Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 14

= September 14 =

02:10, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Ryuaelv1407
My draft has been declined since 9 September 2023. Can someone help me to review it again? Ryuaelv1407 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see our rules on paid-contribution disclosure at WP:PAID. You are required to disclose any connections you have with organizations that have paid you to edit. I also suggest you read through our policies at WP:Conflict of Interest. It is highly discouraged to write articles in which you have a conflict of interest, and in most cases they will be deleted. If your organization is truly notable, someone will eventually write an article about it. In regards to your draft, please keep in mind that drafts are reviewed in no specific order, and reviewers are not obligated to review any specific drafts. Just because your draft was reviewed quickly before, does not mean it will happen again. Please feel free to ask any other questions you might have. I also would like to invite you to the teahouse, a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia that will be answered by other Wikipedians. Thanks, StartOkayStop (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the excellent advice from @StartOkayStop, I would recommend showing your boss the following essay: WP:BOSS @Ryuaelv1407.  Qcne  (talk)  07:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , references to general coverage of stem cells and anti-aging techniques are of zero value. Remove them. What is required are references to reliable sources entirely independent of the Swiss Stem Cell company that devote significant coverage to the Swiss Stem Cell company. Without several such references, your draft cannot possibly be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ryuaelv1407: despite not usually doing on-demand reviews, I have reviewed your draft, and declined it. It is unacceptably promotional, and as such I'm considering whether to request that it is deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing channel for your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

06:18, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Huzaifakumo
Please the organization is notable and references are added but still rejected! Huzaifakumo (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Huzaifakumo: your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning you can resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons.
 * References are only references if they actually support something in the draft. Adding links to websites' home pages doesn't help, you need to point to the actual URL which verifies what you've said in the draft.
 * Notability is demonstrated by the sources, not by you saying that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

06:34, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dnlazr
Hello Good day. I am Danial and this is my first time I writing an article. May I know what is wrong with this article that it get rejected. Let me fix it. Thank you. Dnlazr (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dnlazr: it was entirely promotional, completely unreferenced, and looked like a copypaste text dump from somewhere (although I couldn't find an online source for it). It has now been deleted, so there's nothing to 'fix'. If you want to try again, you need to start by finding reliable and independent secondary sources that have covered the subject, summarise (in your own words) what they've said, and cite those sources in the draft. See WP:YFA for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

08:12, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls
Hello! Kindly, can you please check now!!!! Tell me is this ok? Or there is still improvement needed? If yes.. Can you please specify?? Waiting for your kind response. Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pioussouls: I believe you've been advised already that rejected drafts are not considered further. Your only option is to make a case directly to the reviewer who rejected it, although looking at the draft, I don't see much grounds for an appeal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "don't see much grounds for an appeal." Pioussouls (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have improved a lot. Do specify how to improve or which is not appropriate? Pioussouls (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please guide me how to appeal or make a case directly to the reviewer who rejected it? Pioussouls (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am the reviewer who rejected it, @Pioussouls, as I have mentioned previously. It has been explained to you that articles that are biographies of living people must pass the strict WP:NPEOPLE guidelines. The easiest way to pass is for there to be significant coverage of Oleg in multiple, independent, secondary sources. I am going to go through your sources one by one:
 * 1) Medium.com: a WP:PRIMARY source so can't be used to establish notability.
 * 2) Britannica: no mention of Oleg.
 * 3) investopedia: no mention of Oleg.
 * 4) Beinsure: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
 * 5) finca: no mention of Oleg.
 * 6) jsu: no mention of Oleg.
 * 7) aeaweb: no mention of Oleg.
 * 8) uc.edu: no mention of Oleg.
 * 9) Wikipedia: please read WP:CIRCULAR.
 * 10) knu: no mention of Oleg.
 * 11) forinsurer: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
 * 12) economiclaw: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
 * 13) iie.org.ua: no mention of Oleg.
 * 14) nas.gov.ua: no mention of Oleg.
 * As you can see then, not a single one of your sources can be used to prove how Oleg passes the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. Therefore my rejection is still valid.
 * Let me know if you have any questions.  Qcne  (talk)  09:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

