Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 1

= December 1 =

00:23, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 144.74.136.34
i reviewed a number of brief biographies to model this one. I'm not sure what references are missing. I removed anything that could sound like an opinion and limited this to verifiable facts and many references to peer-reviewed journals. The one thing more i could do would be to include website references such as to NIH reporter for grants or the Rush website for employment. But others have not done so. thanks 144.74.136.34 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what others have or haven't done; what matters is whether this draft complies with core policies and guidelines, and is therefore acceptable in its own right.
 * The decline was done, correctly, on the basis of insufficient citations to support the contents: in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. This draft has entire paragraphs without a single citation, and further ones with only one or two cites.
 * The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, but it is almost certainly going to be declined again, unless you improve on the referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: If you are User:Bennett DA, please remember to log into your account when editing.
 * PPS: If you are the subject of this draft, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

04:32, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123
please accept my wikipedia 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You submitted a blank page two times. Ca talk to me! 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

04:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123
This is big function and big group 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please don't start multiple threads on the same topic, if you have further questions (which this isn't) just add them to the earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

09:08, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer
Hello,

I am trying to publish ACE Money Transfer's Wikipedia article, but the article has been declined multiple times due to resources. I have updated the resources as per the provided guidelines, where no promotional or commercial resource is used.

Additionally, it's important to highlight that ACE Money Transfer is a remittance company offering digital money transfer solutions to expats worldwide. So, its resources are found only on relevant financial and fintech websites.

Please advise why our article is being declined everytime only due to the resources. We need to get our company's article published on Wikipedia ASAP.

Looking forward to your spontaneous response!

Regards! Aftab Ashraf ACE Money Transfer Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has zero interest in the needs of your company or in aiding efforts by your company to tell the world about its offerings.
 * You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is we do here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, it is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself.  "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely describing the offerings of the company or its activities, and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself.  None of the sources you provide seem to be the significant coverage required.  I think that you are too close to your company to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires.  Please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors at your company read it too.
 * The awards/recognition you mention is absolutely meaningless in terms of notability, especially being from niche publications. Only awards that themselves have articles contribute to notability(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am positively seeking your help and guidance to understand and proceed the way Wikipedia requires. Please check the following, which have even far more promotional and commercial resources than ours:
 * Remitly
 * Wise (company)
 * Ria Money Transfer
 * MoneyGram
 * These are just a few examples. If they all qualify, why can't we? Please help and guide us through the process. Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read other stuff exists- that other articles exist does not mean that they meet requirements. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate content to get by us, this does not mean more inappropriate content can be added. We can only address the inappropriate content we are made aware of. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
 * Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is not a database of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion.  We have criteria(WP:ORG).  The vast majority of companies do not merit articles; many articles that exist likely should not. Again, please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the three (and only three, please) absolute best independent sources that provide significant coverage of your company? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

12:13, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Drnoble
Hi, my submission about the proposed Morlais tidal power project was rejected with a possibly TOOSOON stating there was no independent coverage. I have updated the article a bit, referencing BBC News and an Observer article, plus I had already listed other industry new sources. I don't think it is too soon to have a page on this, as the project has been in development for a decade and construction ongoing for over a year. Plus contracts were awarded for electricity generation at the site in the last 2 annual UK auctions, as I have listed. I would appreciate any guidance on what else, or how much more, should be added to the page to make it suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Thanks, Donald Drnoble (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Drnoble: TOOSOON usually just means that there don't appear to be enough independent and reliable secondary sources to base an article on, something that can be expected to be resolved with the passage of time. If you can cite sufficient sources meeting WP:GNG already now, then that will negate the TOOSOON argument. (There is also a related point, that Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that boils down mainly to how likely this development is to go ahead.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Construction of the project has started, so I don't think it is too much crystal ball gazing, but will bear that in mind for other potential projects. I will try and add some more to the article and resubmit. Drnoble (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

13:36, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Abm1994
I tried to edit it and include references with wikidata. Abm1994 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Abm1994: okay, but that's not a question – do you have one in mind you would like to ask?
 * In any case, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you have new evidence of notability which wasn't considered previously, you should make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW it was rejected two years ago. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, good spot! I thought it was three months ago, but you're right, it was two years and three months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

14:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by SPAAAAACE
My submission was recently declined because its sources did not show significant coverage, and I was wondering if it was necessary to find more sources that entirely focus on Virtual Radar Server. I've been able to find many sources that mention VRS as being used for the given task, but there are very few third-party ones that solely focus on it. Would it be enough for me to show that VRS is technically significant because it's pretty much the only FOSS real-time ADS-B plotter?

