Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 15

= November 15 =

03:02, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Arthistoryxxx
I am an art history student trying to create a wiki page for one of my favorite working artists today. Can I have some help with getting the page approved? Arthistoryxxx (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). You resubmitted it and it is pending; once reviewed, the reviewer will leave feedback if it is not accepted.  This may take time, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

09:00, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Zcwajel
Could someone re-review this article/or give me a tips for making this article more neutral? It's been rewritten to be more neutral and I believe is more objective and referenced than many other humanitarian charity articles. Zcwajel (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Zcwajel: why would it need to be re-reviewed? You've not made any changes to it since it was declined. Or are you suggesting the reviewer didn't get it right somehow?
 * Both times this was declined for notability, which is a hard requirement for acceptance. Focus on that. The POV tone etc. is of lesser importance at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks @DoubleGrazing - I'll give it another shot, or see if another editor is willing :) Zcwajel (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zcwajel: if another editor is willing to do what – review it? You will get another review, when you resubmit the draft. Currently, pool is so small, that you won't even have to wait for long. Just make sure you address the reasons for the previous decline, as otherwise it will get declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing No I mean another editor (maybe in the humanitarian organisations groups) willing to help edit and improve the article before the next review. Thanks again -- Zcwajel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zcwajel: oh okay, I understand. Yeah, that's not something we get involved here at the help desk, we tend to leave the editing side to others. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

09:06, 15 November 2023 review of submission by THATAKGUY
i dont know why i got rejected THATAKGUY (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The reason was left by the reviewer. A completely unsourced text with sections redacted(Wikipedia is not censored for any reason) will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @THATAKGUY: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I don't even know what this SCP-358 is (which in itself tells you that something is wrong with your draft!), but let's assume it's a video game. You can write an encyclopaedic article about a video game, but this isn't it. You may even be able to write an encyclopaedic article about a meme or a hoax, but again this isn't it. And whatever you do, please do not just copypaste content from external sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI @DoubleGrazing SCP is a collaborative creative writing/meme project popular with the kids these days. Deffo not suitable for Wikipedia, but they have their own (very large) Wiki project.  Qcne  (talk)  13:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Naima Cumming Article
Hello! :D

As I expected, my article was deemed unpublishable because of the source was a secondary source which I understand. As her book articles are the only source, may her Amazon book link work or is this not possible anymore. There is a author's look into the book, in the book's description if that may work? I really just want to be able to surprise my friend that as an author and a first book publisher, she has a wikipedia page!

Cheers! Dominicfike123 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dominicfike123: you need to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our notability standards, either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Currently there is nothing in the draft to suggest either of these is the case.
 * You also need to disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your own talk page User talk:Dominicfike123 with advice on this.
 * Speaking of your talk page, why does it redirect to the draft talk page Draft talk:Naima Cumming, and why does your user page redirect to the draft? This is quite confusing, and makes it difficult to communicate with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Never mind, I think those redirects were left behind accidentally when the draft that was in your user page was moved into drafts. I've removed them now, hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Never mind, I think those redirects were left behind accidentally when the draft that was in your user page was moved into drafts. I've removed them now, hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

10:44, 15 November 2023 review of submission by 118.216.129.2
I added the references that include notability, but the draft is not confirmed. What kind of sources / references Wikipedia is pursuing? Would be great if you suggest some examples for me. 118.216.129.2 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are the account that has edited the draft(remember to log in when posting)- you've been told what is being looked for by several reviewers, at the top of your draft. We do not want a summary of the activities of the company and what it does- we want a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to see multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject, entirely of their own volition. This excludes sponsored content, press release regurgitations and other churnalism, routine business reporting (M&A, financial results, appointments, new markets or locations, product launches, etc.), and anything where a representative from the company is commenting or being interviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

11:23, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Twinnie3
I don't see how they are deemed as "not sufficiently notable" when they are verified creators on multiple platforms with over 300000 subscribers. Twinnie3 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Twinnie3: they could have 300m subscribers, and that wouldn't make them notable, as metrics like that are not notability criteria. We need to see sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard or one of our special notability guidelines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

14:49, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Tusharunadkat
I need help with submitting my profile, please. Can someone help me? I am new to Wiki and it is a bit overwhelming to gain success. Thank you. Tusharunadkat (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are zero profiles on Wikipedia, we have articles on notable people, but they are not usually written by the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

15:26, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Ty6r8
my page was rejected for being 'not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia'. according to google, Wikipedia has a net worth of 180 million dollars. There is no reason as to why my very important article can not be included in Wikipedia when other useless articles such as "Weimer township, "Eggcorn etymology", "united states of america". I am fully confident the wikipedia is currently operating a full-scale LIberal, Blue-haired leftist, woke organized crime operation in slovakia. if this article is not accepted, I am reporting wikipedia to the slovakia parliment. -Ebrahim Raisi, President of iran Ty6r8 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

19:19, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Mixedmdman
New page was declined but sufficient information was not provided as to why as there are plenty of active Wikipedia pages with a whole lot less information and references than was provided in the given article created. This topic is already listed on another Wikipedia page also so that alone shows that they are a notable and noteworthy subject for Wikipedia (Prince George's County Sheriff's Office) Mixedmdman (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mixedmdman: never mind whether other articles may exist with even worse referencing, or whether the subject is mentioned elsewhere. We need to see that this subject is notable, and that the draft is sufficiently referenced. With all that said, what is your question, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need the whole url when you link to a Wikipedia article. Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia has many inappropriate articles, for various reasons, that haven't yet been addressed by a volunteer. This cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. That a name is used in an article is not sufficient justification. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would like to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify any that you see. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

20:41, 15 November 2023 review of submission by DOHrennie
In the last submission our article was rejected for lack of independent references. We are completely puzzled by this feedback, because we included more references we considered independent. We considered the references independent because the authors are independent of the authors of the software. Is our understanding of independent source correct here?

DOHrennie (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

21:12, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Gowser
After the first decline, I added what seem to be reliable independent secondary source references and external links that are focused on the subject: a profile in The American Leader, an interview in Vanity Fair, a Q&A with the Natl Conference of State Legislatures, and a Washingtonian article focused solely on him and his work. Can you help me understand how to further address the concerns? Gowser (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Interviews and profiles do not establish notability. Interviews are not an independent source, as it is by definition the person speaking about themselves. Profiles that just list information aren't significant coverage of the subject. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thank you. Gowser (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's possible for someone to take a look at one source. What The American Leader is calling a profile isn't a list of information but a 2000-word examination of the subject's career and work. If that is sufficient on closer examination, I can find others like it. Gowser (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be okay, they name the author and list their sources. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

21:30, 15 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:300A:23B5:8300:E87C:9AC4:D1E:8099
job application requirement. i went to a paralegal school in columbus georgia in 1990 and i cant find any record of the name of it. thanks 2603:300A:23B5:8300:E87C:9AC4:D1E:8099 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft submission process is not a question and answer forum, you could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)