Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 15

= April 15 =

06:40:45, 15 April 2023 review of submission by JackW2016
I wonder how to recreate the rejected article and how to make the article better. I thought I did a great job with everything, but the Wikipedia automation process noticed a repeat in links and informed me. I found the notes of the links, and I decided to change and edit the links while correcting the link issues, and at the same time, an editor got the article and reject it. I understand his behavior. I know he judged something was still in the reconstruction process. Please help me lunch the article correctly. Thank

JackW2016 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @JackW2016: the reviewer reviewed your draft, because two weeks ago you submitted it for review. When you submit a draft, that's you saying you think it's ready to be published. If it wasn't, then perhaps you shouldn't have submitted it?
 * For future reference, you need to ensure that the subject you're writing about is notable in Wikipedia terms, meaning that you need to be able to cite multiple secondary sources which are both reliable and independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of it.
 * And in particular what comes to articles on living people, you need to be able to support every material statement and anything potentially contentious with a reliable published source. In fact, you shouldn't just write what you know about a subject, you should only really summarise what published sources have already said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your informative reply. Great, the notability was already posted and when the draft submitted, in two days a wikipedia message stated that "
 * This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (March 2023)
 * This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (March 2023) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )
 * So, based on the new condition, I started editing the article while still in draft to make it fit. During this editing time, the editor got my draft rejected. I understand that a draft should not be touched until a human editor interferes and does not edit anything based on computation eye. Anyway, I learned something. I know this is serious, and if anything does not fit, Wikipedia editors will have it rejected.
 * Ok, the article notability or references mostly in Arabic language but he has other sources in English. The other thing the person has strong credentials posted in google drive, and I used them as references, do you think this is helpful for the notability procedure.
 * Appreciate your help. JackW2016 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Google drive is NOT a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, sources do not have to be in English, Arabic is fine as long as they are reliable and independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Theroadislong. more questions,
 * how many sources are required?
 * Should any internal or external reliable source be related to the subject but his name is not included? For example, his country, city, club, games, and tournaments, but he has proof of attendance, playing, or coaching.
 * Appreciate your help JackW2016 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I interpret your question Should any internal or external reliable source be related to the subject but his name is not included? right, you are wondering if you should add sources for (for instance) organisations he has been active in, if he is not mentioned in the source. The answer is no, that's not the purpose of a source. For instance, the claim "Simo has previously managed I.Z.K Pro Club in Morocco" has no source; what is required there is a reliable source that verifies the claim that he was their manager, and not a source that merely shows what I.Z.K Pro Club is. I hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you for the information. Your answer is straightforward and very clear. Appreciate your time. JackW2016 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you for the information. Your answer is straightforward and very clear. Appreciate your time. JackW2016 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

06:42:00, 15 April 2023 review of submission by 2401:4900:5EF9:88CD:E865:14C7:7B2A:287F
2401:4900:5EF9:88CD:E865:14C7:7B2A:287F (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

08:40:40, 15 April 2023 review of submission by WWBM
I wonder why my draft article submission with road signs in Tajikistan is declined. I have done a lot of work on the creation of an article about road signs in Tajikistan and here the publication of my draft is rejected. On the Internet, I could only find such a PDF file with images of road signs in Tajikistan at the link http://komron.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alomathoi-harakati-roh.pdf. Back in March 2023, I created some SVG images of road signs with text in Tajik. Road signs in Tajikistan have many similarities with road signs in other post-Soviet countries. Unfortunately, there is very little information about traffic rules and signs in Tajikistan.


 * it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (the grey boxes inside the large pink box), and the comment below – did you read any of that? Basically, just because something exists, doesn't mean it can or must be included in Wikipedia. Additionally, your draft cites just a single source, which normally isn't sufficient.


 * Having said which, there is the Category:Road signs by country with articles not too dissimilar to yours, and if I'm honest, I couldn't immediately come up with a reason why Tajikistan couldn't be included there also. (And yes, I realise that by saying this I'm contradicting what I often say here, namely that just because otherstuffexists doesn't mean we should create more of the same. But still.)


