Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 18

= April 18 =

08:26, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8
Can anyone move this to the AFDs? 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This isn't an AfC matter, as that 'draft' was never meant to be a draft in the first place. Besides, you've already asked for help at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as that's redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

08:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 194.75.93.220
How can I evidence that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Equivalent Special Interest Groups and other local government sector bodies, such as the National Association of Local Councils, District Councils' Network, County Councils Network and Core Cities Group, have an equivalent range of sources to what I have provided, but still have a Wikipedia page. 194.75.93.220 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ORG, you need to provide multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

09:33, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Md. Muqtadir Fuad
Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8 And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft to publish in English Wikipedia. Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Md. Muqtadir Fuad: I've already answered on my talk page, please don't post the same request in several places. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Understood Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

10:04, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Deepaknarwal003
Why it deleted? Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Deepaknarwal003: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion or 'telling the world about yourself'. Try LinkedIn etc. instead. And please read the notices posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a public figure, social media influencer with more than 200k followers, acting done in Sons kf the soil, and indian kabaddi player, so for real and authentic info this page is important for social media verification of real accounts Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but nothing in what you say negates anything I said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tell me a international kabaddi player deserves a wikipedia page or not??? You can search on google for real proofs:- Deepak Narwal is a professional kabaddi player, social media influencer and well known person on internet who has more than 200k pkus followers, please don't delete page its important for social media verification. Deepak narwal have a imdb page also who worked in Sons of the soil & Pro Kabaddi league. Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Deepaknarwal003: you seem to be misunderstanding what is required for an article to be accepted. Your content is first of all completely unreferenced (and no, a Twitter link doesn't count), which is totally unacceptable in articles on living people. Secondly, there is zero evidence of notability, which is demonstrated through sources, not by being "a [sic] international kabaddi player" or having X number of social media followers. And finally, as I've already explained, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, no matter what; see WP:AUTOBIO for explanation of why this is. And to make matters worse, you keep spamming us with this content incessantly. My advice is to stop now, before you find yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

11:14:41, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Hannah Zacharias
}}

Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hannah Zacharias: I assume you're here regarding – what would you like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am sorry but since I am a pianist, this is hard for me. I created this account under an alias. My name is Clara, my website is https://www.clarabiermasz.com/. I am a pianist and i am trying to create my own wikipedia page. I used the information i created for my website. As you can imagine, i am not a copywriter therefore i only created once a text that i plan on using everywhere. Please let me know how to proceed with the draft publishing as it is now rejected due to copyright. Thank you! Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hannah Zacharias Wikipedia is not perosnal web space. It is an encyclopaedia of notable topics. One does not have "one's own Wikipedia page", articles are written on notable entities.  Do you pass WP:NMUSICIAN? If you do it is acceptable to draft an article in Draft: space, submitting it for review. It needs to be neutral prose.
 * Further, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hannah Zacharias Now, if, and only if, you qualify under WP:NMUSICIAN it is possible to re-use your copyright text if it is freely licenced for onward use. You can handle that on your web page by using a licence like the one Wikipedia uses. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

13:14, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Ad1959
-DoubleGrazing has been deliberately rejecting the drafts can someone help me get this article published as i have been in contact with some people linked with the personality and has been asked to publish this article, thank you in advance. Ad1959 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For info: this matter is now at ANI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User is now blocked, as is their alternate account, User:Abhirup2441139. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Drmies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

