Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 19

= June 19 =

03:48, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Sujansiddhi
Deleted with the message:

10:21, 18 June 2023 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Draft:Sareeta Shri Gyawali (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Notability (people}) (thank)

I was wondering why the article was deleted? while similar article are already there. Also there were reliable references too. Sujansiddhi (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because it was unambiguous promotion. See WP:NPOV. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And as for the other similar articles: it may be that those articles are adequately sourced, and neutrally written, as yours wasn't (it can be difficult to judge whether wording is promotional when you are close to the subject); or it may be that those articles should be deleted as well. We have thousands of articles which were created long ago, before we were as careful with our standards: ideally these would all be improved or deleted, but Wikipedia is created by volunteers who work on what they choose to work on. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

08:18, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Karla.koala
Hello, I am asking for help because this has been the second time my article has been declined (for a different reason than the first). So I was wondering if someone could take a detailed look and tell me more closely what needs to be changed. Lately it was critizised that the article relies way too much on non-independent sources. It would really be helpful for me, if someone could tell me, which sources that I used exactly are considered non-independent. Also I have a more general question relating to this: I used some sources, that might not be independend and therefore not reliable on their own, but I always backed up one claim by multiple sources from different backgrounds which tell the same story. Doesn't this make it reliable when considered as one big picture? Thanks a lot! Karla Karla.koala (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Interviews with the person you are writing about are not independent, as it is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for your advise. The information I relied on in this interview is exclusively the biographical facts the journal added at the beginning and the end of the article, which I supposed they researched as an independent actor. Should I still remove this source because it seems on the face to be non-independent or is there a way for me to make it visible in the citation, that I am not citing the interview itself, but the information given by the journal surrounding it? Thanks in advance! Karla.koala (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that you posted at the Teahouse(in the future please only use a single forum to request assistance, to avoid duplicating effort); I would concentrate on summarizing your best three sources before worrying about details beyond that. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ok sorry, I was not sure which one is the better forum or even if someone would answer me, if I didn't try everything. Karla.koala (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

08:46, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Heandrews
How can I add more data to get sumbitted and approved? Heandrews (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You can't; rejection means that resubmission is no longer possible. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

11:42, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Maxclayman
Is anyone able to provide me with some feedback on what I can do to improve the chances of my draft getting accepted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nate_Wilbourne Much appreciated!!!! Maxclayman (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Maxclayman reviewers have asked you what makes him notable. Many people are environmentalists and activists. What is particularly notable about this one? -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He gave a TEDx Talk, has worked for national environmental organisations, and also worked with School Strike 4 Climate NZ Maxclayman (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * that's not particularly notable. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

13:10, 19 June 2023 review of submission by 2601:582:8101:12C0:2868:2C8D:2746:234E
i think this should be sourced enough now? 2601:582:8101:12C0:2868:2C8D:2746:234E (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You have resubmitted the draft, so the reviewer will make a determination. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This was declined and then moved to main space by a sock, I have sent if to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

17:16, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Mgifford
I am confused why I have not clearly established that she is a notorious person who should be in wikipedia. Mgifford (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mgifford.
 * You may not understand what "Notability" means in the Wikipedia context. Creating a Wikipedia article that meets notability standards requires careful attention to the sourcing and structuring of the content. Please read the Notability (people) policy.
 * To sum up:
 * - Reliable Sources: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources. These sources should be independent of the subject (not self-published or from the subject's own website) and published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Significant Coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - Multiple Sources:You should find at least three strong, reliable sources that discuss your subject. If all of your information comes from a single source, it may not be enough to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
 * Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

