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

= February 15 =

01:53, 15 February 2024 review of submission by OFTB
I would like to know the reasons why my article was declined. I have added news articles and also links that backs my writing. Please I would like to know in detail the reasons as I intend to write more here. I dont want to waste my time writting something that will never see the light.

OFTB (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @OFTB the reason for the decline was in the decline message at the top of the page. If you click on the blue links in the message it will take you to the relevant policies and guidelines. To give you a short hand version almost none of the sources are about the actual subject or independent of the subject as they are her reporting on events or by her employer. Only one of the wedding references are about her and her husband may be considered independent but it is not significant coverage on her. This means the references do not demonstrate how she meets the requirements of a notable person. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help with this. She is a National Emmy winner, is that notable enough? HI have cited 2 articles of important newspapers in spanish, they dont count? How many articles are needed? I bet if I google I could find more. She has been covering the Latino community in the nation's capital for almost 20 years in Spanish that might be one of the reason why you dont see that many English news articles. Been on camera for 19 years or so, is not notable enough? I dont understand why you can't take Univision's own links as proof of her work of her coverage of historic events. I used them as reference of her work. I was thinking about writing about minorities in the media and I am not sure if I am going to be able to do it to be honest. OFTB (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @OFTB, it looks to me as though the articles you have cited are written by Uceda, not about her. What you are looking for are things written about her by people who are not connected to her - so perhaps there might be an article about her Emmy win, or maybe someone has written about her long career. You have one article that's about her marriage - I cannot see it as it's behind a paywall, but if it talks about her life or career then you could probably use it as a source.
 * The usual guidance given is that you want to find three really good sources - they must be reliable, independent, secondary sources. There should be links in your decline notice to the guidelines for choosing the best sources you can. Definitely have a look through Google! I think your biggest problem might be finding articles about Uceda, since it sounds like she may have written a few herself.
 * If you find it too difficult, just keep in mind that writing an article is the hardest thing to do. Many editors, including myself, have never written an article - instead we focus on enhancing articles that already exist. You might find it more enjoyable and rewarding to seek out articles on minorities in media and improve those instead, before having a go at writing one of your own. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! I was able to find articles about her and 2 tv interviews about her work as well. I think now I am able to fix the problem. I have also reduced the length of my article to keep it simple. Do you know if somebody could take a look at my draft before I submit it? Thanks again for your help. OFTB (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

05:43, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Dr.Hana jalili
Could you please specify which aspects of the subject's notability are not adequately demonstrated by the current references and provide examples of the types of sources that would strengthen the article's case for notability? Understanding what qualifies as significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject is crucial for me. I'm eager for any specific suggestions on how I can improve the article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, clarification on what constitutes an independent source in this context would be invaluable, as I aim to ensure truly independent sources support the revised submission. Feedback on the structure or presentation of the article that could enhance its acceptance chances, any common pitfalls or mistakes in submissions like mine, and guidance on the best process for resubmission, including any specific aspects I should mention or highlight, would be greatly appreciated. Finally, are there any resources, guides, or examples you recommend for someone striving to meet the notability criteria for their first Wikipedia article submission? Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @dr.hana jalili: read the decline notice. click on the links. ltb d l (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

07:14, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Azy De Silwa
Azy De Silwa is an accomplished executive at the zenith of the corporate world. With an illustrious career spanning decades, Azy has earned a reputation as a visionary leader, a paragon of innovation, and an astute business strategist. As the CEO of NotchLN, a globally recognized technological powerhouse, he steers the company with a blend of ingenuity and foresight that has propelled it to the pinnacles of success.Azy's journey to the upper echelons of corporate leadership is a testament to his unwavering commitment to excellence. Armed with a profound understanding of business dynamics, he has charted a course for NotchLN that is marked by continuous growth, groundbreaking innovations, and an unswerving dedication to customer satisfaction.His leadership style is characterized by a rare fusion of empathy and determination. Azy De Silwa (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Azy De Silwa: please stop spamming, you are getting close to a block for self-promotion. You shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, and certainly not in that tone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

08:22, 15 February 2024 review of submission by DESTEN Alasdair
Hello!

