Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 15

= April 15 =

06:40, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36
why my article draft was declined Mani G 36 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mani G 36 I have rejected the article as there is no indication this person meets our notability criteria for musicians at this time.  Qcne  (talk)  06:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

07:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Baluulab6
i tried to publish this page sever times but it is not yet done. Kindly help to publish this page as it is important to keep the Wiki of Karthika thirunal indira bhai as there is no any other source to mark her presence in the history and Travancore royal family Baluulab6 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Baluulab6 your draft will never be published because there are no references. Wikipedia articles must be references with independent, reliable references. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY.  Qcne  (talk)  07:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are no other sources, then this is necessarily original research, which is not permitted in any Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

07:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36
pls help Mani G 36 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've rejected the draft and there is nothing further you can do, @Mani G 36.  Qcne  (talk)  07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

09:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Cfarant
why my article is rejected ? Cfarant (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted.  "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted if you can fix the issues identified by the reviewer.  Please see the message left by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My first thought was to look over at the French language Wikipedia and see whether there was an article there. (Caveat: my "Frenssh", is much like the the Prioress in The Canterbury Tales but "After the scole of the University of Woolloomooloo", rather than "After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe"). From what I can see, "the article was considered for deletion in 2017 and was deleted as an article that was on en.wp in 2024 but not on fr.wp. My guess is that that an article about this living person may not pass any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC. As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

09:56, 15 April 2024 review of submission by TaraLemming
I included third-party resources about Herbert L Kloiber but it says these do not count as notable credits but they are third-party and mention the person in more than just passing. Why are these credits not credible? TaraLemming (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They are independent, but just document routine activities. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @TaraLemming: please read WP:OVERCITE. We surely don't need 11 citations to support a fairly non-contentious statement like "After serving at TMG for almost seven years, he founded the Munich-based production company Night Time Media in 2020". The same problem is there throughout the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

10:37, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos
May we include a video in the bibliography as a source of information? Ugo perritos (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ugo perritos: if the video meets the WP:GNG standard, then you may cite it, yes. But your primary objective is to demonstrate notability, because that is what's preventing this draft from being accepted. Do not resubmit the draft before notability is clearly shown.
 * Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant to say I, not we. Ugo perritos (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

10:46, 15 April 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423
Article review time is taking too long, all the other submissions of mine took only 1 or 2 days, is there something wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @SouthPole5423: there is nothing wrong, your draft has only been waiting for a few days, and it may be reviewed at any time, in a matter of minutes, days, or weeks. As it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,393 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I was just a bit worried since all of my previous ones took such a short time. SouthPole5423 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

13:04, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Grantsharples
Hello! I've had my article rejected several times, and I've tried to address the reasons for rejection with each new submission. Where does this article fall short? One of my edits said it looked good aside from the "industry scope" section I've since deleted, but it has still been denied approval anyway. What can I do to remedy that? Thanks for your help! Grantsharples (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Grantsharples: your draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') a few times, because at least two reviewers felt there wasn't sufficient evidence of notability. Based on a quick scan only (not a thorough source analysis), it seems you're citing almost entirely primary sources, with the exception of the Good Morning America piece. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the comment that the latest reviewer made: We need independent, in depth coverage, which doesn't appear to e present.
 * Looking at the list of references, it strikes me that many of your citations are to directories, or lists of services. If so, then unless any of them contain in-depth coverage of the subject, all of them together contribute nothing at all towards establishing notability, and probably almost nothing at all towards the article.
 * The article should be almost entirely a summary of what commentators wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

14:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by MorriconeEnnio
Hello :)   I'm wondering why the published sources referenced are not considered adequate. Is it because although published, they are not available online? Bc that is not the criteria for reliability as per the policy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Were there particular sources that you found to be unreliable or were all considered unreliable? Is the issue that they were considered unreliable sources or that they were considered unreliable in terms of the statements in the text? Thanks so much for your assistance! I appreciate your feedback.  MorriconeEnnio (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @MorriconeEnnio. It might be that the reviewer declined it because the draft does not conform to our mandatory use of in-line citations for biographies of living people. You're close, but there should not be a Notes section and instead follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE in order to create properly formatted in-line references, which will automatically create a References section for you. @Ibjaja055
 * You're right though, offline sources can be used.  Qcne  (talk)  15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this isn't the reason for the decline, but I noticed that in the infobox at least the date of birth is unreferenced, which per WP:DOB must be backed up with a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing, @MorriconeEnnio@Qcne So sorry for replying late. The article was declined because there are not enough secondary and independent sources that can prove that the subject is notable. If there are good sources with the problems of in-line citations, I will gladly work on the article and move on for another reviewer to approve or decline. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * O ok. Thank you all so much for this feedback! I will review the tutorial at the link you provided. I will also do a bit more research into additional sources. @Ibjaja055 I would appreciate your help on editing and drafting. However, if you believe additional sources would support approval re: notability then let me do a bit more research first. Thanks again :) MorriconeEnnio (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

15:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Rudharnagpal50
i dont know about wiki writing can u please help me to publish my film page on wiki Rudharnagpal50 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope, there is no indication that your film is notable enough to merit an article, sorry.  Qcne  (talk)  15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rudharnagpal50: your draft is completely unreferenced, you need to cite the sources that have provided that information, see WP:REFB for advice. And then the sources also need to satisfy a notability guideline, either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

15:55, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6
The article was rejected because the subject soubded not notable enough. Yet I have tge impressiln that if one asks people who are the most important thinkers of these modern times. Kaisa Hannele Tervola comes to people's minds. So a Wikioedia article about her writing work would be notable enough subject for Wikipedia. 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't assess notability by "asking people", but by evaluating the sources used in referencing the draft. This draft lists (without citing, which is a hard requirement in articles on living people) some external links as well a number of works by Tervola, but none of it suggests notability in any obvious way. If you can find sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, or alternatively demonstrate that this person meets one of the special guidelines such as WP:NAUTHOR, you may appeal the rejection directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

16:13, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Techrd2000cork
Kindly Advice Techrd2000cork (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Techrd2000cork: my advice is to steer well clear of this sock-fest of a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Techrd2000cork was blocked for sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Shocked, I am. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

16:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 100.2.77.12
All

My attempt to get a Wikipedia entry for the American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma has been denied. Below is our soon to be published Trauma Roadmap outlining the problem. There is a pressing need for both the military (lack of trauma-proficient eye surgeons with a rising threat of hostilities) and civilian sectors (poor eye trauma training and unwillingness to care for trauma) to tune up eye trauma care. It's not "life and limb", it's "life limb and sight." The ASOT is leading a multiorganizational effort, including the orgsanizations listed n the roadmap, the Health and Human Services, and the United States Army.

What do I need to do to get the entry approved for Wikipedia?