20:34, 19 June 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez
Been trying to get this page published for a few years now. Would love some guidance. Hickeygamez (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hickeygamez Find something else to do on Wikipedia. Seriously, that journal has a long way to go before it might (or might not) become notable. The section about the antisemitism controversy does not help as its sources do not discuss the journal to any significant extent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate any type of reply. But I just don't understand the difference between this journal and a Wikipedia published journal like Medical Teacher or any of the journals on this page: List of medical journals. Is it just the size of the journal? Hickeygamez (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists. We consider each article or draft on its own merits.  The existence of other poor articles is not a reason to add more poor articles. The Medical Teacher article has had few edits since 2010 when it was created, standards were much different then. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles.  331dot (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that. What I can't seem to find is an example of an academic journal that fits the criteria. Can you point me to a journal that would fit the "good article" definition? As journals publish other people's works and are rarely the subject in and of themselves, I wonder how to find secondary sources. I originally had cited independent websites that described the journal, but I was told that there was no way to determine if CMEJ just fed them the bio (e.g. https://www.cfms.org/what-we-do/education/cmej). Hickeygamez (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hickeygamez There is some academic journal specific advice at WP:JOURNALCRIT. Given that it is a very recent journal, I would not expect it to be notable. Here is an example of a stub article for a notable journal: Speculum (journal). -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Can you give me some feedback here? A few times I've been told that it is too small or too new, but the Notability Wiki specifically size that size and age are not factors. Based on the Journal Criteria:
 * Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.... The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. CMEJ was recently accepted for inclusion with MEDLINE.
 * Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. According to Google Scholar, CMEJ's citations have over doubled since 2019. Though still small, that shows considerable growth.
 * Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area. CMEJ is the leading Medical Education journal in Canada. Hickeygamez (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be frank if you have been told that the journal is too new and too small a few times, that likely means it is too new and too small.
 * One service is insufficient, this guideline refers to multiple services/indices.
 * This might be the closest you are in terms of notability, but you still need to demonstrate that it is "frequently cited".
 * "The leading medical education journal in Canada" according to who? And when? This can't be a recent conclusion to meet "historically important".
 * You seem to be very invested in this draft(trying for years); do you have a connection to this journal? 331dot (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am just confused, I guess, because the Notability Wikipedia page says that size and age don't matter, so I don't understand how an organization can be considered too new or too small.
 * In terms of "leading medical education journal in Canada" - that was primarily based on this history of CMEJ article:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082485/ However, I deleted it because I was told it couldn't source itself. However, this is also a quote from the notability wiki: Most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal. So, to me, a peer-reviewed article about their history seems to be a reliable self-source.
 * The citation doubling metric was based on their Google Scholar page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8DYMTzQAAAAJ&hl=en
 * As to the connection to the journal - I used to be a proofreader for them back when I started the page, and Declared a Connection back then. I no longer do that, but still wanted to see this wikipedia page to fruition since I value medical education. Hickeygamez (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that being small and new is the problem that makes it non-notable; it's that being small and new means it is very unlikely to be notable. I didn't say "given that it is a very recent journal, it is not notable". You should absolutely leave in the history of CMEJ article! I think you may have misunderstood someone telling you "that doesn't count for notability" as "remove it"? It's a perfectly reliable source - just not independent.
 * That it's in MEDLINE is good. But it's only one, and only recently. Also, it doesn't fulfil the other two criteria. "Citations have doubled since 2019" is true of a journal that had 1 citation in 2019 and now has 2. If it is a very highly cited journal, we do care about that. But the link you gave earlier, which shows the highest-cited articles, suggests to me that this is not an unusually highly cited journal, since the top-cited article in the entire journal only has 49 citations. It's not historically important - it's only existed for a bit more than a decade. Unless some truly transformational article or something was published in it, I don't see how anyone could argue for its historic importance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That it's in MEDLINE is good. But it's only one, and only recently. Also, it doesn't fulfil the other two criteria. "Citations have doubled since 2019" is true of a journal that had 1 citation in 2019 and now has 2. If it is a very highly cited journal, we do care about that. But the link you gave earlier, which shows the highest-cited articles, suggests to me that this is not an unusually highly cited journal, since the top-cited article in the entire journal only has 49 citations. It's not historically important - it's only existed for a bit more than a decade. Unless some truly transformational article or something was published in it, I don't see how anyone could argue for its historic importance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)