Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 28

= October 28 =

00:33, 28 October 2023 review of submission by 113.254.24.90
Please help to edit and approve, thank you so much 113.254.24.90 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean this ? That draft has not been submitted, therefore it cannot be reviewed. And I might add, even if it were submitted, it would not be accepted as it currently stands, given that it is purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

01:11, 28 October 2023 review of submission by The ely community
Why was my application denied. It’s important that I am remembered when I die The ely community (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @The ely community: we don't deal with "applications", we assess proposed article drafts that have been submitted for pre-publication review. Your draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

07:04, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Sejatizen
We need publish this to introduce about our community Sejatizen (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sejatizen: not going to happen, sorry. This draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. (And, it's not in English, but at this stage in the proceedings that's just by-the-by.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

10:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Jsackley
Hello My draft was cited for copyright violations but nothing was copied. The referenced material is not copyrighted, AND the Wiki draft was published years before the cited webpage. Further, the material that is highlighted as copyrighted is very generic standard biographical terminology (example, “served as”). I am unsure how to approach this to avoid flagging.

Jan Sackley (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jsackley: there does seem to be fairly significant copypasting and/or close paraphrasing in an earlier version, as shown in this copyvio report. That has now been removed, and is waiting to be purged from the edit history. Given all that, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

10:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Raid Gafarli
"References only show her published works not what she is notable for." Can you please explain what this comment means? I made the references part of the article in order to outline the used references as sources to what I state in the Wikipedia page. Why would I write about for what she was notable in the references part? It is completely illogical, I would like a satisfying comment for my Wikipedia article, not a sentence with no meaning. Thank you for your time. Raid Gafarli (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raid Gafarli: if I interpret that comment correctly, it seems to be saying that the sources cited are mostly her own works, which are close primary sources and cannot therefore be used to establish notability per WP:GNG; we would need to see significant coverage of her in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
 * Alternatively, if instead of the general GNG notability you're asserting some sort of special notability, eg. WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, then we would need to know which criterion/-ia she meets, and what evidence supports such an assertion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

11:39, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Saif El Eslam Mostafa
i really dont know what is the problem iam just doing this page for a university project Saif El Eslam Mostafa (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Saif El Eslam Mostafa: first and foremost, the subject must be notable enough to warrant inclusion, and in your draft there was no evidence or even suggestion of notability. Secondly, all the information must be verifiable from reliable published sources, especially in the case of articles on living people; your draft cites no sources at all (it lists one, without citing, but it isn't reliable). And thirdly, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, as explained in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ohh okay thank you so much Saif El Eslam Mostafa (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

11:56, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Nnn edits
Please help me or guide me to improve This article.Show my mistakes or solve yourself. Thanks Nnn edits (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nnn edits this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is nothing you can do.  Qcne  (talk)  12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

12:38, 28 October 2023 review of submission by BurakATurk
Hello i add many sport news about him from Japanese and Bulgarian news site.Any problem now> BurakATurk (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @BurakATurk Wikipedia can not be used as a source.  Qcne  (talk)  13:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just ingore the Wikipedia.i Just want to link with other language wiki. BurakATurk (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @BurakATurk: the subject of this draft is a living person, therefore referencing must be done by inline citations. You have cited two sources in the correct manner. The other 11 are just piled at the end, where they support nothing in the draft. Either use them to actually support the contents, or get rid of them – at the moment they are only a distraction. In any case, you don't need 13 sources to establish notability. Pick the three strongest, you'll do everyone incl. yourself a favour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much i am new and dont know the rule before.I had fixed that. BurakATurk (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

15:02, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Shetty mayur
Rejection unwarranted Shetty mayur (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Shetty mayur: it has been undone, now back to declined status.
 * For future reference, do not resubmit a draft after a decline without addressing the decline reasons. That is totally pointless, unconstructive, as well as annoying to the reviewers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd made the appropriate changes and added references, but it didn't reflect. It's sorted now and showing fine, however I'm not able to resubmit. Please help. Shetty mayur (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shetty mayur: the template was broken, I've fixed it, you should be able to resubmit now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Get rid of all the sources from you or from Blackfrog. Have you read WP:AUTOBIO? ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , according to Thought leader, We don't use business jargon in Wikipedia articles.  Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