 * Your account is extended confirmed, so you're of course at liberty to move the draft into the main space if you so wish. New Page Patrol (and I will recuse myself from that) will then take a view as to whether it should stay there. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

11:08:01, 15 April 2023 review of submission by 113.193.184.10
113.193.184.10 (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably time to give up. Theroadislong (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

12:21:58, 15 April 2023 review of submission by Henrilelabel
Henrilelabel (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

please can you help me to edit tthe text of this artticle? make it more encyclopedic please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martin%27s_(musician)

Request on 15:42:20, 15 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jens Meiert
Hi—I’m unsure whether and how to proceed with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jens_Meiert/CSS_Naked_Day, a draft I had submitted to document a custom that is followed for nearly 20 years, with up to 2,200 documented participants each year. It’s an industry event that gets some coverage (see e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22css+naked+day%22), however, it’s also a niche event, i.e. it’s not something the New York Times has daily headlines about.

As the article has been declined with little to work with, and with no response to my follow-up questions, I’m asking for guidance here.

j9t (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Jens Meiert: firstly, I only now saw that you had asked questions on your talk page. Only users who have added your talk page to their watch list will automatically get notified of new messages, and for some reason the page wasn't on my list. In the future, if you wish to notify someone that you're addressing them, you need to 'ping' them, see template:reply to (and note that just adding the '@' sign in front of their username won't work); that way they get alerted.
 * As for this draft, I declined it for lack of references, which makes it difficult to verify the information, and which also means there is no evidence of notability. If you can find sources that have covered the subject, you need to cite them in the draft, not just add them as inline external links. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice on how to do that.
 * Note also that for notability to be shown, the sources must meet the WP:GNG notability guideline, meaning they must be reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. And we need 'multiple' such sources, which is often interpreted as 'three or more'.
 * Once you've sufficiently addressed these verifiability and notability issues, you're welcome to resubmit your draft. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved references as these seem to have been confusing as regular hyperlinks. Does this help assessing notability and credibility? Then, there are several thousand posts about the event, given that it’s been taking place since 2006—what’s the guidance on using these as references, or are they not admitted? (There’s enough material to put up a list page—“List of blog posts about CSS Naked Day”—, but that may not be in the spirit of notability.) j9t (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jens Meiert: now you're at least on the right track in terms of how the referencing is structured, with inline citations. There's still nowhere near enough of it, as most of the content is unreferenced. Also, the sources cited don't contribute towards notability, as the first two are close primary ones, a Google search is no source at all, and the two lists on Github provide no meaningful coverage.
 * And no, blog or social media posts don't count. We need to see secondary published sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It’s a community event and it seems most coverage has been from within the community (I wasn’t aware). However, there have been some news outlets and third parties that reported on the events, so I added a number of references. (I’ve also added an albeit brief section on implementation.) What else would be helpful to consider this event Wikipedia-worthy? j9t (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have feedback or further guidance? (Thanks again.) j9t (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jens Meiert: only to say that at this stage it's all about the sources, and the ones cited are nowhere near sufficient for meeting GNG notability. Twitter isn't a reliable source, Google search results is barely a source at all, and the others are all primary. If you can't find better ones, then you may need to drop this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the Google search is only meant for reference that there were many participants, and could be removed. Importantly, there’s one reference to a full article by Heise (company), a reputable and popular German tech magazine [please let me know if I should link to a translation of the article, for your separate review]. Then there are four tweets indeed, but by Net_(magazine), CSS Day Conference, SELFHTML, and Eleven Ways. They don’t seem to have written about the event on their site—but they did write about it on social media.
 * I.e., we’re talking about an annual industry event just having taken place for the 18th time, for which there’s evidence for 1,000s of participants, per year, and which does get coverage by several industry outlets and venues. There appear to be Wikipedia articles for which far lower standards have been applied, but I’d love to work with you and team on making this matches the higher bar (as long as it’s fair). If you could check again on the article and its references, that would be awesome. I do believe there’s substance here, but it’s apparently not an easy article to approve, and I rely on you and team to make sure the work I’m doing here is meaningful and fruitful. Thanks! j9t (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

19:32:42, 15 April 2023 review of submission by Omari Grace
Omari Grace

Omari Grace (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Omari Grace: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave him my deletion notice. Chock full of good information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

20:55:54, 15 April 2023 review of submission by Turtlegamer
What is wrong with my page about the mine Anarchy server aksh.lol its still a work in progress Turtlegamer (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Turtlegamer: what's wrong with it is, there's zero indication of any notability. And if it's still a work in progress, then don't submit it for pre-publication review, because by submitting it that's you saying it's ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)