Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 27

= December 27 =

01:36, 27 December 2023 review of submission by Quitesage
Zaverbhai's work of developing new wheat variety (Lok-1, Lok= Common folks), spending 30 years of his retirement life, at his own expense, benefited Indian farmers by billions of Rupees every year. His wheat variety, Lok-1 was in top demand by Indian farmers for many years. He was modest, didn't name his variety Zaver-1, so people never knew him as the inventor of Lok-1. He never made a penny for his work, it was purely for the benefit of the farmers. Dr. Borlaug, 1970 Nobel Laurette, (for his wheat research) congratulated Zaverbhai's wheat variety. Government of India has recognized him as top 15 wheat research scientists of India. Why this is not considered notability?

Quitesage (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Quitesage! A subject's achievements does not have anything to do with notability, which requires .  Just ' i ' yaya  01:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick note.
 * Zaverbhai’s invented wheat variety Lok-1 was known to most farmers and agricultural scientists in India. He was from Gujarat State where the language is Gujarati. Many articles have been published about him in Gujarati publications.
 * Manubhai Pancholi, Gujarati language novelist, wrote several articles about Dr. Zaverbhai in Gujarati language publications. Manubhai Pancholi is found in Wikipedia. He called Zaverbhai “a saint”.
 * What I need to do to fix the article? 68.5.249.172 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is to provide references to several reliable published sources that are entirely independent of Zaverbhai H. Patel, and that devote significant coverage to him. The language of the sources is not relevant. English is preferred if available, but Gujarati is also acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for explaining. I really appreciate it and feel that I will be able to comply with Wikipedia’s requirements.
 * My problem is that I was not able to upload the Clean Article, which I prepared, in Wikipedia format with photos, proper headings, References (Total 23), Further Reading (Total 14), etc.
 * If I could upload my PDF article (or in Word) you will see that it covers the items generally found in people’s biographies in Wikipedia.
 * All the references are for people other than Dr. Zaverbhai. References cited include eminent Gujarati writers, India's head of wheat research, distinguished wheat researcher, Maharaja of Palitana, etc
 * Dr. Zaverbhai was modest, he never cared for name or Fame. So, he never published anything about his life, or published any research paper Quitesage (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm new to follow all steps to upload a complete article, which is prepared using word with Wikipedia format (Similar articles in Wikipedia). It has photos, wrap around text, References, Further Reading.
 * I've copy in Word and in PDF.
 * Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.
 * Thank you. Quitesage (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've copy in Word and in PDF.
 * Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.
 * Thank you. Quitesage (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

03:02, 27 December 2023 review of submission by Efdelveilina
kindly help whether this topic "image qr code" can be considered as wikipedia article or not, or what to be fixed accordingly? Efdelveilina (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Efdelveilina: This draft has been declined, and the reason for the decline is provided in the gray box within the template. The current references do not establish the subject's qualification for a Wikipedia article. You need to include in-depth, reliable secondary sources—ones that offer significant coverage (not just passing mentions about the subject) and are independent of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

04:21, 27 December 2023 review of submission by EmmaNovember
Hi, After been rejected after submitting my first Wikipedia draft I made some update to the draft accordingly. When I tried to publish the updated draft, I recevied this message "No stashed content found for 1191221877/e86c1772-a096-11ee-84af-4cd98faf627c" and I couldn't publish my updated draft. Can anyone let me know what this mean and how to fix it? Many thanks! EmmaNovember (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @EmmaNovember: It seems that you might be referring to Draft: Exemplar Global. This draft was declined, and the reason for its decline is mentioned in the gray box within the template. The sources provided by you in that draft are primary and database-based. However, in order to publish it in the mainspace, it needs to meet the standards of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Please improve this by adding secondary reliable sources that offer significant coverage about the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem you report is a technical one, and nothing at all to do with the content of your edit. I believe that it often happens when you have left an editing session open for a long time. If it continues, please ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

05:01, 27 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:582:C301:38C0:A464:814F:D344:70EB
How is this article not notable for wikipedia? 2601:582:C301:38C0:A464:814F:D344:70EB (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

05:40, 27 December 2023 review of submission by 124.253.204.115
Subject: Request for Assistance with Article Submission - Channa Rai

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Depak Sharma , and I recently submitted an article on the film actor and director "Channa Rai." Unfortunately, the submission was rejected by WikiOriginal-9 on December 15, 2023, with feedback indicating that the citations provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the subject's notability.

