Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 3

= April 3 =

Request on 05:59:27, 3 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Turki.aljameel3200
I need to correct my article as per the guidelines, still some points i didn't understand why my article got rejected. So I kindly requested you to guide me in this

Turki.aljameel3200 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Turki.aljameel3200: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

05:59:49, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Buligio
Hello, I'll be thankful for advice on how to resolve the limited but not irrelevant "show of significant coverage". The subject is one of only two women of her generation that does have an entry in Mexico's national aviation biographical dictionary (Ruiz Romero, Manuel (2002). Diccionario Biográfico Aeronáutico de México. Biblioteca de la Historia Aeronáutica de México. p. 40). It seems evident that notable women biographies are underrepresented in Wikipedia because women had to compete on unleveled fields with many disadvantages, one of them being precisely the lack of contemporary recognition of their contributions to their fields and therefore the impossibility of finding references. Nonetheless, as already stated above, the subject does have an entry in the national aviation biographical dictionary. On the second observation, I will also be most grateful for precise observations of what is wrong in the witting that does not conform with the required formal tone, so that I may amend that issue without guesswork. Buligio (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Buligio: most of the draft content is unreferenced, and many of the sources cited don't seem to be about Carranza. Which begs two questions – where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it's true? Perhaps you've misunderstood the way Wikipedia works: you don't just write what you know (or what you want) about a topic, and then find some sources that support the odd bit of your writing here and there. You read what reliable sources have said about a topic, summarise (in your own words) the salient points, and cite your sources as you go so the reader can verify that those sources really say such things. Which takes us back to my earlier point: if that isn't the process you followed (as suggested by the fact that you cannot find sources to cite), then where did all this information come from?
 * As for the promotional, non-encyclopaedic language, this can be found throughout the draft, but I will pick out a few examples to give you an idea of the sort of expressions we don't want to see:
 * "woman aviator, entrepreneur and activist who successfully defied a male dominated field"
 * "suddenly found herself stranded in Buenos Aires and in fear of being caught in the ensuing dragnet"
 * "Irma's attitude towards life: valor, ideals, determination, caring about others, hard work and a smile"
 * Also, the many instances of peacock language such as "trailblazer", "historic", "very first" (just "first" will do), etc. All these can go into a magazine feature about her, or perhaps her obituary, but they do not belong in an encyclopaedia article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DoubleGrazing: Thank you very much for your observations. Buligio (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

09:08:19, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Bberry222
The person mentioned in this article is already popular in Pakistan and is widely watched in the country. He hosts shows on Madani channel and also has a Youtube channel. Bberry222 (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * None of which necessarily makes them notable and your only source is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bberry222: being "popular" and having a YouTube channel are irrelevant; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

09:16:36, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Wellington Victory
Wellington Victory (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wellington Victory: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

15:59:15, 3 April 2023 review of draft by 174.137.217.177
Hi, I was tasked to create a page for Marie-Eva Volmar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marie-Eva_Volmar). The page is declined because of lack of notable sources. How can we change that? Thanks a lot for your help.

174.137.217.177 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's start with: you "were tasked" by whom?
 * Next question: who is "we" in "how can we change"?
 * And as for the draft, it needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner, summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, citing those sources as you go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "were tasked" by my PR Manager and "we" represents the PR company and I 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty neutral. Mind to give an example of what you mean by "more neutral"? Thank you 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost all of it reads like a PR piece (the entire last paragraph of Early life and everything after), most of it is unsourced and the sources used are not reliable. There is little salvageable.  Take the time to read through everything in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Before you do any further editing, you must make a paid-editing disclosure. I have posted a message on your talk page with advice on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

16:29:53, 3 April 2023 review of draft by Woiakl
I'd like to add the following, but it's too complicated, I'm no programmer. Could you help me?

Woiakl (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Woiakl: I wouldn't worry about that yet, the draft wasn't declined for lack of authority control, it was declined for lack of independent sources per WP:GNG; authority control can be added after publication, but let's first make sure this is publishable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

16:33:20, 3 April 2023 review of draft by 107.213.181.72
I am wondering if anything can be done to expedite the review of Bishop Lawrence G. Campbells' proposed page. He passed away last week, waiting for the page, and it would be a very fitting time to do it now while funeral arrangements are being conducted. Thanks!