15:39, 28 October 2023 review of submission by 173.71.122.147
A page was submitted by an editor and I would like to see its status. How to check it? Please let me know. 173.71.122.147 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Something was done by someone", really? Can you be a bit more specific, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

15:56, 28 October 2023 review of submission by JOHN GABRIEL231
Subject: Wikipedia Assistance Request

Dear Wikipedia Assistant,

I need help with Making A better Wikipedia Page For my school.Could you please assist with the reference?

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely, JOHN_GABRIEL231 JOHN GABRIEL231 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @JOHN GABRIEL231: your draft was a copyright violation, therefore I've asked for it to be deleted. You are not allowed to copypaste content from anywhere, unless it has been explicitly provided free of copyright. Please carefully read and understand WP:CV. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

16:09, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Vaibhavk09
Why my page is rejected/removed Vaibhavk09 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Unambiguous advertising, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.  Qcne  (talk)  16:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

16:15, 28 October 2023 review of submission by JOHN GABRIEL231
Can you delete this article but allow future users to create the same name as St.Peter's College of Ormoc

Cries JOHN_GABRIEL231 JOHN GABRIEL231 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have requested deletion. Do not add copyrighted content to Wikipedia- that is prohibited.  Qcne  (talk)  16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

18:45:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by WikiUName
{{Lafc|username=WikiUName|ts=18:45:36, 28 OctoberKpm31300 - Satpmv4528 S06UTC103120236 063131p36://UTC10.645k45pUTC2845pm.2023Sat, 28 Oct 2023 18:45:36 +00006/645k45/Satpmv4528_S06UTC103120236

October0RSUTC UTCE00 1698518736S 43182023 2023+00001698518736 PMRE REQ1698518736ESUTC0618 PM PMSS0SUTCPM6CE +00006 UTC18E 006E BE0+000043 UTC180S 006E. UTCpmkUTC pm36 10pm1023 Saturday4510UTC36 pm36 232023u 10UTCUTC28. 0 28202310'31 k1020236 0620236 312023 up28pm31UTC 3106UTC f202320233110202331UTC36 10202331 312023 06pmvUTC Bare URLs with potential Sat, 28 Oct 2023 18:45:36 +0000202331" -->

WikiUName (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

18:46, 28 October 2023 review of submission by WikiUName
I don't know how to fix the problem with the "BARE URLs" - I have been trying for 5 hours!!!! WikiUName (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @WikiUName WP:CITE and WP:REFB ought to be of use. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed link for proper display. The URL should not be used, just the title. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

19:03, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Rainer Gutsche
Thanks for your same day review. However, I do not understand what is bad about the references. Of course, they are all in German.

The first three are from the journal alpha. This was a jounal of extracurricular mathematics with a very good reputation. And that's why it was probably just the right journal for publications on and about the Herzberger Quader.

The fourth reference comes from a website with materials for math teachers. This is just a proof that the Herzberger Quader is really used in school today. Rainer Gutsche (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion).
 * References do not need to be in English(though it does help as the odds of a reviewer knowing German are probably low) but they do need to provide significant coverage of the topic to show that it is notable. Some parts of your draft are unsourced, too. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Unsourced is the second paragraph of Possible Problems. This is spread all over and rarely quotable. So should I rather delete this paragraph? Rainer Gutsche (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rainer Gutsche All you have to do is to prove that the subject has notability.Removing anything which interferes with that seems wise.
 * However, make sure that your references have significant coverage of the subject. Generally that means at least three paragraphs. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Now I am helpless. Yes, the Herzberger Quader is known in Germany, but I guess that's no reason not to write about it in English. Can you please give me a hint in which direction I should change something? --Rainer Gutsche (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rainer Gutsche If it is notable in Germany it is notable globally. I hope that helps 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