Thanks,   14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @SPAAAAACE: unfortunately "technical significance" and attributes of that ilk are not notability criteria in what comes to inclusion in Wikipedia; you will need to be able to cite independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (which doesn't mean that they must focus solely on it, but they do need to cover it more extensively than merely mentioning it in passing). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Okay. Thanks for your help. There aren't any other good sources, so I guess VRS isn't really notable. I found a couple of scientific articles that say they used Virtual Radar, but it's, again, only in passing.   19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

15:58, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 172.110.60.34
What can I fix about my article to get it approved? 172.110.60.34 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then each of those sources should be cited against the information it has provided. This draft cites a single source, only twice, which is nowhere near enough to establish the subject's notability or even to verify the contents.
 * If I'm honest, there also doesn't seem to be anything in there that would make this person noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't merely catalogue people or things because they exist; there must be some reason that justifies their inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

16:44, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Clamar4409
I want to delete what is in my sandbox to try again but when I tried it gave me a response as though I had been acting like a bot. Please, someone give me a good link on doing so. I keep looking for any synonym of "Delete" and am finding nothing in the editor area. When I tried just deleting the text and saving it clean, I get the warning that I am now being limited. Need help. Please Clamar4409 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want to just clear your sandbox to write something else, or do you want your sandbox removed? To do the former, you need only to remove what is there currently in an edit. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird. That is what I tried and got the response saying that I had been limited Will try again.
 * I am determined to finally figure out Wikipedia submission, but still sucking here Clamar4409 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction. It worked this time. Thank you Clamar4409 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot Would you please review the sandbox now? I want to know if this is an acceptable submission. It's simple and not meaty, but has all the details.
 * I'm trying to start smaller since my original attempts were too grandiose. Clamar4409 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the submission information, I'm not presently able to look at it. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

16:59, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971
Hello - I have been working on this article for 18 months, each draft an attempt to address editors' comments. Most recently, after many drafts and improved citations, editor User:S0091 acknowledged notability on my talk page and asked that I remove unverifiable information, which I think I have now done. How do I re-submit for consideration? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Typically, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

17:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Seekrait
I have been trying to write an article by James Wolcott of Maumee, Ohio. Apparently, I made a second page. How do I publish the right one that I want to publish. Seekrait (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Seekrait it seems the duplication is sorted now and the draft is pending review. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

18:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aceomrelliug
A good chunk of the costume photos are taken by me or someone that I know, how would I cite them in that case? I also wonder what other parts of the article draft need to be referenced. Current references cover a big chunk of the article especially in the History section.Aceomrelliug (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aceomrelliug All the content needs to be referenced to a reliable source and Twitter, Instragram, etc. are not reliable sources. For the images, you need be sure you are not violating copyrights, which is a legal issue for both you and Wikipedia as the host.  You cannot just use illustrations/photos from another person/entity created and published somewhere (which includes social media) unless it is compliant with CC-BY-SA. Generally, you can only use the photos you personally took. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

20:38, 1 December 2023 review of submission by BananaSlug
Thank you for the quick review of Draft:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press. It was declined with the comment:

“There are a lot of sources here, but none of them seem to coverage this newspaper with in depth coverage, which is what is needed for a wikipedia article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)”

Yet the references include:

(1) an article solely about PLEXUS in the Oakland Tribune, a newspaper of record in the San Francisco Bay Area (second in importance at the time only to two papers published in San Francisco).

(2) an article solely about PLEXUS in the Berkeley Barb an influential and widely read underground newspaper of the 1960s-1970s.

(3) discussion of PLEXUS in Brownmiller’s book “In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution” (which itself was reviewed by the New York Times, as referenced in the draft article).

Finally, the entire publication history of PLEXUS was deemed worthy of inclusion in several academic and public libraries (on microfilm) and a fully digitized version is included in a modern commercial online historical reference service called "Gale's Archives of Sexuality and Gender" (www.gale.com).

I would appreciate more detail about why these sources do not meet the requirement of “multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.”

— BananaSlug (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @BananaSlug interviews, writings or publications with those involved are not independent sources so cannot be used to establish notability and blogs, social media, etc. are not reliable sources so should not be used. The Oakland Tribune article is solid but multiple sources meeting the sourcing criteria are needed.  It does seem such sources should exist though.  Note, it was declined, not a rejected, which means you can make improvements and resubmit it for another review. You might also want to post a note at WT:Women in Red for guidance/assistance. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will follow up on your suggestions. BananaSlug (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

21:34, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Englotism
Hello my draft got declined even though I have tried my best to follow all rules, can somebody please help me and tell me exactly what I should change in order for it to get approved? Thank you in advance! Englotism (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * EnglotismRead the comments the declining reviewer gave you. Are you confused about those? Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 00:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * EnglotismRead the comments the declining reviewer gave you. Are you confused about those? Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 00:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)