Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 September 4

= September 4 =

07:40, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Newlywo
Hello, I am writing again because I believe the reviewer is mistaken and although I did what I can do and tried explining, nothing helped since his mind was made. I ofcourse respect that but I want to know what can be done since he rejected the draft? I insist sine I know Zvi, an award wining director, is noteable. I want to point out that when I resubmitted the draft, I didnt make changes to it but on the talk page I expained about each source after the decline reason was sources. Maybe this was the case and the reviewer was very very wrong with what he wrote about the sources (i.e calling the award minor or the festival). To sum this: what can be done at this stage since there got to be something to do? Thank you all. Newlywo (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I will naturally recuse myself from this discussion, but just to say that if an experienced AfC reviewer in good standing is prepared to accept your draft, I will stand corrected and revert my rejection (although I will be curious to hear the grounds for such a decision).
 * I won't rehearse again my decline/rejection reasons, they can be found in multiple previous threads on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DoubleGrazing, I wrote this inorder to get a fresh reviewer and although you wrote a few times you wont give your time for this anymore, you write again. Do you want to review this or you just wrote here so an experienced AfC reviewer will see what you wrote and wouldnt want to address this? why this feels very personal? I will repeat what I wrote: this is not personal for me, I dont think what you did is in purpose and I sure do not want bad blood and any negetive feelings what so ever. I simply want someone to look this over and see what I wrote and check it again and not the same reviewer (you) which already formed an opnion... calling the awad minor or the   TLV fest minor, is very wrong! it is big in Israel and in the LGBT community in general. Also, the "review" you gave per source is not 100% right.
 * I wish you would see this and be able to say ok maybe but it seems you have something against it no metter what and this I dont understand.. Maybe Israel is a small country vs the US but if you will scale this in % and check the raniking of the sources I placed, you will see you werent right about everything (and just to make it clear, you were right also). anyway, this is was my last chance so please allow this to be a real chance. Thank you. Newlywo (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft was declined 6 times and finally rejected. Your draft uses Amazon as a source (unreliable), some sources result in 404 errors, other sources do not mention the subject, it has user edited profiles, it doesn’t show that the subject passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

08:27, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Raves2023
Hi everyone, my draft was rejected and although I tried and wrote the reveiwer, I cant understand why. What can I do now that it's rejected? please dont say nothing because I looked at similar magazines and it seems we rave you should be excepted if they are on wikipedia. I am aware the reviewer doesnt want to do anything since according to him it's taken enough of his time (i didnt understand that remark as well but ok) but I believe there other reviewers that maybe can help. Raves2023 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. Please read other stuff exists.  It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.  We can only address what we know about.  If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
 * If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new information from new sources that the reviewer did not consider, typically the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer, but in this case please tell us what has changed about the draft that now addresses the concerns of the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raves2023: this draft was reviewed by five different reviewers, and finally rejected. We've discussed this at least twice before at this help desk, and I can see that you've raised it with the rejecting reviewer. I get that you would like to have this article published, not least because of your financial interest in the subject, but that is not going to happen, I'm afraid. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other things. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's time to move on from this. I hadn't looked to see your edit history here. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot The whole reason I came here is due to the history since I saw it and think it's not right but both of you saying it's time to move on so I am without options.. correct? Raves2023 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's our advice to you. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I am part of it and I want it but I did the checks and it seems its worth of a page. I understand what you wrote and if I will find something new, I will try again. Raves2023 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

