Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 23

= June 23 =

01:56, 23 June 2023 review of submission by Learnology
I have done every edits that I have to what should be added now in this article what should I add more please someone give me suggestions what can I add now in this article. Learnology (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Learnology You need references; there are none. See WP:REFB. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * has been blocked indefinitely as an alleged sock of . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 23:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

05:22, 23 June 2023 review of submission by Wasd1331
The pen is now widely talked about online on sites like 4chan.org reddit.com and twitter.com It has become a meme and I think memes should be included on wikipedia, since they are by definition, culturally significant to thousands, or millions of humans. Wasd1331 (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wasd1331: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of insignificant trivia like memes, which are here today and gone tomorrow. If in five years' time this pen is still being talked and written about in reliable and independent media, you can come back and try again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

06:00:35, 23 June 2023 review of draft by IValmirM
Mainly because this is my first article about a living person, and I am a beginner on this. I would very much like to see where are my mistakes, what can I do to improve such articles for the future

IValmirM (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @IValmirM: you will get a full review when you submit your draft, but on a quick glance the referencing seems inadequate, with several unsupported passages, and the tone is quite promotional. It's also not clear whether and how this person meets any of the notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I submitted the draft. What did I do wrong? Anyway, I will see if I can address these issues. IValmirM (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

10:45, 23 June 2023 review of submission by Lizardy Wizard
I have added information and cited all my work properly. Please re-review my work. Lizardy Wizard (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lizardy Wizard: are you using two different accounts to edit this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Three, apparently: see edit history of Draft:Aditi dugar. 2A00:23EE:2610:548B:44AF:7EFF:FEFB:44CC (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

10:52, 23 June 2023 review of submission by Arjun Dugar 2204
Please do a re-review Arjun Dugar 2204 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Arjun Dugar 2204: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

14:35, 23 June 2023 review of submission by IranMine123
Hello, a while ago I posted an article and submitted it. I get the Result and it says "Discord and Github are not reliable sources." I know but if the Official Cities just be there how I can make it so the article gets approved? I agree with Github because that's not verified by Github but about Discord I get cites from their official discord that Discord Company Verified. if this doesn't work how I can make the article better when I don't have enough resources on Reliable Sources.

this is not a report and this is for asking help so how I can make the article approved and have official cities from Non-Reliable sources. thank you.

article: Draft:Fractureiser

IranMine123 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @IranMine123: you may have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. We are only interested in what reliable sources have said about a topic. You create an article by summarising such sources. If you cannot find reliable sources to summarise, then by definition you cannot create an article. And not only that, but for notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, those reliable sources must be secondary and independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. The Discord and Github that you're citing fail the WP:GNG notability standard on all counts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * what about their official site (support.curseforge.com) or maybe twitter? IranMine123 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @IranMine123: Twitter is even worse than the others. Anyone can tweet literally whatever pops into their head – and frequently do.
 * Their (?) official website can be used to verify straightforward, non-contentious facts such as release dates, but not much beyond that. And being a close primary source, their website doesn't contribute towards notability at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your help. I think the article can't get approved😅 IranMine123 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

17:02, 23 June 2023 review of submission by DocSully
I have removed quite a bit of information about this location and it keeps getting rejected. Sources are cited from from the owner and builder of the location. DocSully (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @DocSully, that's the problem. What they about themselves is not useful.  What you need are reputable sources unaffiliated with the museum then summarize what they say about it.  A quick Google News search suggests it may be notable (ex. this news article). The draft will likely be deleted due to promotional and copyright issues but you can start a new draft.  However, you will need to take an entirely different approach.   S0091 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it's ok to use those sources for information that you write in the article. But in order for the place to qualify for a wikipedia article at all, we need to see secondary sources talking about it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As said, use of this sort of source is acceptable, but an article should not be primarily based on them, and, besides, Wikipedia generally needs coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability. WP:ABOUTSELF, and, of course, WP:GNG, may be of help. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

18:56:35, 23 June 2023 review of draft by Cookie dough dingus
I recently had my article declined for not having reliable sources, however, another article that is similar to this one got accepted, and has similar sources (such as NCES), Recent reviewers said NCES is not a reliable source, however the similar page got accepted, can you tell me why?

J.A. (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cookie dough dingus: just to clarify, your draft was declined because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable, which is done by citing sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and with the exception of #4, all the sources cited are primary.
 * As for any other articles that may exist out there, these are not strictly relevant as we don't assess drafts with reference to existing articles, but to the applicable guidelines and policies. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) If you have found articles that don't meet the notability or other requirements, you are welcome to improve them, or if that isn't possible, to nominate them for deletion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

19:16, 23 June 2023 review of submission by Konnect.369
Hi there,

Could you please provide more details about the specific statements that need to be sourced and how I would source Muraly's Date of birth?

Thank you. Konnect.369 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Konnect.369: pretty much everything needs to be referenced. Some information, such as private personal and family details, and anything potentially contentious, absolutely must be clearly supported by immediate inline citations to reliable published sources. But for everything else you also need to tell us where you got that information, so that it can be verified. As for the date of birth, you ask how you would "source" it – my question to you is, where did you get that piece of information from? Cite that source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft article only has four sources. Every fact and statement in the article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. The easiest way to do this is to find sources that cover Muraly in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft.
 * Note that the sources must be:
 * - Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources and published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
 * - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
 * - Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
 * - From multiple places:You should find at least three separate strong, reliable, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
 * Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't source his date of birth, remove it from the article. This is for privacy reasons, as a courtesy to the article's subject. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

20:18, 23 June 2023 review of submission by VrbAlxssandro
pls let up I want pls wikipedia awsom I wan artikl up pls pls pls :3 VrbAlxssandro (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @VrbAlxssandro. Your article has been Rejected and will therefore never become an article; there is nothing you can do. You do not seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. All articles about people must pass the Notability (people) threshold: you are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Finally, even if you were notable (you are not.), you should not write an article about yourself due to the clear conflict of interest.
 * Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

21:30, 23 June 2023 review of submission by 50.76.41.29
Please reinstate the draft so it can be edited for acceptance. 50.76.41.29 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it has been rejected. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)