08:45, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Migo47
Helllo , I am requesting your assistance because this draft page (which should be titled as “Capucine clock “) has been rejected because it was “not adequately supported by reliable sources “ However this page is the exact translation in English of the original page in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendule_Capucine which was submitted and accepted on 26/03/23. As explained in this page  : “ … there is very little published documentation and no dedicated book, on this type of clock, which explains the frequent confusion between Capucine clocks, officer's clocks and carriage clocks.“ This was the reason why I decided to write this page I hope that this can be resolved Many thanks for your help Migo47 Migo47 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Migo47. Your draft has been 'declined', not 'rejected'. This means you may re-submit it for review once you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer.
 * Unfortunately the French and English Wikipedias have different policies- what is acceptable on the French Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. One of the key pillars of the English Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. If there is "very little published documentation" then your topic can not have a Wikipedia article. No sources = no article.
 * You do have a reference list in your draft, but we'd need to see a full reference with title, author, date, URL if possible, etc. Please see WP:INTREFVE for a tutorial on referencing.  Qcne  (talk)  09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see the difference between English and French wikipedias.
 * I have worked hard to reference this article and cannot invent things which do not exist.
 * i am very disappointed by your attitude and I will stop contributing to Wikipedia as well as financing it . Good bye
 * migo47 Migo47 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What an oddly hostile reply to my perfectly polite and reasonable message?  Qcne  (talk)  07:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When someone explains to you policies and practice, that is not "attitude", that is advice. If you don't wish to receive advice, don't ask for it. Qcne's remarks were entirely appropriate and correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You may not see a difference between English and French Wikipedia, but it is there.
 * I'm sorry that you feel disappointed. Many many many many people try writing articles for English Wikipedia (whether by translation or starting from nothing), without first understanding English Wikipedia's policy and checking for notability. This is like building a house without checking local building ordinances ("but there's a house like this in that other country!", and without surveying the land to make sure it is suitable to build on ("I know what a house looks like, and I think this is a superb site!").
 * Please read WP:Translation. ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also note that making donations or withholding donations has no impact on this situation. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and they are not involved in day to day operations as us volunteers are. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

09:02, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Jebimathew
I have rewritted the draft for this page, and waiting re-review. Kindly help us to add this wikipedia page. Thankyou Jebimathew (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Jebimathew, your draft has been submitted for review and an reviewer will get to it in due course. Please note Wikipedia accounts are strictly for the use of one person, your usage of us suggests this is a shared account. Please see WP:NOSHARING.  Qcne  (talk)  09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

12:00, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Shamailaijaz
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Shamailaijaz (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link for proper display(the whole URL is not used in such a situation). You are repeating the decline reason back to us, but do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY, @Shamailaijaz.  Qcne  (talk)  12:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

12:48, 14 September 2023 review of submission by AliUmairCh
Hi, this is a noted documentary film that has been struggling to get an article published for it. There are numerous dedicated, original articles from reputed Canadian news sources that are available online and have been cited. The film premiered at the National Art Gallery of Canada with Prime Minister Trudeau in attendance, and has had over 30 festival and independent screenings in the last year, and is a registered film in Canada. Perhaps the issue is in the way that the article has been written / referenced - can anyone assist? AliUmairCh (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @AliUmairCh: while not mandatory, you could help the reviewers by citing your sources inline (see WP:REFB, WP:ILC), as this makes it far easier to see which source supports what information, and how much of the content remains unsupported.
 * There are also a number of inline external links, as has previously been pointed out. These do not count as references. Worse still, they are actually not allowed. If you're relying on those to verify the contents, you should again convert them to inline citations instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

15:46, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology
why is the article still having notability issues, is there a better way to present the references i sourced? Dukology (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

