Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 25

= April 25 =

02:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Anukalpsinghkashyap
What do I need to improve in it? Anukalpsinghkashyap (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You cannot submit articles without any references at all. Please read the messages you have already received about this article, and follow the links to help pages. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

03:29, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Bigstorywriter
Dear Wikipedia Editor,

My article is rejected due to not meeting the notability criteria. The comment on my article mentioned that the sources I provided did not discuss the subject in sufficient detail, even though I had used reliable sources. I am writing to ask for your advice on how I can improve the article so that it can be accepted on Wikipedia.

I would like to address the comment regarding the lack of detail in the sources by providing more information and citations that highlight Vinod Tiwari's notability. Can you please suggest any specific areas that need improvement or additional sources that would be helpful? I am happy to make any necessary changes to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bigstorywriter (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . When I look at your draft, I see obvious indications of reference bombing. A single assertion should require no more than one or two references. Adding nine references to one assertion is an indication to reviewers that the author (you in this case) is straining to show notability by stacking up a bunch of mediocre references. Three excellent references are far better overall than 20 mediocre references for establishing notability. Take a look at WP:THREE, and identify what you believe to be the three very best published, reliable, independent sources that devote truly significant coverage to Vinod Tiwari and his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

07:09, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Pontiff Of Bread
Hello, I understand that this may seem as a random story written by some idiots, but you must understand that we take this very seriously. We really are trying to make our group a cult since we believe in this kind of stuff. Thank you for listening, I hope you understand. Pontiff Of Bread (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pontiff Of Bread: and I hope you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting your 'cult' or any other such nonsense. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly i see that as racist behavior. Do you act like this to every religion? Pontiff Of Bread (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pontiff Of Bread: I would advice you to avoid further accusations of that kind, and generally to proceed with caution. Thank you.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

10:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Concord2005
What is the problem? Why declined this again submitted by me? Please give me the reason Concord2005 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Concord2005: this is pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will request deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

11:08, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Traxezz
The article was rejected on the ground of failing WP:BIO due to insufficient in-depth coverage. From what I gathered from my research, Wang was quite a prominent leader of public opinion within the PRC before he was blacklisted by the Chinese government in 2019. While he does not have an exact reason for why he was banned in China, it was possibly because he was being too influential in public opinion (aka. too notable) in China as his social media account on Weibo had become more influential than some other state propaganda agencies' account such as the People's Daily. It really is a shame that 99% of his online presence and coverage within China had been pulled off the internet by the censorship board hence making it near impossible to find any in-depth coverage of him within China. In this case, the subject failed WP:BIO not because he was not notable, instead it was by the design of the CCP censorship board to demote his notability within China. In my opinion, I think the subject of the article deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding notability. I think that it is unfair to hold the notability of a journalist who was censored by an authoritarian regime to the same standard as a Western journalist who has the protection of freedom of speech. I have since added more inline citations from Western media such as the BBC, DW and SCMP that survived the censorship board's purge, but they also only mentioned the subject briefly, probably failing WP:INDEPTH as well. However, I think that the fact that reliable sources such as the BBC and DW would quote the subject's opinion when covering a news story is a testament to his notability in itself. And in that sense, as well as the context that the subject's notability was intentionally "nerfed" by the Chinese government, I hope that the rejection can be reviewed.

