Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 17

= April 17 =

05:14:54, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Scott.d.joseph
To explain why I would like my draft to be accepted, I need to explain my ultimate goal. Fine dining is one of my passions, and I spend lots of time not just looking at restaurant guides (lists), but when I am traveling to a new location, I need to find out which are the best local guides for that reason. And so the category page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Restaurant_guides is very important to me. This page is missing some very important and popular guides in Australia and the surrounding region. Most notably, the Sydney Morning Herald's Good Food Guide is the top standard, but it's missing from that category page. When I attempted to edit that page to directly add Sydney Morning Herald's Good Food Guide, the top banner says, "To list a page in this category, do not edit this category page. ..." Hence, I made a page dedicated to that guide so that I can add the category tag at the bottom.

I originally thought about adding the category tag to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sydney_Morning_Herald, but I decided against it for the following reasons:


 * 1) The "Good Food Guide" is only mentioned in one bullet points, so it's not explained very well. Let's say I did create a new section within that page for the Good Food Guide and put the "Restaurant guides" category tag...
 * 2) The category page would now have "Sydney Morning Herald", but clicking it would just take you to the top of the "Sydney Morning Herald" wiki page. You would be confused why you're there, and wouldn't know what to even look for in that page that's related to the restaurant guides category. (Having the hyperlink jump to my new section on the Good Food Guide would solve the problem, but I don't think that feature exists?)

And so in summary, I don't think there's any way to achieve my goal unless I create a brand new page? Please let me know if alternate solutions exist. Thanks!!

Scott.d.joseph (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Categories are for encyclopedia articles so there is no way to include this restaurant guide in this category other than writing an encyclopedia article about it. Your current draft is exceptionally brief and includes two references. The first DMARGE source is a passing mention so is of no value in establishing notability. The second Mediaweek source is much stronger since it devotes significant coverage to the guide. So, find several more sources like the second one, and do not include references to sources like your first one. Also, if this restaurant guide is so significant, can't you write more than two brief sentences about it? After all, you just wrote 14 sentences arguing in favor of this draft. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Scott.d.joseph: that's correct; categories list and organise Wikipedia articles on given topics, therefore the only way to have something included in a category is to create an article on it. (That's a somewhat back-to-front way of putting it, but that's what it comes down to.)
 * And I agree, you shouldn't put the SMH main title into that category, as it will indeed be confusing.
 * As for whether the guide should have its own article or be incorporated in the existing SMH one, I can't really comment on as I'm not familiar enough with the publication(s) in question. To some extent this would depend on how much the guide is an independent stand-alone title, vs. an integral part of the main publication. In Wikipedia policy terms it also depends on whether sufficient sources can be found that cover the guide on its own for it to be notable; the two sources your draft currently cites wouldn't be enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scott.d.joseph An article, or category, or anything else that lists food guides will be kept up to date... how?  For things like  this, it seems that once the first editor stops editing, others are not always so keen to keep these kinds of things up to date.  But, good luck... David10244 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

05:28:29, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Lets xplore
I like to know why my content is rejected. He is a local well known person & provide so much services.

Lets xplore (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lets xplore: it was rejected because there is no evidence this person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Your first sentence is That is overtly promotional and violates the Neutral point of view, which a core content policy. It also tells us nothing of substance about this person. What does he do for a living? What city and country does he live in? How old is he? Where was he educated? And so on. Much deeper in your draft we can learn some of this, but the reader never learns why this person is notable, as opposed to billions of other hard working, good people. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising, promotion, marketing or public relations of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, aren't you also an inspiring and enthusiastic personality who uses positive attitude and tireless energy both professional and personally?  I know that I am. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , well, I do get tired at bed time each day. Cullen328 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like "tired energy". David10244 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

07:26:19, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Onnyyonn
The submission was declined twice for the subject not being notable enough. However, Multiple sources are cited in the draft that fulfills the criteria of the subject being covered in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She has been covered in plenty of books, published in late 19th century to early 20th century, as well as numerous modern day newspaper / magazine articles. Moreover, she is notable to the local population, and her story still gets mentioned in the modern day literature. I would like to understand what objective criteria does the subject doesn't fulfill (it is not clear to me from the reviewers' comments)? Onnyyonn (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Onnyyonn: I agree that some of the sources cited meet the criteria you've described (while others probably don't); however, you've left out one criterion, namely significant coverage. Which of the sources would you say provide that? On a quick glance, many of them seem to offer only passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of significant coverage of her:
 * - Chapter XI of Echoes from Old Calcutta (Citation 4 in the draft)
 * - Chapter VIII of Calcutta, Past and Present (Citation 3 in the draft)
 * - Chapter III of Letters and other unpublished writings of Walter Savage Landor (Citation 10 in the draft) Onnyyonn (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onnyyonn: alright, highlight those (as being the strongest sources in your opinion) in the draft before resubmitting, so that the next reviewer can make sure to look into them in more detail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing you could do that would be helpful for the reviewer (and, even more importantly, helpful for the encyclopedia's readers once the article is published) is to provide page numbers for the book citations. That is, add a  parameter in the citation, with the page(s) where the specific information is located.