16:00, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Omert33
The article keeps getting rejected (unjustifiably in my view) on account of "notability" even though the subject is a well-known businessman and entrepreneur in his field and not just in Israel, but also in The U.S., China, India, and other places, with several articles and news interviews covering him beyond mere mention and all this is without even going into the fact that Mr. Dror is without a doubt a prominent and leading figure in the ongoing judicial reform protest is Israel who is constantly sought after by mainstream television news media and radio. This is extensively reflected in the current draft and yet for some reason it keeps on being rejected. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Omert33. Wikipedia articles about living people must both be written to the WP:BLP guidelines, but also the person must pass WP:NPEOPLE (or one of its subcategories). To pass the latter, there must be significant coverage of the person in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Let me go through a random selection of your sources:
 * 1) forbes.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 2) haaretz.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 3) haaretz.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 4) timesofisrael.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 14) 1075.fm: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 20) timesofisrael.com: a passing mention, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 29) mizbala.com: this just appears to be a PR piece.
 * 30) shine.cn: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 33) business-standard.com: a press release, so not independent.
 * 36) aspeninstitute.org: a primary source, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 40) douban.com: a script of a press conference, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 45) youtube.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 48) scmp.com: a passing mention, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 50) 103fm.maariv.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 59) inn.co.il: ✅ this is a secondary source offering some analysis and interpretation!
 * 60) the7eye.org.il: ✅ this is a secondary source offering some analysis and interpretation!
 * I hope you can see from my random smattering of sources, that it looks like the vast majority of your sources are just interviews with Dror where he explains what he stated or did, instead of secondary reporting on what Dror stated or did. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability as they are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject.
 * I actually think this is a well written article and Dror may indeed merit an article at some point, but it was reviewed 7 times and your sources did not seem to give proof that Dror passed that strict WP:NPEOPLE threshold.
 * As the article was rejected, you'll need to go directly to the final reviewer and explain if you have substantially changed the sources in the draft.
 * I hope that helps,  Qcne  (talk)  17:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

16:07, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology
I have been making progress with understanding and applying the guidelines as it has to do with writing and editing articles, but does it mean the notability refers to being very famous? because if what I gather from allowed resources to reference my articles are interpreted by the user who declined the article to be what was said by the individual, what happens then considering what was said was independently reported by witnesses who heard what was said,and I believe reports are a product of what is said or done. secondly the issue of quoting more than one source carrying the same report may have been an oversight which has been corrected,but could different platforms not write about a subject depending on  the way information was sourced? Dukology (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Dukology. Notability in the Wikipedia context has a very specific meaning. Please carefully read the following: WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE which lay out precisely what we mean by 'notable'.
 * The second part of your question seems to be asking the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources? We much prefer secondary sources- you can use primary sources only in limited ways which are explained in that link.
 * The third part of your question: it is totally fine to source a specific statement from multiple sources (as long as both sources are reliable, independent, and ideally secondary). However source #1 and #5 were exactly the same in content; this suggests they were just regurgitating a press release, which means although the sources may have been independent the content was not.
 * I hope that answers your questions?
 * I will note however, your draft has been rejected. This means you are not permitted to re-submit it. If you believe you have fundamentally improved/changed the draft since the last rejection, please reach out directly to the reviewer @S0091.  Qcne  (talk)  17:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made some adjustments to the draft,and will improve the sources as stated,so @S0091, kindly remove the stop so I can resubmit when I am done. Thank you for your support Dukology (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll note, @Dukology, that his education is still unsourced. Every single material fact in a WP:BLP must be cited.  Qcne  (talk)  17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * noted,i will reference it accordingly
 * thank you very much Dukology (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

21:28, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Thetaylorboyer
I was informed that the subject hadn't received enough significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. The subject's predecessor has received far less coverage but still has a page. I have sources regarding the subject's appointment and dismissal -- hardly passing mentions -- among other things. I want to ensure I'm on the right track and would appreciate more guidance here. Thetaylorboyer (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thetaylorboyer: what is your question, exactly? You've resubmitted the draft and it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)