustainability, and creating partnerships. aren't neutral, and parts like this may need rephrasing.
 * Otherwise, the article is in pretty good shape. Good job! echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  08:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Request on 11:07:34, 14 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by KP070707
Hello,

I created a draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PaykanArtCar and has been declined as the following reason:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
 * in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
 * reliable
 * secondary
 * strictly independent of the subject

I just wanted to ask for help before editing it further. My questions are:

1. I have included multiple sources from big published including e.g. Washington Post, NBC News, The Guardian. I'm wondering if they are qualified to be included? 2. If you have time to review one or two sources, can you point me into the right direction of which example in the draft is qualified and which isn't? (I understood external links or the PR should be removed) 3. Is there any other room for improvement that I should considerate when editing it for resubmission?

KP070707 (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @KP070707 (1) We do not judge a source solely by where it was published. As an example, an interview in The Grauniad is as useless for notability as an interview by Borat. (2) Get some coffee and refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/22/iran.roberttait is a non-sequitur. Articles that don't mention, let alone discuss, the subject are never going to be usable sources for that subject.
 * https://www.allpar.com/threads/chrysler-in-iran-the-hillman-arrow-and-iran-khodro-paykan.229670/#:~:text=They%20complained%20about%20its%20dated,to%20replace%20the%20New%20Paykan is a non-sequitur.
 * https://paykanartcar.com/paykanartcar/#car is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything PaykanArtCar or their surrogates control is not going to help for notability at all.
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gay-iranian-man-dead-alleged-honor-killing-rights-group-says-n1266995 is a non-sequitur. This would be far better in an article about honour killings in Iran.
 * https://www.amnesty.org.au/iran-why-was-alireza-fazeli-monfared-murdered/ " " "-". " " " " " " " " " " " " ".
 * https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/12/15/we-are-buried-generation/discrimination-and-violence-against-sexual-minorities is yet another non-sequitur.
 * https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trump-and-gay-rights?cid=nlc-fatoday-20170213&sp_mid=53412954&sp_rid=dmljdG9yLnN0ZXBpZW5AZ21haWwuY29tS0&spMailingID=53412954&spUserID=MjEwNDg3MDc2NzQ4S0&spJobID=1102227291&spReportId=MTEwMjIyNzI5MQS2 is yet another non-sequitur.
 * https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/rights-group-iran-executes-gay-men-sodomy-charges-82595118 is 404-compliant.
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-khamenei-says-homosexuality-example-wests-immorality-2022-03-01/ is yet another non-sequitur.
 * https://hrf.org/havel-prize/ is a non-sequitur at this time and wouldn't help for notability once it stops being one (too sparse).
 * https://hrf.org/hrf-announces-the-2022-havel-prize-laureates/ is thus far the best source I'm seeing.
 * https://magasinsgeneraux.com/fr/expositions/prix-utopi.e appears to be a non-sequitur; I don't need Google Translate to see it isn't mentioned there.
 * https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/paykanartcar-exhibit-rolls-into-montreal-to-drive-home-message-of-dignity-for-iranian-people-1.5816634 looks okay.
 * We can't use https://www.artnews.com/art-news/sponsored-content/paykanartcar-tours-canada-1234609646/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who actually wrote this? (We distrust bylines that represent a role or that are absent because they're very commonly used to publish churnalism and advertorials.)
 * We can't use https://parislightsup.com/2022/05/17/pantin-les-magasins-generaux-accueillent-le-prix-utopi%c2%b7e-festival-exposition-dedie-aux-artistes-lgbtqia/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it's useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, omitted byline.
 * We can't use https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/iranian-artists-in-exile-find-a-vehicle-for-protest/2022/06/04/0f75fef2-e407-11ec-ae64-6b23e5155b62_story.html (no editorial oversight). First, this is a republication of a Bloomberg piece. Second, the article is explicitly labeled as an op-ed, with a standard "This column represents the author's views" disclaimer. While the first is surmountable (cite the original) the second is not (op-eds don't get fact-checked).
 * The PDF is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release.
 * You have some usable sources but on the whole the weeds are choking the garden. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeske Couriano,
 * Thank you very much for taking time to go through all sources and helping me understanding the rationale of why they are not qualified. Really appreciated it!
 * If I remove all those non-sequitur and unqualified sources and keep the good one, do you think the topic is notable enough to be published on wiki as your experience?
 * And for the washing-post where you mentioned it was reposted from Bloomberg. If I use the original piece https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-04/iranian-artists-in-exile-find-a-vehicle-for-protest?leadSource=uverify%20wall, do you think it works?
 * Thank you! KP070707 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @KP070707 (1) You only have one good source. That's not enough. You need to replace them with much better sources. (2) No, and I invite you to reread the URL you posted and my criticism of the Washington Post source, as it answers this question. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you! KP070707 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

