Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 13

= September 13 =

00:08, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 162.201.121.103
Hello, i have created a page under the url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wii_003_error". i know that it is kinda crappy and was written in just a few miniutes but i just want a little more details on why it was declined, what i did wrong and what i can do to make it fit for submission. thank you. 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * P.S you don't even have to answer that third question 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first & second source are user-generated so it is unreliable. The third source is not independent nor give in-depth coverage. Ca talk to me! 04:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

04:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by SilverQuill27
I need help regarding character summaries for a movie. Can I use text from websites and are they allowed in the draft after providing citations?

I have removed the text blocks that a reviewer struck down and have replaced them with paraphrased sentences. It would be helpful to know if any further modifications are necessary! :) SilverQuill27 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

05:16, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Maq Zeeshan
Hello,

I'm curious about the reasons for the rejection of my paper. If it was due to a lack of resources, I want to clarify that the subject matter is my hometown, and unfortunately, there is limited information and reliable articles available on this topic. Most of the content in my paper is based on my personal experiences, making it challenging to provide external references. However, I did include the few available references that I could find.

Thank you for your consideration. Maq Zeeshan (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link(it was missing the "Draft:" portion). If there are no independent reliable sources about your hometown, it would not merit a Wikipedia article.  No amount of editing can change that. Your personal experiences are not acceptable as sources, either. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

08:00, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Iamlenaluna
Hello, I understand your decision to decline the submission of this page's publish, although I do not for sure agree the topic is not sufficiently notable. There are quite a few independent and reliable sources about Skycop in Lithuanian but those were not included because it is in different language. I was also planning on translating this topic to Lithuanian language (as it is a Lithuania based company and is rather notable in there) and including those sources then. However, sources that are used for this page are not promotional and were published independently. Please, let me know if I can change anything to make this topic public on Wikipedia. Iamlenaluna (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft already existed before you began editing it, as a company employee created it. Are you in communication with the company about the draft?
 * Sources do not need to be in English- if the sources available are in Lithuanian, you can certainly use them. However, rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further.  If Lithuanian sources provide more information, please discuss that with the last reviewer.
 * Note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. Any article about the company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company, showing how it meets the definition of a notable company. There are certain claims made like "played a significant role" but it is not said who considers the role significant and what that role was. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

08:20, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Microarc
This article was declined by Superboilles, the reason given being: "...rather than describing her latest works need to focus on JZ's life that can then feed a biography."

When I replied, I never got an answer, so I thought I'd seek assistance here. Here's how I responded to Superboilles' reason for declining:

Thanks for your message. What I don't understand: Isn't a new entry on a filmmaker more valuable when it focuses on his or her work? After all, in the case of a filmmaker, the significant coverage that is required deals first and foremost with his or her work, not his or her personal life. That's what makes an artist notable (or not). Maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If the only sources available are about her work, then it's likely that it is the work itself that is notable and not her personally. A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves. For an article about her personally, there must be independent reliable sources that discuss her importance as a filmmaker or person as well as her life generally. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification. This still doesn't make sense to me, though: "A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves." A body of notable work defines a person's notability as a creative professional, doesn't it? Microarc (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Microarc: it can do, but not automatically or necessarily; if you see the special WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, some works may be so significant that they make their creator inherently notable, but that is quite an extreme scenario, and applies in the exception rather than as a rule. For example, a book may be notable by simply being critiqued in a few publications, but that would still fall far short of being so important or even seminal as to make its author notable per CREATIVE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, according to the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, a creative professional is notable if:
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) Microarc (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Microarc: you don't need to quote verbatim what it says in the guideline, we all know if, and if we don't, we can always look it up. Instead, what you need to do is demonstrate – including producing the necessary evidence – how the subject meets this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is telling you (correctly) is that criterion only applies in very rare cases- and as I say below, generally that work would have to be on the level of Shakespeare or Edgar Allen Poe or even Stephen King. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's just not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. If a person has created well-known work that is also widely reviewed, that's apparently sufficient for that creative professional to meet the standards of notability. Or maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to show that the work is "widely reviewed"- and again, that is going to need to be on a very high level. Perhaps Shakespeare is an extreme example, but the point is her work will need to have been reviewed and analyzed very extensively, and you haven't shown that yet.  A few reviews here or there are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was helpful now. (What concerned me in the first place was this reviewer's insistence on the subject's life being more central than his or her work, which I found strange in the context.) Microarc (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE is a subset of the notability guidelines for people which itself is essentially a subset of the general notability guidelines. Most other articles rely on the broader guidelines, not the narrower ones. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably her work would need to be on the level of William Shakespeare's work to merit an article merely based on her work. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is the benchmark, 99% of entries about creative professionals alive today would have to be deleted. Also, that's not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. Microarc (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There likely are many inappropriate articles among our millions of articles. We can only address what we know about. Most of those 99% probably merit articles for other reasons- not merely for the fact that their body of work exists, which is what you are claiming here. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Microarc: that would only be true, if all articles on creative professionals relied on CREATIVE for their notability. The vast majority of articles rely on the general WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for helping! Microarc (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