 * If you use information located on different pages in the same source (which I see that you have done a few times), you can instead place the template  after the closing   or the   tag. For the first instance of (the current) citation 2 in the draft, it would look like this in the wiki code: . Hope this makes sense! You'll find the documentation for the "rp" template here.  Another thing: ancestry.com is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, so you may as well remove it before submitting again. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

11:07:05, 17 April 2023 review of draft by Hawkearp8
Would like to know what is unacceptable please-also can I edit the title? Hawkearp8 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hawkearp8: did you read the decline reasons (the grey boxes inside the large pink box)? They give the reasons why this was declined.
 * You may wish to look at WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice on article creation and referencing, respectively.
 * And yes, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be published at a title which conforms to Wikipedia naming policies. For now we can just leave it where it is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Javad Nazari
Greetings and Regards I wanted to suggest creating an article for the actor and composer Javad Nazari. Before this article was created in the [www.de.everybodywiki.com/Javad_Nazari German Wikipedia], But unfortunately, after a long time has passed since the creation of the article, one of the admins mistakenly thinks that Javad Nazari is another person named Javad Ramezani, who tried to forge, and for this reason, he mistakenly deletes Javad Nazari, if these two names Only their minors were the same, and their surnames, date of birth, and place of birth were different. In any case, search Javad Nazari's name on Google, and you will find out that he deserves to have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you. 5.74.171.102 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not the right place to request new articles. By which I mean, even without the history of socking and spamming associated with the subject of Javad Nazari, this wouldn't be the right place to request new articles. Shall we just leave it at that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Tank's 86.55.225.249 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

18:19:03, 17 April 2023 review of submission by FjsLr
Hi, I created this draft a few months ago by essentially translating its original (Hungarian) page. I used the same sources that that page uses and added some more as I expanded on the article significantly. I do cite two Wiki articles as sources from the Hungarian site, if that is a problem I can remove them. Otherwise please let me know why the sources I used were not appropriate. Thanks! FjsLr (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @FjsLr: events may have overtaken us, as I can see that this draft was reviewed yesterday (twice, in fact), but just as a general comment, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with their own policies and guidelines, including for notability; just because a subject has been deemed notable enough for inclusion in one language version, doesn't mean it will be automatically accepted into another. Therefore, before starting to translate, it is a good idea to check that the sources cited in the original are enough to meet the target language version's requirements, or if not, that new sources can be found which do. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * on the face of it, it seems likely that this would be a notable institution, but I see the reviewers' point. The current sources are mainly focused on notable people associated with the academy, not on the academy itself. Organisations, including schools and universities, have fairly strict criteria for showing notability: here are the relevant notability guidelines. Sources can be in Hungarian, but please help the reviewers by providing as much information as you can about them, and in those cases where there are English-language versions of the sources, those are preferable (e.g. this, which has an English version here). --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @FjsLr Yes, neither of us declined the article for lack of notability. It seems very likely to me that this is a notable subject, but where is the coverage in reliable, secondary sources? -- asilvering (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

20:46:06, 17 April 2023 review of draft by SLCCultural
There currently is no reference literature for the historic Brighton Drain (archaeological site #42SL266). Uploading this information to Wikipedia is a means to disseminate information to the publice as part of mitigation efforts required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Official documentation and reporting for this resource were completed as part of compliance measures with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

SLCCultural (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @SLCCultural: judging by your comments, it seems you may have misunderstood the basic premise of Wikipedia. We are never the first platform to "disseminate information" that hasn't been published elsewhere; instead, we summarise what other (reliable and independent) sources have previously published about a subject. Furthermore, reliable published sources are required to verify any information included in a Wikipedia article. From this is follows that if no such sources can be found, then it isn't possible to have an article on the subject included in Wikipedia. (You may wish to see verifiability and notability for more information on these two core concepts.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for merely disseminating information; Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. As noted by the reviewer, this topic may very well be notable, but it presently does not have the sources to support it.  If it does not have the sources to support it, it cannot be on Wikipedia as an article until it does.
 * It sounds like this documentation is more suitable for a local newspaper, social media, or website for this flood control measure or the organization operating it- not Wikipedia. If a law requires Wikipedia to display such compliance measures(I doubt it, but I'm not certain) you will need to communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers(see this link, and scroll to "Other legal questions or requests").
 * If you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers or some other agency/organization charged with "official documentation and reporting" related to this topic, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; you should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot, do you think that's a "role" username? David10244 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it might have been the name of an organization, but I could not find one with such a name(though some are close). As long as the user is not sharing their account I think it may be okay based on what I know now. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. David10244 (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

20:51:27, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Raylaur15
Dear Wiki Editor: I submitted a draft article, Los Pleneors de la 21, three months ago, on January 14, 2023. I have added four appropriate Wikiproject Tags for the article: Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Music, And New York City. I also highlighted the four best sources that meet the notability criteria for musicians Los Pleneros de la 21 On March 18 as suggested.

Is there any way I can get some movement on the evaluation process? ITs been three months!

I am very willing to make changes if someone would please tell me what additional work/information needs to be done/included. Please let me know and thanks! Raylaur15

Raylaur15 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raylaur15: unfortunately there is no way of expediting review; we have nearly 4,000 pending drafts waiting to be reviewed, and reviews are not done in any particular order. Please be patient, rest assured your draft will be reviewed eventually. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raylaur15: unfortunately there is no way of expediting review; we have nearly 4,000 pending drafts waiting to be reviewed, and reviews are not done in any particular order. Please be patient, rest assured your draft will be reviewed eventually. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

23:12:50, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Wyatt07yeahnoyeah
Wyatt07yeahnoyeah (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wyatt07yeahnoyeah: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)