Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 3

= July 3 =

08:04, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Albert.komar
Hello. Article submission was declined by the user Urban Versis 32 without specifying exactly why they found the article unsuitable. The phrase "appears to read more like an advertisement" is not an objective point of view but rather the user's opinion which was not supported by any arguments. The article is written in a neutral point of view. All statements are based on a range of independent and reliable sources. So if anyone could help me understand how the article can be improved, that would be very helpful. Albert.komar (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to disclose your conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

10:41, 3 July 2023 review of submission by 92.207.175.34
This has been turned down as the page already exists but actually it doesn't. The page called Mander Organs is for a company that went bust in 2020. This page is for F H Browne and Sons Ltd founded in 1871. It now owns and uses the trading name Mander Organ Builders but the prinicple firm F H Browne and Sons is a significant regional organ builder and it needs it's own page. Please can you help. 92.207.175.34 (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing "needs a page". Wikipedia has articles, not pages. If you are saying that a different company purchased the out of business company's name and is using it, that information should indeed be in the existing article. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat incongruous to argue that the two companies are separate (as implied by the suggestion that they warrant separate articles), yet the draft clearly refers to the same 1871/1936 provenance as the existing Mander Organs article. I think I'm right in saying that we don't usually have separate articles on each corporate incarnation; M&As, restructurings, changes in ownership, etc. are usually handled in the same article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

11:11, 3 July 2023 review of submission by 185.185.177.8
Hello, I wanted to make sure that the re-submission of the HepaRG draft is being reviewed because it is been more than 4 months since I didn't get any answer. I am afraid that you didn't receive the new submission. Thank you 185.185.177.8 (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As noted on the draft, it is active and pending. Patience is required, there are a limited number of volunteer reviewers. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

12:13:13, 3 July 2023 review of draft by Artofficialuae
I tried to update this article many times..but its rejected. Please help me to publish Artofficialuae (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Artofficialuae: this hasn't been rejected (yet), merely declined, and that's because it is almost entirely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. Unless and until you address those shortcomings, this will not be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * please let me know how I can I prove this persons notabilty other than with his works links and wiki links Artofficialuae (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * as stated above "it is almost entirely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability". All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). You have a very basic listing in a not very reliable source, and an article about his wife. KylieTastic (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

13:16, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Zwuyhaeb
i like to know why my aticle was rejected Zwuyhaeb (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Zwuyhaeb: this draft was rejected because there is no indication, let alone evidence, to suggest that the subject is in any way notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

13:31, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Anonymus people3
why kan i not poste lyserdommens Anonymus people3 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anonymus people3: because this is an encyclopaedia (look it up), and that wasn't appropriate content in any sense of the word. Let's leave it there, shall we? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

14:16, 3 July 2023 review of submission by UniqueBoy01
Why my article deleted UniqueBoy01 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @UniqueBoy01: your draft hasn't been deleted, only declined. And the reason why it was declined is that it is almost entirely unreferenced, as indeed it says in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

14:40, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Md rehab
Sir, can you explain the problem a bit. And how to fix it Md rehab (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is this is an encyclopaedia not social media, not a place to promote yourself. KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

14:57, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Cars1472
Hi, I have rewritten my article: Draft:Tusker Cars and published it as a draft. Please could someone take a look at it to see if it will be approved or suggests any changes? Thank you:) Cars1472 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would decline it again, the draft seems to exist only to promote the company. Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there anything I can do to make it seem less promotional to you? Looking for any feedback that can be offered. Thank you. Cars1472 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can respond to the paid editing inquiry on your user talk page. Just FYI we don't need the whole url when you link to your draft(or any Wikipedia article or page), just place the title in double brackets( Draft:Tusker Cars ) 331dot (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All of your sources seem to be announcements of the routine business activities of the company, not sources that discuss what makes the company important/significant/influential as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

15:09, 3 July 2023 review of submission by 95.69.126.29
We can’t do nothing to nothing? 95.69.126.29 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not a question, and in any case I'm not sure what it means, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

15:46, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Adnoble001
I saw it said This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. How should do to make this topic notable? Need more news? or facts or something else? Adnoble001 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't "make this topic notable". No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

18:25, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Bwthhybl
Hello! I posted earlier about a few questions I had about the process of getting an article approved from Wikpedia. I am still in the process of working on this article and it is currently in queue. I was wondering if there was any way to check where in the queue your article is in during review? Furthermore, I understand that there are different classes of Wikipedia articles and I was wondering how to check what class your article submission might be in/if being an A-Class article makes it more likely to be reviewed and approved.

