Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 16

= January 16 =

00:36:27, 16 January 2023 review of submission by 98.97.34.148
98.97.34.148 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

04:13:45, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Priyajith2022
Can you help me out on why this article is been rejected however i've submitted plenty of references that are reliable sources Priyajith2022 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sources seem to mostly be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. See WP:ORG.  Because of this, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

04:15:14, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Priyajith2022
Can I add more details to this article? Priyajith2022 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

07:47:34, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Contextualise
With the available information we have tried to create a page with only factual data and as much objectivity as possible by removing any content remotely promotional in nature. It would be great if you can guide me further how to create an wiki page for entities without being promotional in nature Contextualise (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Only a single person should have access to and be operating your account. If you work for the company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; please also read conflict of interest.
 * Please see the comments on the draft left by reviewers. We don't have "wiki pages" here, we have articles, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be blocked from editing if you make another edit without making the paid editing disclosure, see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

08:31:49, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Raisul Islam Ador
Raisul Islam Ador (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

11:49:31, 16 January 2023 review of draft by E879352
Hello,

I am working on a wiki page about Abby Ajayi - I wanted to check what information is incorrectly cited so I am able to fix it? Or if I don't have enough references

Many thanks,

E879352 (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the two sources only verify her being a screenwriter for various British and USAnian TV series. There is nothing about her background, her education, her Emmy nomination – but the draft contains that information. Where did you find the info? Maybe you'll find User:Bonadea/Draft submission checklist useful. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

13:20:22, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m
I request you to kindly look into below issues/concerns in order to get this article submitted successfully. I am not sure as to how to proceed further to resolve the below issue/concern. Please help. Many thanks.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be about notable subjects. Notability (as Wikipedia defines it) is shown by, to quote the decline notice, "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Both of the sources you have added to the draft are apparently written by Revanasiddaiah, so they are not independent.


 * Please follow the blue links in the text to find out what kind of sources are needed. Currently there are no sources at all for most of the content (and the two sources that are there contain urls that are not working!) Maybe User:Bonadea/Draft submission checklist can be of use to you.


 * The draft is also not written in a neutral tone, which is a separate issue. Please do not resubmit without addressing these concerns. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

17:07:01, 16 January 2023 review of submission by 2600:8802:5300:220:AC6B:8B93:8A4D:86E8
2600:8802:5300:220:AC6B:8B93:8A4D:86E8 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

17:49:26, 16 January 2023 review of draft by ADtrials
Thank you for reviewing my draft article of a living person. It was rejected and I would appreciate advice on what I've done wrong. The article was rejected because it needs to
 * meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria, or
 * cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth.

For the first point, I believe this person meets at least one of the criteria. Examples:
 * 1) Impact: Person has published hundreds of papers on infectious disease, including two on COVID that have received around 500 citations this year alone, and the person has an h-index of 50.
 * 2) Prestigious academic award or honor: Weldon Memorial Prize, from the University of Oxford.
 * 3) Named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution: Professor of Statistical Science for Health at the University of Cambridge.

For the second point, I have supplied sources including the following:
 * University of Oxford
 * University of Cambridge
 * The Independent (UK newspaper)
 * Google Scholar
 * Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Journal)
 * gov.uk (UK government's official site)

Again, I would like to understand what is lacking in terms of both these points, and how they can be addressed. Thank you again.

ADtrials (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @ADtrials, can you resubmit this? I'm not sure about the Weldon Prize, but she's an MBE so I don't believe this should have been declined. Regarding #3 though, for future reference, that's not a named chair or distinguished professorship - that's just a regular professorship. A named one is something like Oxford's J. R. R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language. asilvering (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Asilvering, thank you for giving a second opinion on this. I will resubmit just now. I will keep in mind your information regarding "named chair" vs "professorship". ADtrials (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

18:16:12, 16 January 2023 review of draft by MFilesEditor
Hello, what is the expected time for review of this article? Thanks! MFilesEditor (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC) MFilesEditor (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft has been deleted as spam, and the user is blocked as a promotion-only account with a promotional user name. --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

18:18:27, 16 January 2023 review of submission by MFilesEditor
How long should it take to have this article (M-Files) reviewed? THANKS for all your hard work. MFilesEditor (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,869 pending submissions waiting for review."
 * Please read WP:REFB to learn how to properly make references. Your draft is almost certain to be declined, as it just tells about your company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The company website, press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, and the like do not establish notability. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even in the same field. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See the previous question and reply. David10244 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

22:38:29, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Reevansh1818
Reevansh1818 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not ask a question, but the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered again. It had been declined multiple times, and after the last decline you resubmitted without any changes, and then you created a copy at Draft:Virender Sharma Congress and copied the draft into mainspace at Virender Sharma (policitian). Unfortunately, Sharma does not seem to be notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, and there are several notices on your user talk page explaining this. Please do not create any new drafts or articles about him at this time. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)