Traxezz (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Traxezz: firstly, this draft wasn't rejected, only declined; rejection means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can, once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
 * Secondly, there is no such option as "benefit of the doubt regarding notability": either sources exist, or they don't. Or (and I may be going out on a limb here) if your contention is that sources used to exist but no longer do, then at the very least we would need to see solid evidence of that, not just say-so.
 * Worth noting that Wikipedia is not a platform for publicising something that otherwise gets no publicity, nor for righting great wrongs. We publish summaries of what has been published elsewhere, without advocacy or promotion.
 * Finally, even if an exception from the usual notability requirements could be made, we would still need to see reliable published sources to verify whatever is said about the subject. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my bad for the rejected vs declined thing. I meant to say declined, not rejected. I do understand that wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY which I don't think the draft is. I've had a history of removing promotional content from Wikipedia and I know what a promotional piece looks like. I am mentioning the blacklisting/censorship not because I am trying to right a wrong, but just trying to add context to the lack of resources on a subject which the reviewer described as "should be notable". Apologies if it was phrased in an easily misunderstood manner. On the subject of misunderstandings, by "benefit of the doubt" I am not asking for an exception to the rules, I myself had abided by Wikipedia's rule closely when editing articles which are evident in my contribution history. What I meant is that it is in my opinion that this particular draft had been held to an unreasonably higher standard of WP:INDEPTH given the context. To be clear, I don't think that the context should give the subject an exception to WP:INDEPTH, but at the time of submission, there is already a reference to a 4 pages article about the subject in Japanese (of which I sourced from the jp wiki about the subject). I have since added another 2 articles from RFA about the subject but they are in Mandarin. My question is: Does the coverage have to be in English to satisfy WP:INDEPTH for en wikipedia? If so I think it is impossible to satisfy WP:BIO for now and I should put this draft on hold until there is more significant coverage of the subject in English as current there is only one in-depth coverage of the subject in English from VOA with the rest mainly in Mandarin.
 * Regards, Traxezz (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Traxezz: no, sources don't have to be in English, as long as they meet the WP:GNG criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am getting more confused as WP:GNG is a pretty low bar imo and collectively my references certainly meet the requirements under WP:GNG. I suppose this is getting out of the territory of Help Desk and into the territory of the Teahouse. While this is not the first article I've created, I do admit that this is my first biography about a living person type article. I suppose I will take this discussion and my questions to the Teahouse instead. --Traxezz (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Traxezz: I don't know what you mean by "collectively [your] references" meet the GNG standard. Just to be clear, each of the sources (that you're relying on to establish notability) must at once meet every criterion of GNG, ie. be independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage. It's not enough that some sources are secondary (but provide only passing mentions), while others provide sigcov (but are primary), etc.
 * And far be it from me to brief against the Teahouse, but I would argue that the best place to get advice on the AfC process is indeed here at the AfC Help Desk. You're of course welcome to choose whichever channel you prefer, but please don't post the same query in multiple places. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know that I am asking in the right place. To answer your question, not all references in the draft meet every criterion of GNG, but for one that doesn't, it was substantiate with another reference that do meet GNG. For example, for the sentence that states that the subject was temporarily suspended by his employer, I linked to both a primary source and secondary source. I suppose to fully abide by the GNG, the primary source should be removed. Anyway I don't think this has anything to do with why the draft was declined. The reviewer commented that the sources "are secondary & reliable, but only mention the subject briefly (there is no in-depth coverage). To prove notability, add some in-depth secondary sources, like news articles.". This confuses me as the draft had references to two in-depth article about the subject, one in Japanese on bunshun.jp and another in English on VOA reposted from AP. While I am not sure if bunshun.jp is news or not, AP definitely is news. As mentioned earlier, I have since added references to more news articles from the BBC, DW and SCMP that quoted the subject in their news stories to substantiate notability of the subject. In addition, I've also added reference to another two articles from RFA about the subject to satisfy in-depth coverage. I was going to ask if this is sufficient to submit the draft for a second review but on a second thought, I think the draft should be copyedited by someone else more proficient in English than myself before it is up to Wikipedia standard. So for now, I will just leaving the draft as it is. Regardless, thank you for your help. Regards, Traxezz (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Traxezz You said "To answer your question, not all references in the draft meet every criterion of GNG, but for one that doesn't, it was substantiate with another reference that do meet GNG".  DG is telling you that references don't work that way.  Each reference must meet all of the criteria.   If not, the reference--and the material that is sourced to it--should not appear in the article. David10244 (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Request on 13:24:08, 25 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jeaster2023
I am looking at the feedback of this article. Compared to other schools seen on Wikipedia I believe the school is more notable (for example, Woodbridge High School). The school is recognised in national case studies by the Department for Education, is 150 years old and won an Olivier Award (internationally recognised award) for Outstanding Achievement in Opera. Please advise further.

