Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 25

= May 25 =

00:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Kc0uuf
article and subject matter reference multiple Federal links and 3rd party links for reference establishing and need to know about an educational radio station duly licensed. this is the 3rd time our station page has been removed! our official wikipedia worked was permanently banned the other day for attempting to create the page and was flagged his account as spam! then someone redirected our station call letters klzy-lp to kqmy creating a conflict of interest and rerouting any possible reference to klzy to them and potentially a financial loss if wikipedia was used to verify the existence of KLZY. So I get involved the agent of the board and present a new copy with more then adequate federal and 3rd party references. KLZY, KLZY-LP are under the ownership of Chloe Broadcasting Inc and have NO AFFILIATION with kqmy and further no reason the page sohould not be published on the basis of referance. Kc0uuf (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hgnmusic is the username that was perm blocked as spam when he was doing our official wiki work. not only should the page be be create and reference or redirect to KQMY should be remove and Hgnmusic should have there account restored so someone that know wikipedia can continue work on our publication! Kc0uuf (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, it appears you would have a financial interest in editing Wikipedia. As such, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI and make the appropriate disclosures. In addition, please only edit and submit a single draft. There is one located at Draft:KLZY-LP so no need to submit anything you are working on in your sandbox. You can edit and submit the draft that already exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

02:32, 25 May 2023 review of submission by TronPuzzle
I would like to have some help in create an article about Pol Corpas Cuatrecasas, how can I make the news reliable TronPuzzle (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @TronPuzzle: it's not a question of "making the news reliable" (whatever that means), it's a question of supporting the article contents properly with referencing – for example, which source gives this person's date of birth? And that's just one example, most of the information is unreferenced. This may be partly because you perhaps don't know how to construct references correctly, and for that reason I've suggested that you should look up WP:REFB for advice. (I also have my doubts whether this person is notable, but I'll reserve judgment until proper referencing is there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

09:18, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Surendaragarwal
Shri Krishnayan Gorakshala Goshala

Surendaragarwal (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Surendaragarwal: do you have a question you would like to ask? (I will delete most of your post, this is not the place for such content.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

11:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Brar7
This article has been rejected twice due to references and notability. I have added 3 references from news articles. I could not find notability issues as there are several news articles covering this actor. Can you help to resolve issues with this article and make it go live on Wikipedia. I want to resolve issues before resubmitting for review. &#8211; Brar  (Talk)  11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means resubmission is possible. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Interviews do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

12:35, 25 May 2023 review of submission by ABDALLA BIN SAEED1
Request for Assistance in Writing a Wikipedia Article

Dear Wikipedia Editing Community

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek your valuable assistance in creating a Wikipedia article for the notable individual, Mohd Kaif, also known as Kaif Yamaan. I believe that Mohd Kaif's significant achievements and impact warrant a comprehensive and informative article on Wikipedia.

Mohd Kaif, a prominent Indian actor and influential social media personality, has captivated audiences with his exceptional talent and creative endeavors. Hailing from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Mohd Kaif has emerged as a leading figure in the digital world at a relatively young age. His dedication to producing quality content that ranges from motivational messages to evocative poetry has garnered a substantial following and inspired millions of people worldwide.

Throughout his career, Mohd Kaif has demonstrated a unique blend of authenticity, creativity, and a passion for making a positive impact. His videos, which are known for their inspirational messages and heartfelt expressions, have resonated deeply with his audience, empowering individuals to embrace their true selves and pursue their dreams. Mohd Kaif possesses an exceptional ability to connect with his followers on a personal level, making them feel seen, heard, and understood.

Apart from his digital presence, Mohd Kaif has made significant contributions to the acting industry. Renowned for his natural acting style and his ability to bring characters to life, he has garnered recognition and a strong fan base within the industry. His performances have showcased his versatility, dedication, and undeniable talent, further solidifying his position as a remarkable actor.

Furthermore, Mohd Kaif's influence extends beyond entertainment. As a practicing Muslim, he has used his platform to promote inclusivity, diversity, and cultural understanding. He has been a vocal advocate for unity and has leveraged his popularity to raise awareness about important social issues. Mohd Kaif's impact on individuals and communities goes beyond his artistic endeavors, positioning him as a trailblazer and a source of inspiration.

Given Mohd Kaif's significant accomplishments, his influence in the digital realm, and his contributions to the entertainment industry, I believe that a comprehensive Wikipedia article would provide an accurate and well-rounded representation of his life and work.

I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the information in the article, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I kindly request your assistance in structuring the article, properly citing sources, and ensuring that it meets the standards set by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for considering my request, and I sincerely appreciate any support or guidance you can offer to help create a well-researched and well-written Wikipedia article on Mohd Kaif.