A Call to Action and Roadmap for Improving Emergency Treatment of Ophthalmic Trauma in the United States Introduction: In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) described the state of emergency care in the United States as fragmented, with tremendous variability, lack of disaster preparedness, and shortage of on-call specialists.1 Reasons cited for lack of on-call specialists included inadequate reimbursement, liability risks, and disruptive demands to their private practices.1 Therefore, a joint-specialty task force was established with the goals of evaluating the role of ophthalmologists in ophthalmic emergencies and trauma and addressing the public health need on a national basis. The task force includes representatives from the following organizations: American College of Surgeons (ACS), including Trauma Surgery (Central Committee on Trauma (COT)) and Ophthalmology sections; American Academy of Ophthalmology (Academy); American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO); Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO); American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS); American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma (ASOT); and Society of Military Ophthalmologists (SMO). Background: Ocular trauma is a leading, and sometimes preventable, cause of visual impairment and blindness. A study of the 2008-2014 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) found 316,485 cases of ophthalmic injuries or 5.93% of the total 5,336,575 hospitalized patients.2 The most common injuries were orbital (39.5%) and contusions of the eye/adnexa (34%). Other NTDB studies found that 11,097 (5.7%) of all work-related trauma cases (234,983) included ocular injuries3 , and that 3.7% (8,715) of 235,254 patients with firearm-associated injury also had ocular trauma.4 In the United States, a study based on the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Hospital Discharge Survey for 2001 estimated nearly 2 million (6.98 per 1000 population) individuals suffered eye injuries requiring treatment.5 Most of the eye injuries were treated in the emergency department (ED) (50.7%), with the remainder in physicians’ offices (38.7%) and hospital outpatient (8.1%) or inpatient settings (2.5%). Additionally, multiple studies document significant rates of ophthalmic injury and needs, often in the form of complex ocular polytrauma and mass casualties, from various injury mechanisms such as natural disasters, industrial accidents, terrorist attacks, and explosions. 6-12 Ophthalmologists are the most qualified to diagnose and comprehensively treat disorders of the eye, adnexa, and visual system.13 This is based on extensive medical and surgical training and knowledge, judgment, communication skills, and professionalism, and amplified by rigorous medical standards, commitment to providing continuity of care, and dedication to comprehensive and lifelong education. Patients with significant eye injury, eye pain, or periocular trauma are most appropriately managed by ophthalmologists for definitive diagnosis and necessary medical and surgical treatment. Recommendations: The Task Force recommends the following actions to address numerous systems-level gaps in ocular trauma care in the United States: 1. Critical importance of the Ophthalmologist. The major ophthalmic societies and training programs should reinforce the critical importance of active involvement of ophthalmologists in the national trauma care system. This should emphasize the ophthalmologist’s unique qualifications in this area. Responsibility cannot be abdicated either by intent or by nonparticipation. Continuing medical education activities for ophthalmic trauma management should be ongoing throughout the ophthalmologist’s career. 2. Recognition. The AAO and ASOT should implement a process of publicly recognizing those ophthalmologists who contribute to the management of ophthalmic trauma and emergencies in their communities. The ACS should continue to include ophthalmic representation on the Central COT. 3. Needs analysis. In collaboration with the ACS and ophthalmic organizations, ongoing educational needs analysis should be undertaken to identify and address ophthalmic trauma knowledge and skills gaps in each community. This analysis should evaluate existing educational resources and determine whether modifications to these materials are necessary to incorporate new technologies or methods. 4. Damage Control Ophthalmology (DCO). The relevant ophthalmology societies represented by this task force should investigate opportunities to develop Damage Control Ophthalmology (DCO) guidelines for civilian triage, stabilization, and ultimate referral to specialty ophthalmic care derived from established Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines. Efforts should be made to circulate the modified DCO guidelines to the ophthalmic community including residents, fellows, and community ophthalmologists. The development of subspecialty DCO guidelines (e.g., DCO cornea, DCO oculoplastics, DCO retina, etc.) is essential. 5. Interspecialty and subspecialty collaboration. The ACS, Academy, ASOT, and ABO should make efforts to provide educational materials regarding trauma coverage to both ophthalmic and trauma communities. The ABO’s recognition of trauma as critical to maintenance of certification, ACS COT’s Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) revisions and other programs, and DOD’s numerous documents for Initial and Prolonged Ophthalmic Care and DCO are examples of initial and ongoing efforts that should be applauded and expanded. Subspecialty collaboration in developing appropriate DCO guidelines will provide consistent and unified guidance in an effort to minimize variation in treatment. 6. National coordination of ocular trauma care and disaster/emergency preparedness. The combined ophthalmic and trauma societies should investigate the process, logistics and ongoing resource requirements of integrating ocular trauma care into the National Trauma and Emergency Preparedness System as proposed by the ACS COT. These efforts should be informed by the military ocular trauma system14 and leverage advanced technologies to extend ocular trauma expertise, particularly to underserved and rural areas. The societies should also work with national and regional disaster/emergency preparedness agencies to ensure ophthalmic concerns and contingencies are considered in planning. 7. Eliminating barriers to coverage and care. The ACS should work to identify and improve systems barriers to ophthalmic coverage in trauma facilities, such as ensuring adequate equipment, supplies, and trained support personnel are available to the on-call ophthalmologist. This includes considerations of credentialing, privileges, and reimbursement. The above suggested actions should provide a framework and roadmap for improving emergency ophthalmic coverage on the part of ophthalmologists and emergency personnel alike, as well as providing continuing resources to improve their comfort, skills, and confidence in dealing with ophthalmic trauma. The Task Force hopes these actions demonstrate good faith efforts and commitment on the part of organized Ophthalmology and Trauma Surgery to jointly help rectify the ongoing problem of inadequate emergency coverage for ophthalmic trauma and address the shortcomings identified by the IOM. We believe these systems-level improvements will result in more accessible, better, and more seamless care, and that both the individual casualty and the nation will benefit from the effort. For the Task Force, Approved: Robert A. Mazzoli, MD FACS: Chair Stuart R. Seiff, MD FACS: Co-Chair Stephen D. McLeod, MD: American Academy of Ophthalmology George B. Bartley, MD: American Board of Ophthalmology Steven E. Feldon, MD, MBA: Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology James D. Auran, MD: American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma, Kenneth E. Morgenstern, MD FACS: American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Barton L. Blackorby, MD: Society of Military Ophthalmologists Jeffrey D. Kerby, MD, PhD, FACS: American College of Surgeons Central Committee on Trauma Avery Nathens, MD FRCSC: American College of Surgeons Central Committee on Trauma Paul A. Edwards, MD FACS: Ophthalmic Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons Alan L. Wagner, MD FACS: Ophthalmic Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons

100.2.77.12 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've wrapped up your 'Roadmap', please don't post excessive content here on the Help Desk, thanks.
 * The main problem, and the reason why your draft has been declined, is lack of evident notability. Per WP:ORG, you need to cite multiple secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of your society, and that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
 * You also need to reference the content appropriately so that we can verify the information. Citations such as #6, which merely says "apots.org", doesn't really tell us anything. There are more such problems in this draft. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.
 * Finally (and this wasn't a reason for declining the draft, but is nevertheless important), you need to disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A "pressing need" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a means of getting a message out to the world - that is called promotion (irrespective of how worthy a cause it may be).
 * A Wikipedia article summarises what independent commentators have already published about a subject - including any detractors. That is all. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