107.213.181.72 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There isn't really any way to expedite this, as drafts are not reviewed in any order, and with 3,700+ drafts awaiting review, it can take quite a long time for any particular draft to be assessed. And while I appreciate that you and/or other parties might find the article's publication timely, Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, and we don't exist for external publicity etc. reasons.
 * Having said all of which, I've had a quick look at the draft, and if I had to make a quick decision I think I would have to decline it, which probably isn't what you wanted to hear. It has a number of issues, but the biggest one is that the majority of citations are to the source #1, which appears Campbell's autobiography. That makes it a non-independent primary source, which cannot be relied upon to verify anything beyond the most uncontentious facts, and certainly not to establish notability. Now, granted, I haven't done a thorough analysis of the other sources cited, and cannot conclusively say that they don't establish notability, but neither can I say the opposite. You might wish to review the WP:GNG notability guideline and ensure that you are citing sufficient sources to satisfy that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a relatively quick look at it. It was *declined*, *not* rejected, which means that the reviewer things that it may be possible for an article to be created about the subject. I did make some tweeks, sections, removing links that weren't part of sentences, etc. Some of the entires in the sentences about CORE should be properly turned into references. There is also a lot of text that is more generally about Bloody Monday and the Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ without being specific about Bishop Campbell. The autobiography *can* be used for non-controversial things like wife/children's name. But to restate from above, Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.Naraht (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

19:56:18, 3 April 2023 review of draft by TaiwanSoul
Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to request your help with improving my article submissions. I have submitted several articles in the past, but unfortunately, they have been rejected. As someone who is passionate about preserving local community history, I think it is important to have accurate and informative articles available to the public.

I understand that Wikipedia has high standards for the articles that are published on the site, and I would like to learn how to improve my writing so that my articles can meet those standards. I believe that my articles provide valuable information about our community's history and I want to make sure that they are accessible to others who may be interested in learning more.

If possible, could you please provide me with feedback on how I can improve my articles and what I need to do in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I am eager to learn and improve my writing, and I appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

TaiwanSoul (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @TaiwanSoul have you read through the decline messages and followed all the links? If so, what is it that you specifically do not understand about what they say?  Also, looking at the draft, it is promotional and filled with A LOT of indiscriminate trivial information.  Wikipedia is not extension of the school's website  My best suggestion is to trim is down to about 1000 words and cited with sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT (read this thoroughly).  S0091 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @S0091,
 * Thank you for taking the time to review my article draft. I appreciate your feedback and I understand that it needs to be trimmed down to about 1000 words and cited with sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, I am not sure which specific parts of my article are considered trivial and which sources are acceptable.
 * Could you please give me more specific guidance on what content to trim and what to keep? For example, I listed historic information to prove the document's legitimacy, but is all of it considered trivial or are there specific parts that can stay? Also, I included media coverages as proof of establishment, such as official mentions from Taiwan government official websites, Voice of America, and local newspapers. Are these sources acceptable?
 * I would really appreciate your help in clarifying this matter, as I am committed to preserving the history of my local community on Wikipedia.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration. TaiwanSoul (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Things like names of people on the dragon boat teams, board members, times the school was open for classes, etc, can all go. Think of it like this: if you had to speak for ten minutes, and only ten minutes, about the school, what would you say? Anything you wouldn't mention is something you can probably cut from the article.
 * The trouble with your sources isn't so much that the sources themselves are unacceptable, but that you haven't used footnotes to show what information comes from which sources. This makes it very hard for readers to verify that the information on Wikipedia is true. Make sure you can back up, with footnotes, anything that isn't extremely obvious or widely available in all relevant sources (eg, you don't need to footnote "Germany is in Europe" or "WW2 began in 1939"). -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Asilvering,
 * Thanks for your helpful advice. It's valuable in guiding me towards improving the quality and legitimacy of the content. I will work on those aspects. I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the article. TaiwanSoul (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)