Warm regards, Abdalla Bin Saeed ABDALLA BIN SAEED1 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @ABDALLA BIN SAEED1: this draft was deleted because it was promotional, with no evidence that the subject is notable. You are welcome to write about this topic, but you must do so in a neutral and factual manner, referencing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. In fact, combining both those points, you shouldn't write what or how you want to write about this person, you should only really summarise (in your own words, but without putting any sort of spin or slant on it) what published sources have previously said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

13:37, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Abidalikashmiri
I want to create an article for a fictional book. I have already submitted for review but it has been declined and I don't know the reasons. May you help please Abidalikashmiri (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Abidalikashmiri: you're welcome to write about any topic (within reason and some qualifiers) that is notable. If your 'fictional' book (which I assume means just that, not merely a book of fiction) only exists in your imagination, then it won't have received any coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources, let alone won any major literary awards etc., and therefore is rather unlikely to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - I think they meant this draft McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks; seems I caught the wrong end of this particular stick... apart from the point about lack of notability, perhaps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Disputing Declined Articles for creation: Geodatabase (Esri)
Posting this on behalf of Bplewe as I'm invested in this as well and a bit frustrated.

Among GIS users, Geodatabases are one of the single most common file types. There are textbooks on them from both ESRI and 3rd party publishers. Geodatabases are designed to largely replace the Shapefile, another ESRI file type that has its own page. The page Spatial database mentions them briefly, but geodatabases are among the most common types of spatial database. While they are an ESRI file format, open source software like QGIS uses them as well. In my opinion, the page Draft:Geodatabase (Esri) is a good start in describing these. As a professional geographer, I use these every day. As a TA, I've helped teach an entire course titled "Geodatabase design," and every GIS class I've taken, taught, or helped teach has involved them to some degree. While the draft needs work (as does all of Wikipedia), I argue that this is an incredibly important topic for someone trying to understand the current state of GIS.

Failing this, the content in the draft of Geodatabases should be merged into a very large section on the spatial database page.

I fail to understand why this page is declined when other similar pages, that are less well cited, exist.

Thank you for your time. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @GeogSage: taking your last point first, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't assess drafts with reference to existing articles, but with reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. There undoubtedly are articles out there which are not perfect, but that does not mean we should intentionally create more such problems. (And if you have come across any that you feel don't meet the required standards for publication, feel free to improve them or else start deletion proceedings.)
 * This draft has been declined for apparent lack of notability. As I'm sure you know as an experienced Wikipedian, notability doesn't arise from how 'popular' or 'important' or 'commonly-used' etc. something is; it arises (in most cases, including this) from significant coverage the subject has received in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If the authors of this draft can cite sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, this draft may be accepted; otherwise, not. As noted by the reviewers, primary sources aren't enough to establish notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. The point comparing to existing articles conceded, I strongly disagree with the decision that this topic is lacking notability.
 * In the document, we attempted to be both accurate and cite outside topics. ESRI Press in GIS produces textbooks and media on their software, which can be hard to avoid as they are often the best sources to actually describe the topic. Where it wasn't awkward, we did try to bring in outside textbooks and journal articles, however. We included one textbook that was 3rd party, and two peer reviewed journals that use the word "geodatabase" in the title. We also included several textbooks that touch on the topic but don't use it in the title. A quick search on google scholar here shows many peer reviewed journals using the word "geodatabase" in their title. While the article might be a start class, I think there is enough information to show that it is noteable. According to Notability, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." I believe that the scope of the topic demonstrated by a casual search on Google Scholar should be enough to meet this criteria. Digging deeper into the literature, we could look at the studies that employ geodatabases anywhere in their methodology and include many redundant citations. In future iterations of this article, an "applications" section could be included that could reference these articles in more detail, but I believe that is unnecessary for notability.
 * The notability already demonstrated with just the two peer reviewed journal articles, combined with multiple textbooks, 3rd party postings, and documentation from ESRI seems adequate in my opinion. According to the Help:Referencing for beginners page, the two peer reviewed journals and textbooks are good sources. My concern is that if we were to simply remove the ~19 ESRI citations, and leave the 2 Peer reviewed journals, ~5 independent GIS textbooks, and independent websites, this would appear more noteable to editors but drop in quality. ESRI Press text books are published by the company that created geodatabases, but are authored by highly authoritative GIS professionals and are widely used in GIS classes and by professionals (and heavily cited on various GIS Wikipedia pages). Based on the Referencing for beginners wiki, while these textbooks are published by ESRI, they are authored by autoreactive sources and can be able to help establish notability. Based on Wikipedia's definitions, many of the ESRI press books are not primary sources, and are either secondary sources or tertiary. Secondary sources do not need to be independent of the topic to be secondary sources. In terms of content, the ESRI press books often provide better actual information on the topic then many of the assorted peer reviewed journals that make extensive use of them, but don't actually describe them in much detail. These books are often cited in peer reviewed journals to define key topics, and excluding them would make it difficult to write about many GIS topics. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @GeogSage: I'm not entirely sure what you want us here at the help desk to do? There is little point in debating the matter; the reviewers have expressed their opinion, and I've tried to expand on that, but if you're convinced that we're all wrong and the subject is genuinely notable, then you don't need to convince us – assuming you or the draft creator don't have a conflict of interest, you're welcome to move this to the main article space, given that you have extended confirmed rights. New page patrol will then run the ruler over it (and if it helps, I'm more than happy to recuse myself from that task) and decide its fate. Just be aware that if NPP sends it back to drafts, you're then stuck with us again; alternatively, they can propose deletion, and if that goes ahead then that in itself will make it more difficult to publish an article on this topic in the future). Having said all that, please proceed as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thanks for the feedback and assistance. I'm not the originator, but have been helping, so I don't know if it was already bumped from a mainspace page to drafts or not yet. I don't particularly want it and move it to mainspace unilaterally when it has already shown to be controversial, especially since the majority is not my personal work, and came here for I guess second/third opinions on the matter. I'm just a bit frustrated with this process at the moment, and am a bit dumbfounded that this of all topics is having a hard time making it. I'll create a section on applications and add to the talk page on the draft the link to the Google Scholar search results, and we'll go around submitting it again. Thanks again for the help. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 13:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

