Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 29

= May 29 =

00:04, 29 May 2023 review of submission by GR8M8
The article that was submitted and rejected. A neutral point of view was taken into consideration, and the article was provided with properly formatted references and citations. The user BuySomeApples reason for the rejection was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. While I appreciate BuySomeApples pointing out the Four Pillars, without providing any specifics to potentially correct the article for submission, and because of the ambiguous nature of the rejection, I would like to ask the Help Desk if they may be able to provide some assistance regarding this.

Looking forward to hearing back. SP1111 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * firstly, there is no need to "correct the article for submission", as this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.


 * I don't quite see what you mean when you say "neutral point of view was taken into consideration". This seems to me a borderline attack page.


 * In any case, for an article to be accepted into Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. Usually (per WP:GNG) this requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites none of these.


 * Investigative journalism certainly has a place in this world, but Wikipedia is not that place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarity. The quote you referenced was from Wikipedia's Four Pillars, not from me personally. I was pointing out my neutral point of view from one of those pillars.
 * On your last point, I appreciate your input and will take this into consideration moving forward with any future submissions. This is my first submission for an article, so I do appreciate the help. SP1111 16:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 (talk • contribs)

03:48, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Realisticboredom
Would it be ok for the Alice Megan & Friends article to exist if i cant find any information from in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, sources? Realisticboredom (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Realisticboredom: no, it would not "be ok for [this] to exist", because verifiability and notability are core requirements for any article to be published in Wikipedia, and both rely essentially on reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

05:42, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1
my article was enough to be accepted in fact more than enough 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the content "kogama is a fun and cool gaming website everything is user created and if you wanna have a chance to make a game then create an account" which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article however well sourced you think it is. Theroadislong (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * pls i need an article 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and i used independent and reliable scources 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and i have made a draft link: Draft:Kogama 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both drafts Draft:Kogama and Draft:Kogama gaming website are awaiting deletion. Please don't create any more. (Also, take a look at WP:CIR.) Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Both drafts have been deleted as advertising. If any further promotional content is submitted, this user will be blocked. Deb (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

10:13, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 103.58.41.2
Why you have rejected my article? 103.58.41.2 (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Because it's pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

12:13, 29 May 2023 review of submission by PSS356
Hi, I would like assistance editing the content to meet Wikipedia's requirements. So I would be glad for help and advice.

For more clarity, I have no connection to Webit. As I wrote to you, the founder is a very popular Bulgarian. From there, I learned about Webit, which is a good reason to be proud as Bulgarians. I believe that it will be good to create a Wikipedia page about the event.

I know that it must not be sponsored or paid for by someone to create such a page. I was surprised that the content was taken as being advertised.

I am interested in learning to create articles for Wikipedia. That's why I really need your help. I hope I can meet Wikipedia's requirements and achieve success in creating a page for this event. PSS356 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to address a specific user, you should use their user talk page to communicate with them directly. (in this case User talk:Rich Smith)
 * Just for reference here, tried to get advice on IRC but kept getting disconnected, so I advise they post here instead, they were not trying to address me directly (hence why I removed the @ at the top of their message) - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer you, though- please see the advice left on your draft by reviewers. You have provided numerous references(too many, really) but none of them have significant coverage of this event, discussing its importance/significance/influence as the source sees it, and demonstrating that this event meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event.
 * Just for your information, it is not forbidden for someone to make edits for payment, either specifically or through a relationship like employment, but the Terms of Use require paid editing to be disclosed- see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

12:57, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2A02:A465:D0BF:1:4168:C1E3:3C73:1B00
The reason for rejecting the current article on "Christoph Lüthy" argues that "all the sources are associated with Christoph Lüthy". This is not surprising given that this person is the subject of this voice. The important element seems to be that these sources have not been WRITTEN by Christoph Lüthy. For example, the website of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science is an independent source, as are the webpages of Brill Academic Publisher and the news site of Radboud University. Of course, all these sources mention Christoph Lüthy, which is why they are cited in support of the affirmations about him, but they have not been written by him. So how else could one find an independent source? Best regards, Gottardo 2A02:A465:D0BF:1:4168:C1E3:3C73:1B00 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to say that you are writing about yourself? While this is not forbidden, it is highly discouraged.  Please read the autobiography policy. The issue is not that the sources mention Christoph Lüthy, it is that they are all associated with him, such as places where he works.  Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources say about Christoph Lüthy without any involvement from him, not what things he is associated with say about him. If there are no such sources, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources associated with him are fine for the claims that would give him notability in this particular case, since they're WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

14:14, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 37.60.109.79
My article submission was denied 37.60.109.79 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are Codix1234, remember to log in before posting. Yes, your draft was declined. It is one sentence with one source- an article about a person must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

15:29, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Faraday5858
Flex LNG has a unique business story, and is also very relevant today given the energy shortage we have experienced in Europe. Hence - I would like ideas on how the site can be approved. Faraday5858 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of that indicates how they would pass the criteria at WP:NCORP so it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

20:26, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:71E6:5FF0:93F9:A6F1
i need an idea of what to add to this 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:71E6:5FF0:93F9:A6F1 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, the draft was deleted as it was deemed blatant advertising. See WP:NOTPROMO.  S0091 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

21:18, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 73.89.211.188
Please review and advise.