09:13, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Convex geometry
There are already dozens of articles for Fellows of the American Mathematical Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society) where their work and career are described and who have not received further prizes etc. Why is this one rejected? Convex geometry (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It was not rejected, only declined. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted.  "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted if the concerns of the reviewer can be addressed.  Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I note you have re-submitted without addressing my concern of the references, so I am forced to decline again @Convex geometry  Qcne  (talk)  09:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference to the website and the information taken from it. I added a reference to the Member Pages of the Institute of Advanced Study. I suppose that is a reliable reference.
 * He is a Fellow of the AMS and many (more than thousand) fellows have pages:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society Convex geometry (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Convex geometry. I am unsure if being a fellow of the American Mathematical Society is an eligibility criteria on WP:NACADEMIC #4, so feel free to re-submit and another reviewer can have a look and I'll post a comment.  Qcne  (talk)  12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Convex geometry I've re-submitted it on your behalf.  Qcne  (talk)  12:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Convex geometry As stated in my decline notice this person may be notable under WP:NACADEMIC but we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Nearly all your sources are WP:PRIMARY.  Qcne  (talk)  09:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

10:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls
Hello I have edited the whole. Can you please review and share your valuable insight? I am waiting for your kind input. Pioussouls (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the rejection, such as new information that the reviewer did not consider, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Pioussouls. You still have inappropriate language: esteemed, dedicated focus on economics, valuable experience, profound analysis, fresh insights, proud proprietor, fostering networking etc. Please closely read WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
 * You must also remove all external links from the body of the text, see WP:EXTERNAL.  Qcne  (talk)  12:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire
Hello, I submitted an article for review and was declined for WP:NPOLITICIAN. I'm thankful for the review and reminder about that specific policy.

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

The general notability guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

There is coverage from reliable sources of record: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/us/politics/susanna-gibson-virginia.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/ https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454 https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-sex-acts-c2a130b84452b524279b0a496fca2c99

But I am too new here to assert that the coverage is significant. Thinking about the policies again, it might also fail WP:RECENT

If she wins her race, then I think I am safe to resubmit. But otherwise, I would appreciate any guidance on what counts as significant coverage. YordleSquire (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The controversy is related to her running for office, so I'm not really sure it contributes to her meeting the broader WP:BIO instead of the narrower WP:NPOLITICIAN- unless there is something additional to hang our hat on, like someone being charged under Virginia's laws related to the dissemination of the video(the conduct described in the sources is not illegal itself). Yes, if she wins, she will definitely merit an article at that time. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you! The scope of the controversy falls under WP:NPOLITICIAN YordleSquire (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @YordleSquire: you're certainly right to consider not just the publications but the extent and depth of the articles; I think in this case the sources may be enough to show notability. However, the bulk of the draft, and if they are anything to go by, her main claim to fame (or perhaps rather infamy) for the time being is the video controversy, and that probably puts this under WP:BLP1E at least until such time as she gets elected and becomes more of a public persona. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is a good policy to know. Thank you! YordleSquire (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited the draft summary to contextualize why her race may be notable.
 * AP: "The race has attracted large amounts of spending and interest for an off-year legislative race." ... "The parties are waging intense legislative battles as GOP rising national political star Gov. Glenn Youngkin looks to bolster his conservative agenda with full control of state government."
 * However I will not resubmit unless there is further development. YordleSquire (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

13:56, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Saparagus
The page I initiated was declined. The first time was reasonable - it was really a stub, intended to be filled in later. However, the second submission had certainly met the requirements for academic notability, as far as I can tell from the website. Could you please let me know what is still lacking in this page to be released ?