It has been around 8 weeks since my submission, are there any ways for me to access an update on progress? DESTEN Alasdair (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @DESTEN Alasdair
 * This draft was submitted on Jan 9, which is c. 5 weeks ago. Please be patient, we have 1,600+ pending drafts awaiting review. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you declared a COI, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there!
 * Indeed, I am employed by DESTEN though I have done my best to keep the content as unbiased as I can.
 * I have noted that our submission has failed, I shall do my best to review the sources provided. DESTEN Alasdair (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have noted that our submission has failed, I shall do my best to review the sources provided. DESTEN Alasdair (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

10:04, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Nicky Falcon
I am writing about an organisation that is well known in the world of science, its contribution to the study of Africa is very great. And I believe that researchers from all over the world have a right to know about this institute. Wikipedia could help researchers to familiarise themselves with the work of the institute, establish contacts and make their own contribution to science. The Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences is committed to interacting with researchers from all over the world for the benefit of science. Nicky Falcon (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Nicky Falcon. You don't ask a question?
 * For an article to exist you need to prove notability through the use of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Qcne  (talk)  10:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also remove all external links throughout the body of the text as per our guidelines at WP:EXTERNAL.  Qcne  (talk)  10:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nicky Falcon, it is not part of Wikipedia's purpose to "help researchers to familiarise themselves with" anything, no matter how virtuous. Such a purpose is what Wikipedia means by promotion, which is forbidden. If the organisation has been written about, in depth, by independent commentators, then there could be an article based on what those commentators have said, not on what the organisation or its associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise, there was a misunderstanding, I provided sources. Nicky Falcon (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you help me... I added the link on wikidata with necessary sources through { Wikidata entity link|Q4201381 } but how to convert it in the table. And what does this "authority control" do? Nicky Falcon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

11:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Footballcontributor
I recently tried writing my first article on Wikipedia and wanted to share my experience. I followed the guidelines and made changes suggested by more experienced editor. However, the feedback I got felt very judgmental and lacking in compassion. This was really tough for me because I just started and was trying to help out.

I write about football clubs, games, projects, and initiatives. It's where my knowledge and enthusiasm lie. I feel it's disingenuous to force myself to write about topics outside my interest or expertise simply to align with the expectations of seasoned editors.

I think it's important for everyone to remember that we're all here to make Wikipedia better, and that includes helping newcomers feel welcome. Getting harsh comments can make people not want to contribute anymore, which isn't good for anyone.

Despite my best efforts to capture the essence and facts of the subject, I recognise that there might be gaps in my execution or areas that could benefit from more experienced editorial insight. Given the feedback I've received, I understand there might be different viewpoints on how best to present this topic on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm reaching out to the community to see if anyone with a shared interest in football or expertise in this area would be willing to collaborate or take the lead in refining the article. Footballcontributor (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Footballcontributor: do you have a question about this pending draft, or did you just want to air your grievances?
 * Also, who is forcing you to write about subjects you're not interested in? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Footballcontributor. I'm afraid your experience is pretty common for people who plunge into the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning the essentials about how Wikipedia works - like notability, neutral point of view and reliable sources.
 * If you'd just taken up tennis, would you immediately enter a major tournament? And if you did, would you expect to find people sympathetic, or for their criticisms to make much sense to you?
 * I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works before they even try creating a new article; then to read your first article. BACKWARDS is a useful essay to read, too, because like many people who try to soon, that's how you have written your article. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

12:13, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Rvaghasia
I've corrected all the sentences that seemed a bit promotional to me.. and also added references to comply with the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. What can I do next to get the article approved and move it to Article Mainspace from Draft. Also, I have also got PDFs and Images of Regional Newspapers.. how can I refer them as my source? Rvaghasia (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rvaghasia: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
 * Also, judging by your username, this draft is either about you or someone you're closely associated with, so you should not attempt to publish this yourself, no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

16:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Rhiannon1991
This Wikipedia article was rejected on the basis that the topic was "not notable enough" for inclusion in Wikipedia and that the vast majority of sources were primary, meaning "sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The sources quoted in the article include Crains, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Israeli American Council. In the case of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Crains, these awards were given by independent news organizations. These are not organizations which allow the subject to write the account. I'd like to appeal this decision given the fact that the source has been covered by this various organizations of note. Rhiannon1991 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging the rejecting reviewer, @S0091. However I agree with the reviewer:
 * Crains: This is not significant coverage of Daniel.
 * Israeli American Council: This is just a speaker profile.
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency 1: Only mentions Daniel in passing.
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency 2: Is an interview, so does not confer notability.
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency 3: Does not mention Daniel.
 *  Qcne  (talk)  16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rhiannon1991: what is your relationship with the subject of this draft, given that all your edits seem to be related to it? This was queried on your user talk page more than six months ago, but you haven't yet responded. Please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my comments back in 2023 at User talk:S0091/Archive 5. Since that time, two sources have been added, NPR and another JTA both of which only mentions Kraus so not anywhere near enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

17:36, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Willybonty95
Hi. I wrote about a producer currently topping the charts in the Nigerian music scene, he currently has a song titled "Twe Twe" with Kizz Daniels and a remix with Davido which is topping most charts. It was rejected stating "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" I want to know what I can do for my article to pass these guidelines. Willybonty95 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You offer no sources for the claim that his music is topping Nigerian music charts. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Willybonty95: the draft wasn't rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons). You need to provide sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

17:41, 15 February 2024 review of submission by 66ozone
Thanks for the feedback on this submission. Very interesting and helpful. I’m studying for a music industry course. Wikipedia has come up as part of one of the units we are going through. I find it intriguing, so I have been reading a lot on and around Wikipedia, and I am enjoying trying to submit a page for the first time.

While I have made some futher edits, from the notes left on my first submission, there were largely questions on notability. I have read a lot about notability, as I feel you need to in order to submit a page, and have found the analysis table on the ‘Notability (organisations and companies)’ really helpful.

From my reading, I have understood that references need to be significant, reliable, independent, and secondary and come from sources like mainstream newspapers, non-vanity books, established magazines, television, and radio documentaries, etc.

I believe a number references I included in my submission meet this criterion and would highlight this as a notable company. I would love to understand further what I have not quite grasped in my thinking on notability.

The company in question is a video streaming platform. I have included a number of references, including those included below as examples which come from a mixture of established magazines and radio stations. These appear to be independent of marketing spend or ‘advertorial’ content, and highlight that the work the company has a notable footprint.

Some examples of included references:

REF1 – T3 Magazine Significant: Leading international tech publication. Print + Online. In print since 1996. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: Sole focus of the article is On Air (300 words). Not sponsored. Written by one of their regular staff writers.

REF2 – Radio X Significant: Radio station + online site site. Established in 1997. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: Largest alternative radio station in the country. Full article on our product. Regularly covers this subject: Noel Gallagher. Not a sponsored article.

REF8 - Music Week Significant: Biggest UK Music Industry publication. Print + Online. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: The linked article focuses on the On Air product with international pop-act Years & Years. Shared as organic news – not sponsored. Written by their news editors.

REF10 – NME Significant: Legendary international music magazine. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: They regularly cover the artist in question so is a typical / expected piece of coverage – not sponsored. Written by a regular staff writer.

I would love to understand more if I am wrong in my beliefs that these are quality references for the company.

Thanks in advance. 66ozone (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @66ozone: I'd say the first source looks pretty solid. The other three that you mention seem to be more about the artists than about On Air. My hunch is that On Air is using those events to publicise themselves, because they know that big names get more attention. (Whether the publications in question are playing along wittingly or unwittingly, I don't know.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for the feedback. I understand what you're saying re: the publication potential covering the artist more than On Air.  I felt that with them being established magazines, they would work as reliable examples of the service On Air offer being covered in relation to notable artists from established sources - trust me, there were many others from much smaller online zines and blogs.   But I'm happy to rethink those.
 * Thinking about updating the profile to resubmit, would you recommend removing those and purely sticking with those which are directly focused on them? Remove those with a dual focus on artist and company?   66ozone (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @66ozone: if you accept that those three sources don't contribute towards notability, and that you therefore need to add more sources that do, then at that point these become superfluous and could/should be removed (unless of course they support some information which by so doing would become unsupported). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * great advice. thank you  66ozone (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

18:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Cmos16
May I ask why this was rejected? Cmos16 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cmos16: did this really look like a viable encyclopaedia article to you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha thats not how wikipedia works. Coulomb1 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