Thanks! Bwthhybl (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't really a queue, drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. Are you editing that draft with a different account? 331dot (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bwthhybl: which draft would that be? The one you've linked in your question doesn't exist, and there is nothing in your edit history to suggest you've submitted or even edited a draft.
 * Anyway, to answer your question, there is no 'queue'; there is, if anything, a pool. Meaning, drafts are not processed on FIFO or any such basis, but rather reviewers select drafts based on whatever their own criteria may be. From this it follows that there is no way when a particular draft will be reviewed, or how long after submission it might take.
 * The rating can only be meaningfully estimated once the draft is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see! Thank you. I'm beginning to work on the draft but I haven't made any updates because I want my edits to be very substantial. I was wondering again about the A Class criterion and if making your article as "A:Class as possible" can help expediate the process or if like you mentioned the pool is constant and unchanging. Bwthhybl (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bwthhybl: the rating (even theoretically speaking) of a draft has no bearing on how long it takes to get reviewed. I wouldn't worry about that for now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ much of the review process is random but junk is often declined/rejected/deleted in the first day. After that it can be by picked up by random selection or picked up by reviewers who work in certain topic areas more than others. However if unfortunate to get to be one of the oldest in the !queue (that's a not queue, just queue ish) currently at 4 months it will again be more likely to be picked up. What can, but is not guaranteed to help, is being well sourced with reliable sources, a few things are unsourced and making his notability clear. If the lead paragraph of an article has the claims and sources to show notability (See WP:NBASIC) then it is more likely a passing reviewer would accept. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

20:37, 3 July 2023 review of submission by The Green Star Collector
Not really a question, but I created the article Disappearance of Adele Marie Wells several months ago, so this draft can be deleted now. Thank you. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out how to delete the draft on my own, so I figured I'd just address it here. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Drafts are automatically marked for deletion after six months of inactivity, or you may make an author request speedy deletion request by placing at the top of the draft(as it appears when viewing this page, not as it appears in the edit window where I have added coding to suppress its function here). 331dot (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

21:34, 3 July 2023 review of submission by Deanforrest
I am trying to create an article about this relatively new international membership organization. I keep getting rejected, due to a failure to have enough "published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject

While I have included several independent citations, most of the citations to this society have been published in peer-reviewed journals that are also "official journals" of the organization that created the society. I attempted to model this new site after the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which has a very nice wikipage. On their page, I note that all of their citations are to IEEE materials and publications. While IAHSI is not as big as IEEE, in the field of medical informatics, which is much smaller than electrical engineering, it is the highest level honorary society with an international membership of over 150 individuals and growing every year. When I compare the IAHSI site, with other similar scientific membership organizations, I don't see any difference in the "independence" of the citations. One could argue that these peer-reviewed journals are independent of the organization that sponsors them, in much the same manner as the IEEE publications are independent from the IEEE organization. I'm at a loss for how to proceed. Deanforrest (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I gather that you are probably affiliated with this organization. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" in the link)
 * You have a common, fundamental misunderstanding as to what we do here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does(you did that well, by the way).  A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The fact that you say this is a new organization means that probably it does not yet merit an article, as it probably has not received the requisite coverage in independent sources that have chosen on their own(and not based on materials from the organization like press releases/interviews/routine activities) to say what makes the organization important/significant/influential in some way. If that's true, there is nothing you can do about it.
 * Beware in citing other articles as an example or model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.  We can only address what we know about.  If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

22:20, 3 July 2023 review of submission by 2600:6C50:97F:F9DB:EC07:B911:663A:E14E
I feel this submission does have adequate sources. Can you please help me resolve this so it can be accepted? 2600:6C50:97F:F9DB:EC07:B911:663A:E14E (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have adequate sourcing. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)