12:11:40, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Septemberam1988
Septemberam1988 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

hey, why my submission is getting declined again and again. I see many Wikipedia articles with less notability and also a very few reliable sources. i need help regarding this article, this's my first article on Wikipedia and also i want to know why many articles are here in Wikipedia with less reliable sources and why mine is getting declined.

help me to write more about him, i shall be thankful to you.
 * @Septemberam1988, they may have a few, you have none. You may need to read what a relaible source is and what is required for any biography. With that being said your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is also currently nominated for deletion because of your tedious editing. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Septemberam1988 Please see WP:OSE. David10244 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

13:55:20, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Melliza Slippers Oh
Melliza Slippers Oh (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've just added a new submission template to your draft, as I can see some coverage of it online. At the moment it has hardly any sources, so please add WP:Reliable sources, and re-submit the draft for review. Thanks, and best of luck. Storchy (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

15:30:55, 14 November 2022 review of submission by 124.123.163.235
124.123.163.235 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

17:18:12, 14 November 2022 review of draft by 94.86.60.198
Hello everyone, I read in WP:NPOL that "The following are presumed to be notable: [cut] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.", which is the case for this person: he was elected, but did not take office (opting for another office). However, an editor rejected the draft without mentioning WP:NPOL; he just said the person lacks notability. Could anyone please clarify why WP:NPOL has been ignored? 94.86.60.198 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've come across this before, where someone is elected but chooses not to take up their seat. The NPOL guideline is silent on this eventuality — the "yet" clearly implies that they were elected and are expect to go on to serve, which isn't the case here — but my personal opinion is that such a person should not be considered notable, because it is presumably the service as an assembly etc. member which makes them notable, not the mere fact that they were elected. Happy to be proven wrong on this, though, by someone who actually knows. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

18:47:34, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Elverovenexian
hello, I would like to know how can my page be edited in order to be published. thanks!

Elverovenexian (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will either accept it, reject it, or decline it and tell you what changes are needed. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah I actually followed a user advice, edited and now re-submitted Elverovenexian (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

21:46:01, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Mjansky2002
I changed the sources

Mjansky2002 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mjansky2002: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 21:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I re submitted it Mjansky2002 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mjansky2002 Why do five of your six sources all have the exact same title, content, attribution to a known PR agency, and (almost all) the exact same website layout and format? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

22:35:12, 14 November 2022 review of draft by JewelHL
Hi there. I recently created a Wikipedia page called 'Flicks (company)'. It was just declined because it says it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. All I can really reference in this company page are the news articles etc published about it, so I'm not sure what other sources I'm expected to reference. Can you help me clarify this please?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flicks_(company)

JewelHL (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and will need to be replaced, also we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JewelHL Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/24/mad-max-fury-road-voted-greatest-australian-film-this-century-by-critics is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop and one-liner from company principal.
 * https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/12/flicks-cinema-census-reveals-new-zealand-s-worst-movie-watching-habits.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). Just because Flicks ran the survey doesn't mean that coverage of it is the same as coverage of Flicks.
 * We can't use the Daily Mail (deprecated). See here and here for details on why we as editors decided the Daily Mail was unusable as a source.
 * We can't use https://celluloidjunkie.com/wire/flicks-announces-milestone-of-1-1-million-local-unique-users-to-australian-website/ (unknown provenance). No byline; I suspect this is a press release and thus unusable for notability anyway.
 * https://bestawards.co.nz/digital/digital-products/flicks/flicks-app/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). It appears like the page was written by Flicks staff.
 * On top of all of this, the article is blatantly promotional, and appears to be written as an investor-fishing exercise. We don't accept ad copy or investor bait. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)