18:17, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Lochlan.kirk
I'm trying to publish an article about Colonel Frederick G Danielsen D.S.O as there is very little on him though his name appears in multiple honours such as the 1917 new years honours, however I have no online references available as the information is in the form of letters sent from the royal regimental museum of fusiliers. I have inserted pictures and links to their websites but these dont seem to count as a reference. how can I get this published to preserve his legacy? Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Lochlan.kirk.
 * You might be better off hosting this on a blog. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics, using our special definition of notability. You have not demonstrated how the Colonel meet our notability criteria.
 * You also did not source the draft correctly: we cannot accept an article that is only primary sources.  Qcne  (talk)  18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest reading Wikipedia is not a memorial site.  Qcne  (talk)  18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * why would this one not get published when there are the same type of articles about other men in the service. For example there are plenty of people in the 1917 and 1944 new years honours that go to a personal account of them. Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we have many tens of thousands of poor quality articles which no one has gotten around to deleting or cleaning up. This is a volunteer project, and we certainly don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. If you give me some examples of other 1917 and 1944 articles I can look to see if they are salvageable.
 * If you wanted to base your draft on an existing article, please choose a WP:GOOD one which has been vetted by the community as passing our minimum standards.  Qcne  (talk)  18:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Brigadier general John Harold Whitworth Becke, CMG, DSO, AFC (17 September 1879 – 7 February 1949) is one example very similar to what i have tried to publish, this only contains one reference Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Lochlan.kirk. That article has now been tagged as likely not notable enough for inclusion in the project.  Qcne   (talk)  18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

23:35, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Coulomb1
I'm getting my submissions declined. I tried to expand upon my article keeping in mind the feedback, but it still got declined. What exactly should I focus on to improve the draft? I feel like I have good enough sources, but apparently I don't. Coulomb1 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Of your five references, three are published by Microsoft and are therefore not independent of the topic. They are of no value in establishing the notability of a Microsoft product feature. The other two references do not devote significant coverage to the topic of "Compute pipeline". Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Cullen328, I don’t see how Microsoft documentation wouldn’t be acceptable for a Microsoft API. I can see how that would be true in a general case like a biography, but for documentation of an API, I feel like it would have the inverse effect. Microsoft wouldn’t want to give wrong information on how to use their API.


 * And for my other sources, I believe that Compute pipeline is the best term to encapsulate the whole field of compute shaders, pipelines, and command lists. D3D12 uses a compute command list to use compute pipelines, which uses a compute shader. This is why my references vary in what area they’re talking about, but they are all still closely related to the compute pipeline. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , Please read the General notability guideline carefully. It says . This applies broadly to all topics and there is no carve-out for computer related topics. As for, this is not adequate. What is required is Significant coverage that . When you write , that is Original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Nobody cares what you believe. Literally all that matters in this process is what reliable, independent sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, I understand the importance of the independence of the sources from the subject of the article. However I still don’t understand why Microsoft would willingly put false information in their documentation, but nonetheless I will respect the rules and I will try to not use their sources.
 * As for original research: I did not mean for that to stand as original research; I am not stating as a fact that they are all the same, I am saying that it would probably be best for them to be grouped into a single article. I will certainly put them into their separate articles if you think that it is best, but all I was saying from my response was that I think it would be cleaner to put them all into one article.
 * From your feedback, perhaps instead of making this article, I could put this information in DirectCompute? Coulomb1 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I never said, implied nor hinted that . No such thing. Your comment conflates the reliability of a source with the independence of the source. In order for a source to contribute to the notabilty of a topic on Wikipedia, the source must meet three standards: it must be independent and reliable and devote significant coverage to the specific topic. It is a three part test, and two out of three is simply not good enough. If anyone wants to know what Microsoft says about a Microsoft feature, then they have the simple solution of going straight to Microsoft's website. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a Microsoft feature will summarize what reliable sources entirely unconnected with Microsoft say about it. If that independent coverage does not exist, then the topic is not eligible for a freestanding Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you, and for any annoyance I may have caused you. I was half-way through writing a whole paragraph and decided to scrap it lol. I'll just make sure to adhere to these standards, no matter the circumstance. Have a good weekend. (It's Friday, yes? Ugh finally.) Coulomb1 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)