Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 5

= April 5 =

00:53, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Trish Lynch
Hello, Please can I request help in finding out why the article was rejected for copyright reasons? Some of the text used is from the website Rofe Park Turramurra, I do own the copyright to the website Rofe Park Turramurra and did write the text on that site. I have applied to Wikipedia using the consent form that was indicated. Permission from Wikipedia (I thought?) was granted and is printed in a box on the Talk page "Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2024022910003331". I am fully prepared to rewrite the article, or place a notice on the Rofe Park website saying it gives permission for the text to be used, or anything else you require. What is the best thing to do? Kind regards Trish Lynch (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Trish Lynch: the reviewer didn't notice the comment on the talk page. The decline has been reverted, and the draft is back in the pool awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Trish Lynch (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

10:28, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Karagil
Good morning, It is April 5, 2024. I have just modified Alexandre Raymond's Wikipedia. When will it be accepted? It exists in French Wikipedia. Why not in English. Alexandre Raymond drew Hagia Sophia in Constantinople - which recently became a mosque again - as it was before. His designs have been sold all over the world. Please look and answer me.

Karagil (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Karagil: this draft was reviewed and declined last July (!), and hasn't been resubmitted since, so the simple answer to "when" is – never. If you resubmit it, it will be reviewed again at some point, and could then be accepted (or not, as the case may be).
 * Whether an article on this subject exists in another language version of Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is an entirely separate project with their own requirements and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * However, on a quick look, it does not look to me as if even one of the sources in the draft meets the triple requirement explained in the golden rule. Without that, the draft cannot establish notability.
 * Citations of works by or edited by Raymond, are beside the point. What we require is secondary sources about Raymond, written and published by people wholly unconnected with him. It seems likely that such sources exist, but they need to be found and cited, and almost anything not supported by an independent source needs to be removed from the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

12:22, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Anjan Sivakumar
Despite our efforts to refine the article by incorporating numerous revisions and adding substantial references to support the information provided, we are encountering persistent rejections in our attempts to publish it on Wikipedia. Your expertise and guidance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please let us know a convenient time for you, and we will ensure our availability to discuss this issue further. Anjan Sivakumar (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Anjan Sivakumar: after multiple declines, this draft was eventually rejected, as you have failed to demonstrate (despite the WP:REFBOMBING) that the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards.
 * Who is "we" in your question? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only.
 * And what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to make an appointment to discuss this with us, you may post your comments here and they will be replied to in due course. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like many inexperienced editors, especially those who have come here with the purpose of promoting somebody or something, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. A Wikipedia article summarise what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, that is all. You can have a thousand links to the subject's work - and they will be worth zero as citations. You can have a thousand interviews with them - and they will be worth almost zero. You can have a thousand links to where organisations who have managed them, booked them, given them awards, write about them - and these will be worth zero.
 * One source where people with no connection with the subject, who have not been commissioned or fed material on behalf of the subject, have chosen to write at some length about them in a reliable publication, is worth more than all the above put together. With three or more such sources, you can write an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

13:37, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 2.24.214.101
I'm not sure what more I need to do to make this a valid submission - I've included independent sources (local newspapers, and websites of separate organisations) which verify the facts stated in the article, and I don't understand why this isn't acceptable. Apologies if I'm missing something, but I'd love to make this page exist if we can - his is an organisation which does definitely verifiably exist, and people may be seeking information about it, so it's strange for it not to have an entry on Wikipedia. Any suggestions would be welcome - so far the comments have mainly been too vague and general for me to understand how to fix this. 2.24.214.101 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Remember to log in when posting. Do you have a connection with this organization? You uploaded its logo to Commons, meaning that you have the authority to decide to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution.
 * If people are seeking information about an organization, they should go to its website or social media. Wikipedia is not merely for documenting the existence of something; an article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The only sources you have offered just tell of the routine activities of the organization, not what independent sources see as important/significant/influential about it. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

13:50, 5 April 2024 review of submission by WikiEdits2003
Article seems like well constructed and with citations from reliable sources I want to know the reason for rejection so I can make the page more constructive and information Hopefully you will consider my points WikiEdits2003 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @WikiEdits2003: the rejection reason is lack of evidence of notability, as stated in the rejection notice. Note also that this subject requires clearance from WP:DRV before publication is possible.
 * Unless you have a particular reason to pursue this matter, such as an external relationship with the subject (in which case, please provide details?), you may wish to drop it, due to the history behind this draft and countless others on the same subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

14:09, 5 April 2024 review of submission by WikiEditorBharat
Hi Wiki, I am new to the world of Wikipedia. I have just submitted my first article.But unfortunately, it was rejected. What is the reason for article's rejection? I have entered all details correctly and also cited reference links from reliable source? Please Guide me. WikiEditorBharat (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was declined not rejected, it is full of unsourced puffery and praise, it needs to be re-written in a neutral tone referring only to what reliable independent sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

16:40, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Cuba's Mom
I would like to change the article title from "GF draft" to "George Michelsen Foy" and can't figure out how. Thank you! Cuba&#39;s Mom (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cuba's Mom: you can't change page titles, this is achieved by moving the page to a new title. But you don't need to worry about that for now, as the page will be moved into a different namespace anyway, if/when the draft is accepted for publication. I will make a note of your proposed new title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you rule the wasteland :) Cuba&#39;s Mom (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But I'm afraid that, like most inexperienced editors who try to create articles before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft WP:BACKWARDS. First find places where people wholly unconnected with Foy have written about him at some length, and been published in reliable sources; then write a summary of what those sources say about him.
 * A selected bibliography (ideally, concentrating on those works for which you have found secondary sources, such as reviews) is something you can add when you have a solid, well-sourced article. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

17:24, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Dawelker1861
Why does the "Talk" view show up when this entry appears in serach lists? This is a new article and my first, but when I run a search for "Loudoun Resolves" the "talk" view, rather than the actual article itself, is what appears. I can click on the "article" tab to see it, but I'd prefer folks just see the main article when clicking on the search result. How can I change this or have it changed? Dawelker1861 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is for asking for assistance with the draft submission process. You are asking about an article already in the encyclopedia; please use the main Help Desk in the future. To answer you, articles are not automatically indexed by search engines; they must be reviewed by a new page patroller, or as a fallback I believe 60 days must pass. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

18:54, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Awalt22
What can i do to make it acceptable Awalt22 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing you can do, the draft reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article and there is zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

19:06, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 4.39.220.106
citation broken. help page it links doesn't work. Help! what does it mean when it says its "error: malformed":c 4.39.220.106 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

21:46, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 204.110.47.133
Because There Will Be More Info As Time Goes On That Is Just The Start 204.110.47.133 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is insufficient for an article. It is completely unsourced. Any article about what I assume is your studio must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it, showing how it meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)