Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 12

= April 12 =

02:39:34, 12 April 2023 review of submission by Curtmarsalis
I'm requesting a re-review of draft titled Kandiid. The subject does qualify for inclusion according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Kandiid is a registered and viable social marketplace app that is used by nearly 1 million subscribers. The draft is updated with viable references. Curtmarsalis (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Can you point out at least three references on the draft that meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited source 1. PubGenius
 * 2. Forbes
 * 3: AfroTech
 * The Forbes article is not a profile or a pass through. The Afrotech articcle is viable and states platforms differences from Twitter and Elon Musk
 * PubGenius is the Tech Architects who did independent study and research which is listed and included in link Curtmarsalis (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curtmarsalis PubGenius is not a reliable source nor is the Forbes article as it was written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON), not to mention it is mostly an interview so not independent.  AfroTech is an announcement containing largely what Soulja Boy says with little about the app and references the Forbes article.  None of these meet WP:ORGCRIT.  S0091 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

07:46:53, 12 April 2023 review of submission by Addagalla kondalrao
Addagalla kondalrao (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) , please specify the draft you are inquiring about as well as the specific issue you need addressed. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

08:04:04, 12 April 2023 review of draft by Dhoogenkamp
Dhoogenkamp (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to know why I'm facing the issue with the reliable source and secondary sources. Can you provide me a specific example in my article about how they're incorrect?
 * , please see WP:WINRS which will address many of the sources you used in the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dhoogenkamp: Reddit and Weibo are not considered reliable.
 * Also, please note the advice which I've just posted on your talk page about autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dhoogenkamp You uploaded the two  photos as "own work", which (with a few exceptions) means that you took the pictures yourself.  Are those really selfies? David10244 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

10:45:41, 12 April 2023 review of draft by Evidencebasedenthusiast
Evidencebasedenthusiast (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your question, @Evidencebasedenthusiast? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! The article on Robert Nicholls has been rejected twice, citing the need for more independent sources. Unsure what else to put? Robert is the director on the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Researchers and is on the list of the top highly cited researchers. Previous Tyndall director Corinne Le Quere has her own Wiki page (Corinne Le Quéré) with even less information than what I wrote for Robert. Can you advise what else I can do? Evidencebasedenthusiast (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Evidencebasedenthusiast: you would have to ask the last reviewer what exactly they had in mind, but FWIW my issue with this draft is that it is trying hard to 'sell' Nicholls at every opportunity, yet at the same time it doesn't make it clear why he is noteworthy enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia. (Yes, I get that he's an "expert" with "extensive experience" etc., but alas, experts are 13 in a dozen.) More specifically, given that the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, you would need to show that he is notable by one of the eight criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, with reliable and independent evidence to back that up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

10:48:27, 12 April 2023 review of draft by Cat&ferns
I wrote an article based on my research, and want to know reasons for rejection of my article on Aaron Sherinian. I based this entry on the entry that exists in Jack Martin

Cat&#38;ferns (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCV. Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

13:02:48, 12 April 2023 review of draft by Supermack01
The whole process takes longer, is more difficult, than getting the cycle peer reviewed, accepted in international teaching, and is overly complicated. I keep amending as requested, but then get a different perspective. Compared to existing similar models on Wiki this one is more detailed. This model has been independently peer-reviewed, requested by business magazines and is used in teaching. What more information do I need to add? Very frustrating and demoralising. Can someone please just tell me what to do line-by-line to get it over the line? Much appreciated.