22:01, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal
I keep going back and forth - the advice I've gotten has been all over the place. This person has been in front of, behind the scenes and has written for significant productions. They have been a featured comedian for decades. They have had a decades-long podcast - I'm still trying to track down some in-print magazines to get additional sourcing. The podcast has featured a crazy amount of luminaries from the sci-fi and horror world. I get that he is not George Clooney. And - I totally get that you have a rule you can go to for "don't tell us about other articles," but as I go through the vast majority of comedians that have also won/placed in the Seattle Comedy Competition, this is really, really starting to feel like dogpiling. Like - "well, you got rejected once and we're not going to look back because the bar will get higher and higher and higher and higher and higher and higher and higher."

Like his name is literally already in Wikipedia multiple times - not just for the awards, but in the Journeyman project, Stan Against Evil, Weird Al's show and Beware the Batman - in addition to the comedy awards.

Would it help if I updated additional entries - with the citations - on the Dish and similar shows to further put his name in Wikipedia so that it's clear it's getting weirder and weirder he doesn't have his own entry? I mean, should I seek out a board for the podcast and beg the guy to get in some sort of trouble so there's a notable article about him bullying goats or something and then we could add a controversy section that could not be ignored?

Not every show in the world does a massive amount of publicity - so the "independent news coverage" gets slimmer and slimmer. This is getting very frustrating. This is not like the guy played a barista in a single Marvel film for 4 seconds and this is his sole credit. Midwesterngal (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If there is not sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, this person will not merit an article. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further at this time, absent a fundamental change in circumstances. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To set the record straight, advice has not been "all over the place"; this draft has been each time declined for either lack of evident notability or insufficient referencing, or both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

22:20, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Ewhauss
I submitted this article, and was told to find more sources. So I did. Then the next reviewer had an entirely different issue. I find this statement to be rude: " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for a long adoring obituary focussed on "wonderfulness"." The fact is, this individual was an important scientist, but much of what he achieved is not publiclized. So I will attempt to remove the "wonderfulness" aspect and see what happens. Funny thing is, the people noted in the draft who offered insights into this individual, are also important people --and I used links to their Wikipedia pages. Ewhauss (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ewhauss I suggest you suppress your feelings that the reviewer was rude, and recognise that they are not going to write an essay explaining that the supposed wonderfulness should be absent. They could have used WP:NOTMEMORIAL instead and given you less information.
 * Wikipedia doesn't care about anything except verified and verifiable facts about any topic, facts which show notability in a Wikipedia sense. This is achieved by finding significant coverage whcih is about, not by the subject, and is in multiple reliabke sources which are independent of the subject.
 * Now, back to your feelings. We are required to honour WP:CIVIL in all that we do. Civility may be frank, direct, even brutal, but it must be civil. Reviews are an iterative process. You need to work with reviewers if you want reviews. Don't ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to. Offering a draft for a review asks the question "Is this ready to be published?" It wasn't. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ewhauss I have left a couple of pointers as a reviewer comment on the draft. Please use them as examples, not the definitive list of what might be done. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment "the next reviewer had an entirely different issue", there is no obligation on the reviewers to keep declining for the same reason, or for some sort of 'priority reasons' above others; they can and will decline for whatever valid reason they wish, which may be the first one they come across. If a draft has a number of declinable issues, then it may indeed be declined for a number of different reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ewhauss As an exemplar of that, I have left a further detailed comment on the draft. Thank you for doing the work I suggested. I had hoped you might use my suggestions as example of what else needed to be done, but I have had to leave more detailed suggestions this morning. There is work to do. I haven't even started checking that the references you have chosen pass WP:42 yet. I will probably leave that for another reviewer lest you feel I am picking on you.
 * Please understand that our parameters are to accept a draft if we believe that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Had I felt it stood that chance I wood have accepted it this morning, even if you had not submitted it for formal review.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for you to memorialise family members, and I have notified you on your talk page that I perceive you have a WP:COI with this draft and the other Haussman article that was accepted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)