Jeaster2023 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:OSE, the Woodbridge High School, Woodford Green article has no indication of notability and reads like an advertisement, so should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note also that notability in the Wikipedia context does not arise from being featured in primary sources, or being X years old, or even (in most cases) having received awards; it arises from significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and as I pointed out in my review, the sources cited do not meet that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

14:03, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Ja2007
Hi, why was mu submitting declined? It is the same content as the original Czech one ( form the Masaryk University, where Jiri Fukac was the Professor. The English version is corrected by US musicologist Professor Michael Beckerman. Regards Ja Ja2007 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ja2007: it was declined, as it says right there in the decline notice, for being not supported by reliable sources – as in, not a single source is cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks, how shall I document the reliable source? It is from the Czech wiki shich is made by University of Brno, as mentioned. Ja2007 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Os the Czech wiki page not considered an original source? What is needed? There wasa list of Fukac's publications, also literature about him. What else?
 * I can not find my original draft ( not so used to work here). Can I start again a new submition on the same article? Thanks Ja2007 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ja2007: in simple terms, every material statement must be referenced to a reliable published source; or rather, you should not write what you 'know' about a subject, but merely summarise what reliable sources have previously published about it, and cite those sources throughout the draft so that the information can be verified by readers.
 * And no, the Czech Wikipedia article, if that's what you mean, carries no weight here, because Wikipedia cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. If that article cites sources, you may, however, be able to use those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Which it does, one or two of, but probably not enough to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ja2007 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ja2007 The referencing requirements are stronger on the English-language Wikipedia than they are on most other Wikipedias.  And no, the Czech Wikipedia is not considered a "reliable source" for referencing.  The English Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. David10244 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I spent a lot of time to submit the article about the Czech musicologist Jiri Fukac. It is all original sources from Masaryk University, where he was Professor. I could not translate it directly, so I submitted it here. The translation to English was checked by profesor in musicology Michael Beckeram. I woudl appreciate if you help to improve my evt mistakes in he layout and submit the article  for me. Thanksl Ja2007 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (Please don't start multiple threads, just add further comments to your earlier one.)
 * I don't know what you mean by "it is all original sources"; the draft cites no sources, which is exactly the problem here.
 * It is probably unlikely that anyone patrolling this help desk will want to contribute, but you may wish to request assistance at one of the WikiProjects, eg. WikiProject Czech Republic and/or WikiProject Music theory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

19:54, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Aslanzare
what can i do for it? can you please help me Aslanzare (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've told you what needs to be done in my decline reasons. You resubmitted it twice without doing anything to the draft, even after I told you not to do that, hence why I rejected it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Aslanzare did you read through all the material linked in the decline messages? The draft has no sources and reads like an autobiography, written either by the subject or a fan rather than an encyclopedia article.  You made no improvements before you resubmitted which is a waste of not only your time but volunteer reviewer's time, thus the draft is rejected so will no longer be considered.  S0091 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy, and will never be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

20:39, 25 April 2023 review of submission by HussainAnsar76
How to make article on school according to wikipedia policy HussainAnsar76 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @HussainAnsar76 please see Your first article. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

21:03, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Dodocergo
it has some very popular apps, why it is not enough to be notable? Dodocergo (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft fails to provide references to independent, published, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. Please read WP:NCORP. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

23:14:23, 25 April 2023 review of submission by 122.56.171.181
I am requesting a re-review as I do not see why this has been declined, this draft I have written is all true information I have researched about. The topic Prune Jam was an original idea that has not been done before. Everything written was original words, meaning no copyright and everything I wrote was from reliable sources. If you could get back to me on why this has been declined that would be helpful. 122.56.171.181 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft was declined because it is unreferenced nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)