Supermack01 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Supermack01, I think I can see the issue. You are writing this like you're submitting it to a research journal, this however is an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia is based on what others have published in reliable sources about a subject. So far of the sources you have provided, the first three are from the authors of the technique so not independent and does not help to show us how they have made an impact in the larger world. The last 2 sources are connected to the subject one is an employer of an author and the other is a press release which again is not independent. The sources are ok to use but we need to see what others have written about the formwork and published independently of the original 2 authors. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Supermack01: you may have misunderstood the way Wikipedia works. Simply because something verifiably exists, or in this case even has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal (if that's what you meant?), doesn't mean that it automatically warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. That depends entirely on whether the subject is deemed notable, and that mostly means showing that the subject has been discussed in other, reliable and independent secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This draft cites only the authors' own papers, one source which makes no mention of the framework, and finally one source which doesn't appear to be secondary. In other words, none of the sources meet the GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

13:13:55, 12 April 2023 review of submission by Pawelknast01
Pawelknast01 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your question, @Pawelknast01? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to know the reason for the rejection of my article. Pawelknast01 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pawelknast01: because it isn't written as an encyclopaedia article. I couldn't figure out whether it's more a scientific paper or a how-to-guide, but either way it's not what Wikipedia is about.
 * Also, I now notice that you had subsequently removed my rejection notice and resubmitted the draft. Please don't do that again. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference is a paper by the author of the draft. David10244 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

14:10:49, 12 April 2023 review of submission by GreeninHeaven
I want you to accept this to make Qeis knowable to his fans, hope he could be a great singer someday, he is a beginner and an independent artist that need your help GreeninHeaven (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @GreeninHeaven: sorry but that's not happening, for all the reasons given in the decline/rejection notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

15:42:14, 12 April 2023 review of draft by Waynepua
Hi I'm trying to create a balanced article about Arc XP that doesn't feel too marketing/sales sounding. Would love any recommendations in editing the article as such. Thanks.

Waynepua (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Waynepua:
 * Avoid industry jargon and meaningless marketing blurb, such as "deliver multichannel experiences".
 * Give a clear reason why the subject should be included in a global encyclopaedia – currently your draft describes a ROTM business, with little or no encyclopaedic content.
 * At the same time, don't try to 'sell' the subject to us with excessive peacock expressions or just an overall promotional tone. This may be the hardest for you to achieve, given your COI.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

16:01:30, 12 April 2023 review of submission by CyberTrinity
I can't seem to get the draft page to appear above I think because it was deleted... the page name was "Schellman" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schellman

The draft I submitted was marked as promotional/advertising in nature. I saw a person from this company speak at a conference last month about Digital ID, which I'm very interested in. Using limited information about Wiki, I wanted to learn more about creating a page and tried with this company that I came across. I saw that they were listed on another page, but didn't have more information about them on wiki despite seeing other organizations around this topic. I wanted to try to create a page. Can you share examples of what is considered promotional/advertising so I can try again? I have a few other organizations I'm interested in learning more and writing about. I'd love some assistance as I go through the process. Thank you. CyberTrinity (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

CyberTrinity (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @CyberTrinity: probably the most challenging editing on Wikipedia is the creation of new articles, and for all sorts of reasons articles on businesses are among the most difficult, so you've definitely jumped straight into the deep end of the pool, with added alligators!
 * The first thing you need to do is try to figure out whether the subject is notable. This requires multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. If you can't find such sources, then you should stop right there, because you can't create notability where it doesn't exist.
 * If you can find sufficient sources, then read what each of them say about the subject, and summarise that in your own words. Then combine your various summaries into a coherent whole, and note where each bit of the information came from by way of inline citations and footnotes, so that others can verify the information if needed.
 * You can find everything you need for your first article at WP:YFA, and help on referencing at WP:REFB. For advice on what is considered promotional, and how to avoid such writing, see eg. WP:PROMO and WP:YESPROMO. Good luck! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

19:42:39, 12 April 2023 review of submission by Feministicon626
Hello! I submitted this draft page for review, in December, and received feedback in January. I've since implemented the edits in February. Is there a timeline that I could expect this to be approved by? I'm worried it's going to be lost in the void, since a comment has already been left on it. Thank you!

Feministicon626 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Some drafts are reviewed faster than others I will admit, but as long as it is in queue (and this one is), someone will eventually review and opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just accepted it, perhaps you could add some relevant categories to it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!! Feministicon626 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

20:00:24, 12 April 2023 review of submission by Khalidqtr1968
What should I do to make my article get approved, can you help me with that?

Khalidqtr1968 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything you can do Khalid Al-Sayed simply isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)