16:00, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Brar7
I have rewritten this article to include more information and also addressed copyright and references issues. Can you please review this again and move to Wikipedia from Drafts. Submitted for review. &#8211; Brar  (Talk)  16:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Brar7: now that you have resubmitted it, it will be reviewed when a reviewer comes across it, which may take days, weeks or longer. We don't provide fast-track re-reviews upon demand. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was rejected twice. I just want to know if the issues are addressed or anything more need to be done. I can still edit the article to improve it while waiting for approval. &#8211; Brar  (Talk)  16:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Three suggestions;
 * 1. Facts and citations
 * Example: You said, "Vyom Yadav is a young Indian actor."
 * Do you have a reference for someone saying he's a young Indian actor?
 * How can I, as a reader, check that it's true?
 * If someone edits the article and says he is old, how will I know the truth?
 * You said, "Vyom Yadav made his Bollywood debut with the Rajkummar Rao starrer film Badhaai".
 * Do you have a reference stating that?
 * ...and so on.
 * 2. Plagiarism. You said, "Vyom's parents initially desired a certain level of certainty in his career.". The reference says, "The actor revealed that his parents wanted of certainty in the child’s career.". See WP:PARAPHRASE.
 * 3. Hyperbole. "highly acclaimed", "widespread praise", "gained more exposure and recognition", "a significant impact", "talented grassroots-level actors", etc.
 * These are opinions, not facts.
 * WP:WEASEL
 * Above all, see WP:COI. Best of luck. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

18:43, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Klesatp
I've been tasked with creating a wiki page for etf.com to coincide with it's rebrand and relaunch. We've been going back and forth with submission declines. After numerous attempts to get the page accepted I'm reaching out to get some assistance on what exactly I can do to get this approved.

This is a task coming straight from the CEO. The article is not meant to read as an advertisement and just background on what etf.com is and help people when searching for us. Many other publications have a wiki that is written similar and they've been approved. Any clarification or feedback that you could provide would be much appreciated. Klesatp (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia your draft was just blatant advertising and will soon be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Have your boss read the page Theroadislong suggests too, as well as this message. You and your boss have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do.  It also is not a place to help marketing and rebranding efforts, or search results.  We have no interest in any of that. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- such as the definition of a notable company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field.  It depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that choose on their own to write about it, not based on materials from the company.
 * Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles does not mean that more should be added.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about.  That an article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.  We could use the help. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

19:42, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Calverson0204
The page was deleted because of advertising which I plan to fix and put more in a neutral tone so it is accepted. However, I lost all of the code stuff that was already in the source and do not know how to get that back. Calverson0204 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the infobox, I would worry less about that and more about meeting the notability requirements for authors and sourcing from reliable sources to summarize. Please read Your First Article.  If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

21:30, 25 May 2023 review of submission by 86.24.168.231
Help please. This clearly meets GNG, but I've been repeatedly admonished for submitting it. I added appropriate references, and a few more sentences. The big "STOP" message is quite alarming. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So it should be. It was twice declined and now it has been rejected with the message: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia," so, I'm sorry to say, it will not be considered further. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have eight sources to support a single line; that is reference bombing. I suggest that you review WP:GNG again; if this person meets it, you have not demonstrated that through a summary of what independent reliable sources say about them. That's why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "reference bombing", because the references are substantially about the person. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This would be more convincing if they were used to support any information in the article. What do the sources say about her? -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

21:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Chandrasekharmusic
How much time taken to review my page. Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OP blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)