16:59, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052
Hi, I have submitted this so many times with so many different references and none of them get through. I really don't know what else we can add. We are a multi billion dollar global organisation, how can that not be enough to verify us? 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If you work for this business, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves amd what they do. Most of your sources are your company website, this does not establish notability. Any article about your company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The mere fact that you are a wealthy company does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

18:09, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Seraphine Arku
I submitted an article and someone reviewed it and said it sounded like an essay rather than an article. Also, the reviewer added that I should summarize information from different sources which I did so I need more clarification and possibly, others can review it and throw more light on it for me. Thanks Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Link to draft: Draft:The maternal Health Narrative in Africa. asilvering (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphine Arku, looking at this draft, I don't really understand why you want to create a new article? We already have an article on Maternal health, and it would be best if you could edit that article to include information from your sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is part of the list of articles we can write that is why I did. Thanks for the clarification Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphine Arku, what do you mean by "part of the list of articles we can write"? Is this part of an editathon or school project? -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The African Wiki Women ProjectAfrica Wiki Women IWD - Inspire Inclusion 2024/Items/Resources and Suggested articles and items - Meta (wikimedia.org) Seraphine Arku (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see. If you want to make a much longer article, I agree that Maternal health in Africa is a good topic. If you only want to write a little bit, like what was in your submitted draft, it's probably better to just write on Maternal health, where your changes will be visible immediately. It looks like this editathon will still be going for the next couple of months, so you might alternatively want to hang onto this draft and see if anyone wants to add to it with you. I'll move it to the correct title for you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright sure. Thank you Seraphine Arku (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

22:11, 15 April 2024 review of submission by EagleDancerWiki
I am requesting assistance because I do not know how to deal with the IGNORANT and LAZY "editors" in your organization who AGAIN rejected my article despite it being almost identical to a similar article on a related sub-discipline of sport parachuting that was accepted back when Wikipedia apparently had knowledgeable, not-lazy real editors. That article is on Wikipedia right now, yet your "editors" are so effing lazy and ignorant they can't be bothered to do 10 SECONDS of research to find that similar article on a related subject.

This article, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is ~500 words, yet it took your "editors" 2.5 MONTHS to reject it again for totally bogus reasons that they would KNOW were totally bogus if they were not so effing LAZY and IGNORANT and bothered to do 10 SECONDS OF RESEARCH about the subject.

Please compare my entry with the tandem skydiving entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_skydiving

You will discover that my entry, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is almost identical because these two sub-disciplines of sport parachuting ARE almost identical, as the chief difference between them is that tandem skydiving starts from an aircraft, and tandem BASE parachuting starts from a Building, Antenna, Span, or Earth object.

So why oh why in God's name do your ignorant lazy "editors" REJECT the tandem BASE parachuting article despite there being essentially ZERO difference in them -- especially when the SOURCES your ignorant lazy "editors" keep claiming are inadequate for a host of equally bogus reasons are even closer than the text itself to being the exact same sources as the article which was accepted?

The only conclusion I can draw is that when the tandem skydiving article WAS accepted some years ago, you had actual, real editors, who were not lazy and ignorant. Seriously, what other possible reason can there be?

So that is why I am requesting assistance: These lazy, ignorant, incompetent "editors" need supervision -- and really, you guys need to ask yourselves:

IF these tools are so lazy and ignorant that they totally screw up THIS SIMPLE ARTICLE WITH SOURCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR ANOTHER WIKI ARTICLE,

THEN how badly are they screwing up bigger, more complex, more important submissions?

This is not rocket surgery.

Thanks in advance for solving this and getting the tandem BASE parachuting article up on Wikipedia despite the ignorant lazy "editors" who have made such a mess of this and wasted everybody's time, including yours.

Robin Heid, M.A.

EagleDancerWiki (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are correct the existing articles were crap and needed to be removed so I have taken care of that. Thank you for bringing it to our attention in such a constructive and understanding way. Now with that being dealt with your draft was declined because it does not meet the requirements of inclusion in that it does not show enough coverage in sources outside of official organizations. If you can show more coverage outside of these organizations then it is very likely this could be included as a notable topic on its own. Otherwise you may consider adding some of this content to BASE_jumping. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Tandem skydiving long predates the drafting process, its first edit being made 2005/Dec/03. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm and civil instead of making personal attacks on volunteer editors. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)