Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 6

= January 6 =

09:24:43, 6 January 2023 review of submission by Zihao H
Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for reviewing my submission. It's so frustrated that the article has been rejected. Apache Doris is a database project empowered by Apache Software Foundation, which is an NGO and known worldwide.

I want to know the reason why the article has copyright issue and how could I update the article so that you could accept it. In addition, I found a lot of projects that empowered by Apache Software Foundation has been listed in Wikipedia, such as Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, Apache Pivot, Apache Cassandra, Apache Kafka, Apache ZooKeeper, etc. What's the difference between theirs and my article?

Thank you

Zihao H (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Zihao H: "the reason why the [draft] had copyright issue" is that a substantial proportion of it had been lifted verbatim from an external source, which is not only disallowed by Wikipedia policies but almost certainly by actual laws also. Another version of the draft was deleted as blatantly promotional. Neither is acceptable, regardless of whether the subject is in and of itself suitable for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

10:31:00, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20
Tojoroy20 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can the references in this article be considered a reliable and accurate source? If not, then why are they not considered as valid sources.
 * Hi Tojoroy20, please see reliable source for guidance on sources and also note what Slay yPoint says about themselves is not useful for notability (interviews, their comments, etc.). Based on a brief look, I suggest also looking at WP:BIO1E.  It seems a lot of the quality sources are about the "Binod" event.  S0091 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

11:56:56, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Museumsart
Museumsart (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about the draft I have placed a link to above, replacing a link to a different page. You have resubmitted it for a review, do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Resubmitted without any improvement, I might add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Museumsart: the whole point of the review process is that when a draft gets declined, you address the reasons for the decline, and then — and only then — resubmit. You have now twice resubmitted without the slightest attempt at improvement, and if you continue like that you risk having the draft rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FOR INFO: it appears we now have Draft:Azure way museum (draftified from the mainspace), in addition to the earlier Draft:Azure Way Museum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

16:35:46, 6 January 2023 review of draft by ManyKinds
I believe that the draft I created is correct. The draft was recently declined for not having a notable subject and reliable sources but I believe that to be false. The article shows that the subject is highly notable around social media and the internet and the articles include citations from news pages that are know worldwide. These news pages include a whole page which only talks about the subject. I am talking about Draft:Greg O’Gallagher.

ManyKinds (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With the partial exception of the CNBC article, essentially those references are relatively trivial pieces and very close to vanity content - the 10 people you should follow in 2021 is not serious content. The decline of the draft means "you need to do a bit more", it does not mean they aren't notable - just that you haven't yet sufficiently demonstrated it. MarcGarver (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

17:11:35, 6 January 2023 review of submission by TylerBSS
isnt wikipedias goal to preserve everything? he has a video with over 100k views. please rereview this TylerBSS (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @TylerBSS: no, that isn't the goal of Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarise what it considers notable, which in most cases means topics that multiple independent and reliable published sources have previously covered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

17:35:13, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20
Tojoroy20 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References are credible enough and not just a passing mention of the subject. Sources discuss a lot about the subject and the subject's work, rather than entire articles being based on the subject. Most of the sources are media articles, and are based on accurate information.Some articles may not be directly about the subject, but they do not disprove the facts mentioned. Information about Slayy Point is also available on wikidata.( I would be like to know exactly which sources are not considered reliable or In depth )
 * Answered above.  please do not post multiple sections/queries.  S0091 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Request on 18:00:13, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Rockywriter88
examples of sources that can be added more? and not all museums add all artist book to there national collection of research.

Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to improve the page?

Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rockywriter88: what you're asking for is a review of the draft, but you have submitted it already and it will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to doing so, which may take weeks or even months, as there are c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review.
 * And please don't open a new thread with each question, just add them to your previous one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for your feedback. Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

20:28:24, 6 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared
Um... I copied multiple of them, but 7 HBO series pages needed them to be moved. Also, I need more sources to be added. CastJared (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @CastJared, it is unclear what your question is but the editor declined it as a POV fork. I see you have posted on several articles' talk pages but I do not see consensus and some were just posted yesterday. I suggest posting a note at WP:Television as well. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is content fork. CastJared (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

20:55:41, 6 January 2023 review of draft by A.Alex10
A.Alex10 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I added more references to the article. Can you please tell me if they are good? Can you please help me in making this article better? Good enough to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Alex10 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @A.Alex10 there's still several unsourced paragraphs. If sources are not available to support the content, then remove it.  We generally do not give reviews here so if you want another review, you need to resubmit it.  S0091 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Request on 21:27:25, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Addingcontentagain
Having trouble understandin the comments from reviewers.

I'm struggling navigating the requirements for new articles. For this specific entry, I get comments that sources aren't notable, reliable, secondary, or independent. However, having read the instructions about these terms, I feel that the sources used in the article indeed are notable (e.g., Wired), reliable (Public Service broadcaster ZDF), secondary (Netzpolitik), and independent (all of the above). Would appreciate hands-on pointers as to what to do next. thanks!

Addingcontentagain (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Addingcontentagain, the subject needs to be notable, not the source. The sources supporting notability of the subject need to meet all four criteria. Using Wired as an example, while it is generally a reliable source, there is no mention of "ACM Conference on Recommender Systems" or "ACM" for that matter so is not useful.  The Hindustan Times article, which is in-depth, is a Brand post so not reliable in this context or independent so again, not useful.  S0091 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight correction to my learned friend's comment, the Wired piece does mention the conference, but only in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)