Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 8

= March 8 =

04:03:43, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Ghostofdarrenseals
Ghostofdarrenseals (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)It is important to consider that there are many articles on Wikipedia about other TEDx events, such as TEDx SantaCruz or TEDx Lagos, which share many similarities with TEDxScotlandville. Therefore, it would be unfair and biased to single out TEDxScotlandville for deletion without considering these other articles.

Additionally, the TEDxScotlandville article is well-sourced and provides valuable information about the event, including its significance in being the first TEDx event in the state of Louisiana that a Mayor-President of a City-Parish and the Chief of Police has spoken at, and its commitment to promoting diverse perspectives and voices.

It is important to evaluate articles based on their own merits and adherence to Wikipedia's criteria for notability and encyclopedic reference, rather than any perceived bias. Therefore, deleting the TEDxScotlandville article solely based on its similarities with other articles would not be appropriate.

08:20:26, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Hyccc20
Hello, I recently revised the old draft I used to edit in the past since there has been more press coverage for the game I've been waiting for. If anyone could review the draft page, it would be great! Hyccc20 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Hyccc20 the draft was rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. You are welcome are reach out to the editor who rejected it and provide them with WP:THREE to see if they will reconsider but you need to address your potential conflict of interest first.  I left you some additional information on your talk page.  S0091 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was still a bit lot on what I should working on, and this will help me out so much.
 * I will reflect on the suggestion and reach out to the editor, and provide them with new sources I found about the draft.
 * Thank you for the help! Hyccc20 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

08:42:37, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Healey100
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me with my draft. It has just had its first rejection on the grounds "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia".

I've tried to be as independent and neutral as I can, and all the sources and links are independent articles. If I left any information I have added out, I think it would be removing important historical information, and I've included both good, bad, and neutral information about the company. I have also tried to add minimal information that is not independently verifiable.

Would someone be able to have a look over my article and give me some more specific things to work on / edit / remove. I've looked at quite a few other company pages and the main difference I see is that, in general, they include more information that is not independently verifiable. I am not sure that is the answer, as the guidelines state they want independently verifiable information - but maybe there is a balance that I have not met?

If anyone can point to some good examples I can try and follow or any other tips then that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Healey100 (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Healey100, first be mindful of WP:REFBOMB. Generally, only on source is needed to support a fact.  I looked through a handful of the sources and they are mostly what the company says about itself (interviews, their comments, etc.) which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and should only be used sparingly to support content. Also, Express is not a reliable source so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - Thanks for the feedback. I will update as you suggest. Healey100 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

09:01:23, 8 March 2023 review of submission by 122.53.41.214
cilck Resubmit and moved in the article space ok 122.53.41.214 (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed after some time. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected on 13 March, and it will not be considered further. David10244 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 10:21:14, 8 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonas.usa
Hello I need a help from an experienced Wikipedian to help with wikipedia guidelines and to rewrite and improve the article content maybe someone can help. Thanks in advance

Jonas.usa (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @jonas.usa: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

15:11:01, 8 March 2023 review of draft by Walnuthillstreet
I thought that I made the necessary changes based on feedback from reviewers to get this topic approved but am still being told i have unverified sources. Since i believe that i have the minimum of verifiable sources should i just remove any information that doesn't fit that criteria OR is there something else that is incorrect? I greatly appreciate your help with this!

Walnuthillstreet (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Walnuthillstreet To make it easy for you I will tag every unsourced claim, then you can find sources or remove the claims. When you add a reference remember to remove the corresponding tag that I've added. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks so much Roger i really appreciate your taking the time to review this i will make the adjustments you suggested and hopefully get it right this time. thanks again Walnuthillstreet (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Walnuthillstreet Where the draft says "he has produced credits", do you mean "producer credits"? David10244 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes David thanks for noticing will also edit Walnuthillstreet (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Walnuthillstreet OK, good. David10244 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 15:53:36, 8 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by CP Bhambhu
First AfC, created by me, has been declined. What to do next?

These are the reasons to decline AfC -

1. This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

2. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Help me to get AfC published. Thanks

CP Bhambhu (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @CP Bhambhu Phrases like "The story of Preeti Chandra is quite motivating. She comes from a humble jat family" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.   Unless, of course, you can provide a reference where someone states that her story is motivating. You would also need a reference where someone says that she came from a humble family.  Wikipedia articles are written from what the published sources say.  An article shouldn't read like you are praising her.  First, find the reliable, independent sources, where other people have written about her as described in WP:YFA, and then write the draft based on what those sources say.  Good luck. David10244 (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank CP Bhambhu (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

18:12:34, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo
am asking for a re review of the articles because unlike the last person who tried created it i saw that he never kept the references of the artist proof and there were some aspects where he had no adequate info of the figure or entity hope you review it with care for i believe i have provided some good reference and right information. Mambomo (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This was rejected because it has no reliable independent sources, you have re-submitted it with zero improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

19:37:17, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo
Minor error changed i entered the knowledge panel link Mambomo (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

23:06:07, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mooretwin
I don't understand why this article has been rejected. First, it meets the Wikipedia Football Project WikiProject Football/NotabilityAnotability criteria for football clubs, i.e. teams that have played in the national cup. Second, I have provided two sources (Brodie and Brewster) that are both in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable secondary, and independent of the subject. Grateful for further explanation/advice.

Mooretwin (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mooretwin the criteria you linked is an essay, not the guideline. See WP:NSPORTS for the guidelines. Also, I the only thing I could find on the book Up The Limbs is a Facebook post so it is unclear if it is a reliable source and no page numbers are provided for A Hundred Years of Irish Football.  S0091 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)