Important: once the page is released, many other colleagues will contribute additional details. Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Saparagus: if you're relying on one of the special notability guidelines, in this case WP:NACADEMIC, you need to make it clear which of the criteria is met, and provide evidence to support that. I note that quite a lot of the content is unreferenced (which in itself is grounds for declining, as this is an article on a living person), so it could be that the claim for NACADEMIC notability is there, but just isn't referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked the criteria, and criteria 1-6 are met, and substantiated with plenty of references, as far as I can tell.
 * Should I list here all these criteria AND their corresponding references on the draft page ?
 * Criterion 3 - that's references 3 and 4: fellowship in a prestigious international organization.
 * Criterion 1 (and 4) - reference 11: a textbook used worldwide in university education.
 * Criterion 6 - he held chairmanship of CIMS/NYU department of Computer Science (one of the top schools in CS).
 * Criterion 7 - his work with Defense agencies, references 7,8
 * Criterion 1 - reference 10: a huge number of citations on Google Scholar, that means enormous impact worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saparagus (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please let me know,
 * Thanks again. Saparagus (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone may contribute to the draft now, they don't need to wait. They should declare their status as colleagues per WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand that. However, I was more referring to the criteria, which I see as fulfilled - please see the detailed breakdown above.
 * Could you please address that question - why are the criteria not sufficiently fulfilled?
 * Please note that two (at least) of his doctoral students (Friedman, Ji) have Wikipedia pages..
 * Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not his doctoral students have articles is absolutely not a factor here; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Saparagus: without commenting on whether or not this person meets NACADEMIC, I do think you're being quite liberal in your interpretation. For example, #6 refers to the "president or chancellor... of a university [etc.]", not to chairmanship of an individual department. Similarly, #3 requires membership of not just a "prestigious", but "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" or "fellow[ship] of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". And while an h-index of 67 (RE your last point, ref #1) is certainly respectable, I don't know if I would describe it as "huge" for very topical areas of science such as CS, AI, etc. Again, I'm not saying these categorically aren't enough to satisfy NACADEMIC, only that the case isn't necessarily quite so self-evident as you make it out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing, thank you for your response. Could you please clarify what we are arguing about? The guidelines say that even one criterion is sufficient for inclusion.  OK, let's ignore his Chairmanship at a top CS Department in the country (certainly one of the top 10 according to academic ratings).  Are we arguing about Criterion #3?  ACL is the top organization in the field, there is no more important body in CL/NLP.  A highly selective organization, granting ACL Fellow status is a huge deal, given to only a couple of top scientists each year -- as per the references provided in the article.
 * Also, he has been President of ACL, is that liberal interpretation too?
 * H-index of 67 with 23K+ citations is an indication of a massive impact on the scientific community in CS. (This is not biology, the citations in this field are not inflated.)
 * Which of these requirements is still not unmet?
 * Once again, my initial submission had no references, I apologize for that: I had created WP pages previously, clearly before the notability criteria were elaborated, and I had assumed I could do the same this time. Now a set of references is provided.
 * Thank you again. Saparagus (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

14:54, 13 September 2023 review of submission by User09110
Added an independent source to the text and based it on straight facts. User09110 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You will need to submit the draft for another review. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

16:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 62.211.143.48
Hi, since i'm editing my draft, I saw Wikipedia pages with references to YouTube and social media. But why? 62.211.143.48 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Because they have probably slipped through the net. It is rarely an acceptable style of reference 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A large majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources. However, videos posted on the official YouTube channels of reliable media outlets are accepted as reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

18:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana
why this page declined to publish ? anangpal 18:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason was left by the reviewer. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat, @Annubana: none of your references are from independent secondary sources, therefore you have not proven notability under WP:NORG  Qcne  (talk)  18:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added government links, third party linked including organisation's web link why government links not considered as independent sources ? anangpal 18:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry to say but in reference you can see government of india website link which was published by govt. so how can you say not independent secondary sources ? anangpal 18:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)
 * The .gov.in sources are primary. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * which links are secondary ? company website and other websites write about company right ? if yes this also added in reference.
 * please help me to write this article anangpal 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)


 * , the question you need to answer (in fact, the question you needed to answer right at the beginning, before you even created a draft) is "Where have people wholly unconnected with IPOSIS, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of IPOSIS, chosen to write in depth about IPOSIS, and been published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control?"
 * If you have some answers to that question, then those are the sources that you need to base almost the whole draft on: the sources you currently cite are nearly irrelevant, because 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.
 * If you cannot find several such sources, then IPOSIS does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and any further time you spend on this draft will be wasted.
 * By the way, please sign your posts here. If you don't, a bot adds a signature, but people replying to you cannot use the "reply" feature. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

19:09, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana
My Wikipedia page for IPOSIS has recently been declined in review. I would greatly appreciate guidance and assistance in addressing the issues raised in the decline and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliability. I'm looking for advice on how to make the necessary improvements and resubmit the article successfully. please help to create this article. Thank you for your assistance. anangpal 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have failed to provide references to reliable secondary sources that are entirely independent of IPOSIS that devote significant coverage to IPOSIS. Without such references, the draft cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

20:57, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Amaing!
Why was my page declined? Hello, I was wondering why my article about High Park Public School was declined? Amaing! (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your post for proper display and to provide a link to your draft. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amaing! Elementary schools are not inherently notable. Draft:High Park Public School is an elementary school.The reviewer has said as much, but in different words 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the only source you provide is the school district website. There would need to be signficant coverage of this school in independent reliable sources in order for it to merit an article.  Even schools where traumatic events have occurred rarely merit standalone articles- see Sandy Hook Elementary School(the site of a mass murder), which redirects to the school district article. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

23:22, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Salma wahwah
I've been trying to publish this article but I am not sure what I should change.

It says it looks like a resume but I am not sure what I should remove or update

Your help is really appreciated Salma wahwah (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You need to find multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of Romi and that devote significant coverage to Romi. Then format those sources as references and neutrally summarize what they say. Links to gallery websites are of no value in establishing notability because they are in the business of exhibiting and selling the artist's work. Interviews of Romi are also of no value in establishing notability, because they are not independent of Romi. Please read WP:ARTIST. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)