Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 4

= August 4 =

00:36, 4 August 2023 review of submission by GideonKAnimations
I am requesting an assistance because, my article draft has been decline and I need to know why it has been decline. Is it because my article is too short or not enough information? Thank you! GideonKAnimations (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft has no sources. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you 331dot for reply asap, I'll be adding some sources in my draft! GideonKAnimations (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

01:53, 4 August 2023 review of submission by エンタ
KURAYUKABAに関する記事を公開したいのですが、却下されました. 私は初心者なので、直し方がわかりません. エンタ (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @エンタ: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please ask any questions you may have in English. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:KURAYUKABA&oldid=prev&diff=1168479586
 * This is the linked article. If you can see it, please let me know where I should fix it. I didn't know what was wrong. エンタ (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

03:58, 4 August 2023 review of submission by PublisherHasan
sir, please solve this issue, Md Sazzad Hossain is my favorite teacher and I want to create a biography on Wikipedia. PublisherHasan (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @PublisherHasan: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Being your "favorite teacher" is no basis for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. It does, however, give rise to a conflict of interest, which you need to disclose, but haven't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

10:30, 4 August 2023 review of submission by SnakeLiam12
why u decline SnakeLiam12 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It is not a notable topic for Wikipedia - having 55 subscribers is very unlikely to be notable and you have provided little sources to prove so. Your article also seems to be written by an AI and seems to be promotional in nature. &mdash;  Karnataka  talk  10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

10:37, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Aoaassis
I have edited the draft after the submission was rejected. More content and sources were included, and I think the relevance of the organization became clearer. Before re-submitting the draft, it would be very helpful if an experienced editor could have a look on it and give me a feedback. Thanks in advance. Aoaassis (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! To request another review, please ensure that the article is submitted. Ensure that before you submit, fulfil the details outlined in the decline reason, which was to expand the article. From this response, it has made clear you have attempted to do so, so please click the blue resubmit button and wait accordingly. @Aoaassis &mdash; Karnataka  talk  10:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Referring to the WP:NCORP guide would be useful for you. @Aoaassis &mdash; Karnataka  talk  10:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

15:56, 4 August 2023 review of submission by NatwonTSG2
No, this is not another reason that the draft had better writing and removes all unreliable but instead will be about Significant coverage. At the time I was editing this, there were 55 references in the draft and only nine of them I think are significant coverage which most of there were Smash Bros. and Mario + Rabbids and only three of them weren't about Smash Bros. and Mario + Rabbids. Do you know that there were more and less or I need to add more because it is not enough. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @NatwonTSG2. Since this article has been rejected, you need to appeal to the reviewer directly. I've pinged him out of courtesy: @Zxcvbnm.  Qcne  (talk)  16:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The question was already asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and it was explained pretty thoroughly that Rayman as a character (not as a series, but as an individual character) is not notable. Nobody could find the sources to prove this, and the draft article uses a ton of trivial mentions without any significant coverage. Sheer amount of references counts for nothing on Wikipedia, as quality is much more important than quantity.
 * Again, no amount of editing or addition of sources can overcome a lack of notability. Regardless of how much you want a character to have an article it just isn't happening unless you can prove those significant sources exist. I recommend finding some other topic or article to improve instead that you can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw you review that it may be WP:TOOSOON which means that it may can't be created right now but sometimes in the future, it may? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if there is significant media attention to the character not the video game series.  Qcne  (talk)  19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

16:24, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002
please just accept it Beanfan2002 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft is unsuitable, and now has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a database of Mr Bean credits information. &mdash;  Karnataka  talk  16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beanfan2002: this is not a viable article draft, and has therefore been rejected. If you can develop a proper draft, including the necessary referencing to support it and establish notability, you're welcome to submit it, but this isn't it. Just to point out, though, that not one of the individual episodes of Mr. Bean: The Animated Series has a standalone article, which probably tells you something already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

16:28, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002
hey, one more decline then i will delete the draft, FOREVER... Beanfan2002 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft is unsuitable, and now has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a database of Mr Bean credits information. &mdash; Karnataka  talk  16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft has been REJECTED, which means it will not be considered.
 * Please study Your first article before you try to create another article. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

01:05, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002
stopppppp Beanfan2002 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

22:18, 4 August 2023 review of submission by EytanMelech
The first time this article was declined, it was simply because of a lack of secondary sourcing, which I have attempted to add to the article, even if not every source listed is a secondary source. The second refusal has changed their opinion, saying that the article is simply not sufficiently notable for inclusion. This makes me think that this means that regardless of sourcing, he shouldn't be included, but I find that rather odd, because surely a YouTuber with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribes, if enough secondary sourcing exists, should be included on Wikipedia?

If someone could direct me towards specific notability guidelines for online people, that'd be great. EytanMelech (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Somebody with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribers who has been covered sufficiently in independent reliable sources meets the criteria for notability. Somebody with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribers who has not had that coverage does not meet the criteria for notability. It is as simple as that. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that I believe I have found more reliable sources, but there isn't even a way to submit the article for review, as it says it has been rejected. EytanMelech (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * will have looked for sources before rejecting the draft, but that was in May. If you believe that there is now adequate sourcing, you need to convince Theroadislong of that, which you can probably do only by presenting at least three ironclad independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Julianelle. I suggest you review the WP:Golden rule, looking critically at the sources you have, and if you can identify three that meet the criteria, message Theroadislong (who I have pinged, so they should see this reply) and ask them politely to reconsider. Note that if the sources you present do not very clearly meet the criteria, you will be wasting Theroadislong's time, and they may not be happy about this.
 * If you cannot find three such sources, then you will know not to spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed my rejection and re-added the submission template, please add your additional sources and I will leave it for another reviewer to have a look. I strongly suggest you remove all the spam links to Amazon though. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean spam links? Those are just website attachments that go along with the ISBN for sourcing because the autogenerator doesn't seem to know what to do with the raw ISBN numbers. EytanMelech (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant how they were created, they are commercial links to purchase books, they are not required, they are spam. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)