I don't understand why this submission was declined.

Reason for decline = Seems to be a genealogical piece, no evidence subject meets WP:GNG.

But it is NOT a genealogical piece and it is supported by valid references from reliable sources, including the New York Times. 73.89.211.188 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It isn't enough for the sources to be reliable, they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. This draft cites sources that offer passing mentions of, and works written by, the subject, none of which contributes towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

21:19, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Duplicity5510
Reviewer claims that primary sources don't mention the subject which is untrue. Can we check this submission again? What improvements should I make? Duplicity5510 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Duplicity5510 primary sources cannot be used to establish notability and should only be used sparingly so all the justice.gov cites are largely unhelpful. The draft is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered.  You can take it up with the reviewer but you need to be prepared to provide three to five (no more than that) reputable secondary sources (such as newspapers, books, etc.) that have written in-depth about Sargsyan, not the cases and also not sources that are mostly interviews/his comments.  S0091 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

21:31, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 216.213.86.0
How can a page be created for a published author to showcase their work? 216.213.86.0 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to "showcase" someone's work. The draft is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of self-published authors are not notable. There are exceptions, such as Andy Weir, whose self-published novel was made into a major Hollywood hit movie, The Martian, and Beatrix Potter, who went on to sell hundreds of millions of books, and whose character Peter Rabbit is beloved and famous 120 years later. Precisely what has Fleming accomplished that makes her more notable than hundreds of thousands of other self-published authors? Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

23:17, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Santoman
I'm not sure if this is the right 'Articles for creation help desk' as there were links to two different ones with my submission rejection, but I'll give it a go.

As I mentioned to @KylieTastic, the biggest issue I have is citing sources. How do you cite sources for something that hasn't been widely reported in the media or other scholarly sources. I can probably cite one or two more from the Vanuatu Daily Post - but that's the only newspaper that's written stories about the museum. And I'm willing to bet Wikipedia won't regard it as a reliable news source.

I'm the Project Manager for this museum and we're actually getting quite a following on social media and are the number one tourist destination on the island of Espiritu Santo. I've written all the documentation on the museum so I know all about it. But I'm obviously not a source that can be cited.

We are a very small not for profit organisation out in the middle of the South Pacific. How is a place like ours going to get on Wikipedia when there just isn't that much written about us? I feel that unless you cite prestigious sources such as the Washington Post, Times of London, Harvard Law Review, The Lancet and so on, your chances of being approved are somewhat limited.

Cheers. Santoman (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have no idea why you would assume that Wikipedia editors would consider the Vanuatu Daily Post unreliable. It is the only daily paper for an independent country of over 300,000 people. My local newspaper, The Union, serves a city of 13,000 and surrounding areas, but is accepted as a reliable source. There is no requirement or expectation that reliable sources be world famous. There is only one Articles for creation/Help desk, so you are in the right place. Here is an article from Vintage Aviation News. Here is an article from HistoryNet. Here is an article from The Press Democrat, a paper I have read many times over decades. Here is an article from American War Memorials Overseas. Format those into references, improve the content based on those, eliminate the Facebook reference, and reach out to me. I will then review the draft for you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I said that was primarily due to statements like this on the Wikipedia page that defines what a reliable source is:
 * 'News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.'
 * Statements like that and this:
 * 'Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.'
 * I just have a feeling that the Vanuatu Daily Post, which I know very well, may not be up to the expected standard. However, you definitely know best and if you feel it would be regarded as a reliable source then, great!
 * Thank you for the links you attached. I do have all of those and know them well. It's just a matter of finding their relevance in the article. Thanks so much for your help. Santoman (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Santoman Keep in mind that by far the bigger problem than "outlets that aren't as famous as WashPo" is "people trying to source info from Fox News / the Daily Mail", so that's more what that kind of language is there to try to prevent. Writing about Melanesia topics does mean you're likely to run into more problems finding sources than someone writing about American topics, but this is a well-known bias in Wikipedia, so there are also lots of sympathetic editors who can help if you get stuck. WP:CSB is the main wikiproject for that, but in this specific case if you get stuck you might want to see if WP:MILHIST will help (they're one of the biggest and most active wikiprojects). WP:WIRED is also very helpful for this, if you end up writing any women's biography articles through your work at the museum. -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is fantastic @Asilvering. I had no idea there were editors who get together in specific groups and specialise in particular topics. The MILHIST group looks very interesting and I might just drop in there and see what they can offer. The women's biography articles you briefly mentioned could be something worth exploring as well. The promotion of the work women did in support of the Pacific War is something we've been looking into and have done some early research on. A wiki article might be a great way to bring something to life. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to thank you for offering to review the draft again once I iron out the bugs. I do appreciate the offer and I'll be sure to get in contact with you soon. Santoman (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

23:34:21, 29 May 2023 review of draft by Noticias-latinas
Noticias-latinas (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft is unreferenced and therefore violates the core content policy Verifiability. Please read Your first article. Your draft needs major improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)