I have carefully reviewed the rejection feedback and am committed to addressing the concerns raised. I understand the importance of reliable sources and the need for substantial coverage in secondary, independent publications. In an effort to improve the article, I have been actively searching for additional reputable sources that discuss Channa Rai's work in the film industry.

I kindly request your assistance in reviewing the article and providing guidance on how to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am eager to make the necessary improvements and ensure that the content aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I appreciate your time and expertise in helping me navigate this process. Please let me know if there are specific areas that require attention or if you have any suggestions for additional sources.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,

Depak Sharma 124.253.204.115 (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have declined it again due to notability concerns. In its current state, this subject does not meet the criteria for WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG. IMDb is not a reliable source, and the other two sources you provided are press releases about the film. You need to add reliable secondary sources that offer significant coverage about the subject. Please do not submit it again without any improvements. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

06:04, 27 December 2023 review of submission by Basi Affia
My submission was denied due to lack of verifiable sources. I read that the indented quote citation are needed? Is that right? All of my sources are legitimate news platforms like ABC news. Basi Affia (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Basi Affia: The sources you provided in your submission are mostly interviews with the owner of Sensiil Studios and are likely part of a press release, given their publication within a specific timeframe. I believe there are sufficient links in the decline reason provided in the gray box within the template to understand what needs improvement and how to proceed. In summary, you need to include in-depth, reliable secondary sources—ones that offer significant coverage (not just passing mentions about the subject) and are independent of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Basi Affia, please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

09:41, 27 December 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar
Respected sir

I apologize for the oversight in the recent report, where there is a miscalculation communication between us. I take full responsibility for this error and regret any confusion it may have caused. I want to revise the paper and make the changes as per your suggestion, so i request you to please give me the suggestion for the correct paper. Your feedback on how to avoid such errors in the future would be highly valuable. I assure you that I will not committee the highest standards of accuracy in my work again. So please let me allow to do the changes and i wanted say only one thin that all the data are not having any references because the person is not having any websites so please understand my concern

Thank you Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If no independent reliable sources write about a person and show how they are notable as defined by Wikipedia, they will not merit an article.  Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of someone and their accomplishments.  We want to know what independent sources say about them and what makes them important or significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

11:03, 27 December 2023 review of submission by 12Zainab
My article has been deleted, even though I referenced it very well.I need help with how neutrality should be maintained. 12Zainab (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Your draft was deleted because it was promotional. Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting everything. If you wish to create an article, your subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources and should be written from a neutral point of view. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, 12Zainab. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the material deleted from your sandbox. But I'm guessing that you made the common mistake of writing about a subject saying what the subject, or people involved with the subject, want to say about it.
 * Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

16:01, 27 December 2023 review of submission by Jliccione
I'm a candidate for US Congress and I just submitted my Wikipedia page for myself. I mirrored my opponent Anna Luna's page on WikiLeaks and my article parallels Anna Luna's in both content and 3rd party citations such as the FEC website, Ballotpedia, Wikipedia (DOD ACAS program), and so on. You have marked my page as "self promotion". Why do you allow Anna Luna to promote herself and yet I cannot. This represents unfair treatment of political candidates in a competing race and I demand equal treatment and that you publish my biography as written. Regards, John Liccione Jliccione (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link User:Jliccione/sandbox There is no Wikipedia article for Anna Luna, but even if there was it would be irrelevant, articles are based on reliable independent sources yours has precisely none, so has no chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles, not pages. It is not a voter guide that must provide equal treatment, and is not a venue for promotion or political campaigns. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which for politicians is written at WP:NPOLITICIAN. In short, merely being a candidate for office is insufficient; you must hold public office or have won election to office. If you meet the broader notable person definition, you might merit an article that way, but writing an autobiography is highly discouraged, please see WP:AUTO. My advice is to forget about Wikipedia and go on about your campaign. Please note that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jliccione: I must say that coming here demanding things is not the most auspicious of opening gambits, but I guess you must do what you see fit.
 * The Anna Paulina Luna article, assuming that's what you meant, probably wasn't created by Luna herself, given that the user who created it has 42K+ edits to their name, none of which suggest they are Ms Luna. As such, it doesn't come under our autobiography policy, which your draft did, by your own admission. Nor is her article particularly promotional, at a quick glance.
 * In any case, Luna is an elected legislator, and as such automatically presumed notable under the WP:NPOL guideline. This does not apply to candidates.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)