Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 31

= March 31 =

00:01:56, 31 March 2023 review of draft by 122.53.46.31
my draft as 10 refs and done 122.53.46.31 (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This was discussed, on two different dates I believe, at the Teahouse. You have been given answers over there. Let us know if you have trouble understanding the info you have been given. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at AfD. David10244 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And rejected. David10244 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

01:08:46, 31 March 2023 review of draft by IrisSpine
Hi there! I am trying to edit the page Michael Alan Herman and I received a notice that the sources are not professional/all primary, but I included sources from Deadline and Fangoria. I'm curious about what I am doing wrong. Am I citing the sources wrong? Thank you for your time and help!

IrisSpine (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @IrisSpine: notability per WP:GNG requires multiple published sources that are at once secondary, published, reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of the topic. The three sources you're citing in this latest version of the draft are all about the podcast, making only passing mentions of Herman, and they therefore fail the significant coverage requirement of the notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate your time and expertise here. I have more sources in there that discus Michael's career now. IrisSpine (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

02:00:46, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Kaunitzj
I am new to Wikipedia and thought I would submit an article on this topic of some popular interest not currently covered in Wikipedia. In light of reviews which declined the submission I have modified the article and/or otherwise responded to the issues raised by various reviewers on their talk pages. However the article was then declined by other reviewers who do not seem to be familiar with the topic or my previous responses.

I thought that Wikipedia would welcome such submissions providing user friendly explanations of technical topics in the public domain and their history. However, the predisposition appears to be to find reasons to reject articles and the whole process of publication to me is a bit mysterious. I feel like I am running an interminable obstacle course blindfolded. It seems any of many reviewers can decline an article, one after the other, but it is not clear to me who is able to or will eventually approve it. Can you please clarify this and point me to the review/approval process for draft articles?

I recognize that Wikipedia wishes to exercise quality control and have read and strived to conform to guidelines. However, this seems to be a case of throwing out the baby with the the bathwater. Had it not been for a finally realistic supportive comment on the talk pages of the article I would have already given up.

John Kaunitz (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kaunitzj: besides voicing your dissatisfaction with various aspects of Wikipedia, do you have a question you wish to ask? The draft is awaiting review, and its talk page is already filled with debate, which I'm sure we don't need to repeat here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not voiced “dissatisfaction with various with various aspects of Wikeipidea. If I did not think it was a worthwhile enterprise I would not have bothered to contribute and make donations and I did ask a question: can you please clarify who can and will approve articles and point me to the review/approval process for draft articles? John Kaunitz (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When you submit a draft for review, any Articles for Creation reviewer is able to review it and accept, decline, or reject it. You have submitted your draft for review, which means that it will be reviewed at some point – that is really all that any of us knows, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information you provided, much appreciated. I have also discovered/read the tab at the top of this page Reviewing Instructions: Helper Script that was very informative and helpful in answering my question. I followed the approval flow chart and it seemed to me the article passed the tests therein. Hopefully the next reviewer will agree. Perhaps you can also tell me or point to information: How do the  reviewers who can approve Articles for Creation qualify/selected? John Kaunitz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See here: . -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

06:00:13, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Anupamashankarnewgen
My page that I have submitted has got rejected, need help with understanding the same. Anupamashankarnewgen (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anupamashankarnewgen: it hasn't been rejected. Reject means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can. Which you have. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Anupamashankarnewgen (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anupamashankarnewgen The references are not properly formatted. Please see WP:REFB. David10244 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

06:56:12, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Hemantpateria
Why My article is rejected, I wrote the content for someone else, Also shared too much resources, still it declined by wikipedia

Hemantpateria (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hemantpateria: it hasn't been rejected, it has been declined. And the reason for this was that it is poorly sourced and promotional.
 * When you say you "wrote the content for someone else", what do you mean by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please help me in approving that content Hemantpateria (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hemantpateria: you will simply need to summarise, in your own words, what you can find about the subject in independent and reliable sources (which definition excludes many of the ones you are currently citing), and do so in a neutral and factual manner without any embellishments or 'spin'. Note that this will mean a fairly comprehensive rewrite of the draft.
 * First, though, you need to provide more details of your relationship with the subject of this draft. I have posted another message on your user talk page about conflicts of interest (COI), which judging by your earlier comments you may have, even if you're not being paid to write this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

08:58:03, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Emrekaracaoglu
Hello, the article I have submitted on the Turkish poet "Yavuz Özdem" has been flagged yet again. This is the warning from the editor: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." I reviewed this article earlier and did include online citations as required, by referring to "referencing for beginners" and other existing articles. However, the article has been flagged for removal again. I sincerely do not understand what is wrong with the article when it does include inline citations. Your help would be appreciated.

Emrekaracaoglu (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft has only one source and that is not enough for a WP:BLP each substantive fact will require sourcing and you need to show how they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Emrekaracaoglu: it includes precisely one inline citation, which is nowhere near enough to support the contents. Please see WP:BLP. Basically, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

10:14:15, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Narwar001
I’m requesting for re-review it because I wanted to publish an article Narwar001 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Narwar001: there's really nothing there to review. This is not a viable article draft. See also WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

16:33:03, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Amol1332
Amol1332 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Amol1332: you don't ask a question, but your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't be considered further. I say 'such as it is', because there is very little there, and certainly not enough to be a viable article. In any case, it seems you have attempted to write about yourself, which is very strongly advised against; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)