10:33, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25
The article draft was rejected with regards to encyclopedia tone. I need assistance with addressing this issue. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It was earlier declined for that reason. It has now been rejected as non-notable. Rejection means there is no option to resubmit, so there is no point in editing further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I feel like declaring bias makes it seem like a witch hunt for contributors to achieve their own personal accolades by constantly rejecting article submissions without highlighting any of the sentences on which they are basing their decisions. The article I wrote, was actually written following the guidelines (the tone and format) of many other company Wikipedia pages that have been approved already. Someone flagged it citing encyclopedia tone; does it mean that these other Wikipedia company pages were not meticulously reviewed by the expats here, or have the writers already gained relevance by constantly bullying new contributors such that their articles are not subjected to such intense criticisms?
 * I'm just curious to understand why this level of dictatorship bully, with no intention to actually assist new contributors. I have read about some other contributor pouring out his frustrations for this same bully on here. If Wikipedia is open and free for all platforms, why will people constantly look for vague criticisms to frustrate other contributors? Why can't the criticism be a guide for the new contributor to successfully contribute to the stack of independent information on Wikipedia? 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See other crap exists, other articles may have been created before the AFC process began, they might need to be deleted. making personal attacks is unlikely to help your case, the draft was entirely promotional and was correctlt declined and then rejected, I should find another topic to write about, one that is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong, I'm not in any way pursing any form of personal attack, but merely trying to learn as a new contributor, which was the basis of my initial argument. The question is: why do people reject articles citing non-encyclopedia tone or advertising when other company pages clearly have the same kind of information, or even worse, on Wikipedia? You cited "other crap exists" probably before AFC; my next question is: will any company qualify for a Wikipedia article following the encyclopedia tone argument, because most I have seen are pure marketing? Kindly feel free to give an example of a company page that is not; I would like to learn more. Thank you. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't give you an example of a "company page" because we don't have those here. We have articles about companies that meet our definition of a notable company. I believe you that there are many examples of inappropriate articles that volunteers have not addressed yet; if you would like to help us identify inappropriate articles so we can take action, please do, we need the help. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you have a registered user account (Nsbfrank or otherwise), please log into it.
 * Secondly, I don't know who you're accusing of bullying, but please don't pursue that line of baseless accusations any further, as personal attacks will not be tolerated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Thank you for your comments.
 * First, I would like to sincerely apologize if my comment came across as a personal attack on anyone; it wasn't intentional at all; I was just trying to voice out my frustration that an educational forum open to all doesn't seem so in reality, because I can't understand how article criticism is done in a very harsh tone with no intention to aid new contributors.
 * Secondly, the truth is that I was constantly advised to declare bias for transparency (as a paid contributor), and that became my greatest error because no matter what I post here, it will be read as marketing, non-encyclopedia tone, and non-neutral.
 * Finally, I feel that you asked me to login so that you guys could comfortably label me with one offense and probably block me from contributing or commenting further. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:7857:2854:F599:7FCE (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Editing in good faith will not get you blocked, unless you repeatedly continue to try and do something which you have been told not to do. You're invited to login because it is easier to communicate with you consistently.
 * Almost every editor who begins editing here and immediately tries to create an article has a frustrating and miserable time, because they have not yet learnt a raft of understanding about how Wikipedia works; and most importantly, they probably do not yet appreciate what Wikipedia means by notable, If you think of an analogy of housebuilding, they have no idea of what constitutes a stable site for building on, or how to survey a site to determine if it is suitable: they want to build that house there, and they think that if they just try hard enough they'll manage it. After all, everybody knows what a house looks like, don't they? They might even point to some ramshackle jerry-built houses elsewhere that haven't fallen down yet, and say "Look, they built their house!".
 * For this reason, I always advise new members to spend a few weeks or months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. But of course, paid editors rarely think they have the time to do this. (In my view, they are saying that they do not have time to learn the skills that they need to do the job they are paid to do, presumably because they do not recognise that these skills exist or are important).
 * It is not impossible for a paid editor to write an acceptable article, but it is even harder than writing an article without a COI, because it is harder to recognise whether their writing is neutral.
 * The key is finding several sources each of which satisfies the golden rule, as without that, you cannot establish that the subject is notable. (I haven't looked at your sources in detail, but the first one does not make clear who produced the video, but I suspect it is BV themselves, in which case it is not independent, and the second one has only a short paragraph about BV. I didn't look further.) If you cannot find suitable sources, then you will know that the subject is not notable, and you cannot successfully write an article, however much you are paid.
 * If you find the sources, you then need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say. 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColinFine Thank you so much! Honestly, this is the most helpful comment I have ever had since coming onboard. For a moment, someone in this forum made a positive criticism with the clear intention to educate and not just frustrate newbies. I totally understand your point, and I will try to focus more on editing and learning from other editors. I also see your point about the article rejection, and it does make sense. I will keep an eye on them and their publications moving forward. However, the company did inform me that they keep receiving emails from different agencies offering them Wikipedia publication services (I can provide a proof), which made me feel that I was maligned and unduely suffocated from publishing, just for an agency to swoop in and have a pay day. Nsbfrank (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your appreciation. I try to help, but sometimes it gets frustrating on this side. We get hundreds of quite unacceptable new drafts a day, from people who are under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a medium for promotion. Those by paid editors are often more competently written, but they often still do not have the slightest understanding of Wikipedia's requirements and purposes.
 * The agencies that have made those offers to your clients are probably mostly scammers (see WP:SCAM). If they are not, they are either like you, moving with good faith into an area they do not yet understand, or else they will make clear to their clients that they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will say (initially or subsequently) what the client would like it to say. I cannot imagine many clients would agree to pay for services on those terms. ColinFine (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

11:24, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Arunknmsb
I want to know for what reason exactly it has been deleted? since puravankara limited and sobha limited has their own pages ,but why can't this kind of a startup can not be ? Arunknmsb (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Arunknmsb: this draft hasn't been deleted (yet), only rejected, although soon it might be. And the reason is that it is pure promo blurb with no sign of notability. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

12:18, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463
What exactly do I need to do to get this article published? 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You can appeal the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but you have to be able to show that is passes the Notability (geographic features) in order to make a successful appeal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also an earlier draft in the system, at Draft:Abraham and Mollie Froug House (and with the correct title, I might add), just for info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

14:10, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Bananastander
Hi I've made some edits to the page to make the language more neutral, just wondered if I am on the right track! Thanks Bananastander (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bananastander The major question you have to answer is in two parts: Do they pass WP:NMUSICIAN; have you shown that they do (if so)? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bananastander Further, on Wikimedia Commons, you have a question to answer about the picture. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi I have answered the question on Wikimedia Commons Bananastander (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Point 7, like the rest of the points, is an indicator that they might meet the criteria for notability. As it says there, you still need to find the sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

19:13, 4 September 2023 review of submission by IvoJokić
What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves

What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves I was writing an article about the Gymnasium in Danilovgrad. The issues arose because of the invalidity of the sources – system thinks of them as a random vague link, but, in reality, they lead to articles about the institution created by the school representatives themselves. What should I do? IvoJokić (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Gymnasium Petar I Petrovic Njegos has no independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that the sources are untrustworthy; they are not independent. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

20:11, 4 September 2023 review of submission by DogExpert
Please advice me to improve and make this more wiki article, I do not have to build anything like an advertisement. DogExpert (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @DogExpert, there is nothing to advise as the article has been rejected so won't be considered further. There is nothing you can do.
 * I would recommend reading WP:YFA.  Qcne  (talk)  20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)