13:40, 18 April 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu
Hello! What other resources should I include in my draft? What it is missing particularly? FlorinCornianu (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2020/04/building-web-forms-revolutionised/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
 * https://engage.eif.org/eif-in-romania/success-stories/overlay/123formbuilder/ is 404-compliant. (It points me to a landing page with a link to the company's entry; clicking on that returns a 404 Not Found error.)
 * https://www.superbcrew.com/123formbuilder-helps-users-without-technical-skills-create-any-type-of-online-form/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
 * We can't use https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/resources/case-studies/jeremie-123-form-builder-romania.htm (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of articles written under role/no bylines because they almost always didn't undergo an editorial and fact-checking process.) Even if we could use it, it would be useless for notability (connexion to subject) as EIF helped fund 123.
 * https://www.starterstory.com/online-forms-surveys-tool is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Written by company principal.
 * https://www.prlog.org/12009450-123contactform-launches-form-making-app-for-wix-website-builder.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Clearly-labeled press release.
 * https://socpub.com/articles/123contactform-launches-123-form-builder-weebly-15050 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release.
 * https://www.romania-insider.com/catalyst-romania-puts-eur-1-mln-in-local-software-developer is useless for notability (routine coverage). Funding news.
 * We can't use https://appexchange.salesforce.com/appxListingDetail?listingId=a0N3000000DylJTEAZ&tab=e (online storefront).
 * We can't use https://cloudmybiz.com/app-of-the-week-123-form-builder-create-forms-collect-data-and-generate-leads/ (too sparse). Extremely perfunctory review that barely says anything about 123.
 * Anything PRNewswire/Cision puts out is useless for notability as they only ever publish press releases (connexion to subject).
 * https://enlyft.com/tech/products/123formbuilder is useless for notability (too sparse). Pretty much a content-free profile.
 * https://mixergy.com/interviews/123formbuilder-with-florin-cornianu/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
 * We can't use https://www.g2.com/categories/online-form-builder (too sparse, connexion to subject). Listicle-styled app comparison, with each entry having a marketing blurb written by/on behalf of the apps' makers.
 * We can't use Medium (no editorial oversight).
 * https://www.capterra.com/resources/free-survey-software/ is borderline-usable, definitely a bit more on the skimpy side when it comes to information to cite.
 * We can't use https://www.getapp.com/website-ecommerce-software/a/123contactform/features/ (online storefront).
 * We can't use https://www.g2.com/products/123formbuilder/reviews#details (too sparse). Content-free profile.
 * We can't use https://www.spotsaas.com/product/123formbuilder (online storefront).
 * We can't use https://www.saasworthy.com/product/123formbuilder (too sparse). Other than the uncredited (and likely company-written) blurb in the "product description" section there's nothing to cite.
 * You have only one usable source ( https://www.websiteplanet.com/form-builders/123formbuilder/#overview ) and even then I'm not fully convinced this is usable, but it is your best source by a mile. One source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

16:07, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid
This is the first time that I'm creating a Wikipedia page for something and I need some tips to make sure that it would get declined again. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You have only one source, and it's the awards' own website. Even if it were a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-Fido-Awards news/scholarly source that discusses the awards at length, is written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial and fact-checking processes, one source by itself is not enough to support any Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some more references. Is there any else that I need to do? Rincemermaid (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see where they've been added. Even purging my cache doesn't show new sources. Stand by while I assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous promotional marketing... "These prestigious awards recognize standout canine talents from all UK cinema releases throughout the year."? Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode. I will skip over your first source.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/09/dog-film-stars-doggy-oscars-fido-award-anatomy-of-a-fall-barbie-napoleon looks good.
 * We can't use https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources under role/no bylines because they almost always bypassed the outlet's editorial/fact-checking processes.)
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/ is a non-sequitur.
 * https://deadline.com/2024/03/fido-awards-2024-anatomy-of-a-fall-canine-star-messi-finally-gets-his-oscar-moment-1235854967/ looks good.
 * We can't use https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/ (no editorial oversight). Random blog.
 * One thing I will note is that the lot of these are about the '24 awards. If the award has been around since 2007 as the article claims it shouldn't be too difficult to find news reports for earlier awards cycles, and doing that would help with notability. With that said, as TRiL notes, the article would need to be heavily rewritten based on the good sources you have (the KISS principle applies to Wikipedia writing). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/, https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/, https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/. I did find two The Guardians about the Fido Awards from 2009, here are the links: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/nov/23/fido-awards-dogs-cinema , https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/nov/16/fido-award-canine-oscarsRincemermaid (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of those Grauniad sources look good. I'd say you might have enough to show notability with those; the question now turns to rewriting the article based off of the information in the three Grauniad and one Deadline Hollywood source you have at present. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

19:00, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Kswuid
I dont understand why my submission was rejected as i feel like it perfectly aligned with the purpose of wikipedia and was sufficiently informative Kswuid (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It was completely unsourced, you have much to learn about Wikipedia; please use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

19:47, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nelsenbrockfan
Hello, what can I do to get my article allowed? Nelsenbrockfan (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

20:21, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nyjja
We added a new section and a new source to the article. Would it be possible to submit it again, please? Nyjja (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Nyjja. Rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft, but you can reach out to the last reviewer @MaxnaCarta if you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection.  Qcne  (talk)  07:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, @Qcne.
 * @MaxnaCarta: We added a new section (Honorary Membership) which links to personal Wikipedia pages of honorary members. Would you consider it a significant enough change to re-submit the draft? We wouldn't want it to be rejected for good, since we hope to reach the required notability in time and be accepted eventually. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Nyjja (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by DeclanMiner2005
I tried to write this draft better, and I will try again to write it better so it can be accepted. I am sorry, Wikipedia. I wish you a great day! :) DeclanMiner2005 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry @DeclanMiner2005, the draft has been rejected so cannot be re-submitted. It is not a viable encyclopaedic article in it's current state. Maybe try writing a Blog?  Qcne  (talk)  07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)