Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 12

= April 12 =

04:48, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Qubacubazamniauser
I don’t get it omega nugget I’d not talked about it does not have sources barley if I did I would add it there’s just not many sources is there any sources out there about omega nugget pages theres is not many so I don’t get the reliable and secondary and please point out the in-depth and independent of subject

Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Qubacubazamniauser: please drop this now, the draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

06:59, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Elene Tevzadze
Hello, so my article was reviewed and I've been told that it is not supported by reliable sources while I've cited links from youtube, official webpage of the subject of an article, the newspaper (Washingtopost). Could you please tell me, what is the issue? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Elene Tevzadze: the issue is that almost the entire draft is unreferenced, and two of the references cite non-reliable sources. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources.
 * There is also zero evidence that the subject is notable. The sources are primary, with the exception of the WaPo piece which you've rather misleadingly described as "article about Mzia Nioradze", whereas it's actually about the opera War & Peace, and only mentions Nioradze once in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'll edit the WaPo article. Doesn't the OPERABASE page on the subject qualify as an official source? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Elene Tevzadze: I'm not sure what you mean by "official source", but AFAIK Operabase is at least partly user-editable, and may not therefore be entirely reliable. In any case, it doesn't help to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok got it. I'll try once more, I added two more sources, hope they qualify as official resources. Thanks. Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in "official sources" whatever they might be, we require independent reliable sources and please note that Facebook, IMDb. Operabase and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

09:50, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos
I do not know what Is wrong with my article, nor what is left Ugo perritos (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ugo perritos: the main thing that's wrong with it is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable, as you're only citing Tesla's own manual as a source. We need to see that this feature has been discussed at some length in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of Tesla. (I'm also not entirely sure that all the information is factually correct, but that's not why I declined this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Ugo perritos (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

13:53, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anthosalba
Hello; I have this message on my draft page

''This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sofia Pro, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.''

I don't quite understand why there are two drafts... the correct one is Sofia Pro (typeface). Can you help me?"

Thanks Anthosalba (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Anthosalba: I think what's happened is that your sandbox draft was moved to Draft:Sofia Pro, leaving a redirect behind. You then overwrote that redirect with another draft on the same subject, and submitted that as well. I declined it earlier today, but you seem to have submitted it again.
 * Assuming you no longer need the sandbox draft and would like to work on Draft:Sofia Pro going forward, then you can just blank the sandbox page and that will take care of that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Ok I understand but I have all my improvements on the san box and not on the Draft:Sofia Pro (with all references !). Do I need to tranfer all references on the draft : Sofia Pro ? Anthosalba (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have transferred my latest corrections into the Sofia Pro Draft using the edit source tool. I believe it's good now. The draft is okay. Anthosalba (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

13:58, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anil at SharmaCreative
Hello, I'm still not understanding why my article - submitted on behalf of a client - was rejected. The reason stated was that the references do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines; however, all 8 references used are independent news sources. I also disclosed on my user page that I am a paid contributor on behalf of the company. Could someone help me understand why the article keeps getting rejected? Anil at SharmaCreative (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Anil at SharmaCreative: they are not independent news sources, they are routine business reporting, which is invariably based on press releases and similar materials. With the possible exception of the FNN article, none of the sources meet the WP:GNG standard required by WP:NCORP notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The question you need to ask is, "Where have commentators, wholly unconnected with my client, and unprompted by them or their associates, chosen of their own bat to write at length about my clients, and been published in a reliable source?
 * If the answer is "nowhere", then your client does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time and your client's money. You might want to show them BOSS.
 * If the answer is "in these several places", then you can continue. Forget every single thing that your client has told you, and write a summary of what those sources say about it. Don't mention products, or their clients, unless the sources talk about them. Certainly don't mention anything at all about their "mission", or "vision", or history, unless the independent sources discuss those.
 * If that produces a viable draft, you can then add in a limited amount of uncontroversial, non-promotional factual information (such as dates, locations, names of principals) from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

15:30, 12 April 2024 review of submission by 71.153.13.144
I just saw this page. This is regarding my husband and it is such a personal attack page. There is a person he fired a long time BECAUSE of scientific misconduct and he is hell bend in ruining his reputation. There is so much personal information and false information in this article I do not even know where to begin. I urge Wikipedia not to publish this article. We will consult with our attorney regarding the defamatory nature of this article. He is also a European citizen and we will seek GDRP protections for this. This is such a huge invasion of privacy and we as a family feel violated if this article is allowed. 71.153.13.144 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of the no legal threats policy. We cannot stop you from taking legal action, but you cannot edit if you have made legal threats or have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both.
 * If the draft at issue is libelous, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In lieu of any further action I have declined the draft for now as an attack page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not wanting to sue wikipedia in no shape or form. We are only wanting to have access to the individual that is posting this information. We know who he is but he is always doing these things anonymously and we want wikipedia to be aware of this person and assist if there are legal matters. We appreciate it. 71.153.13.144 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the page for speedy deletion and blanked it as a consequence. Don't just decline an attack page, tag it for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 18:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you The attack parts were sourced, so it wasn't an obvious speedy delete candidate. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)