Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 27

= February 27 =

00:19, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Boxinglove
This is an event as a boxing lover we need to know about any upcoming boxing event and its always in media and its official, not promoting its just for information for our boxing fans. Boxinglove (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * advice all how can i fix this. Boxinglove (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have little more than announcements of the fight as sources. For this fight to merit an article before it occurs, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the fight and how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

00:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by AWolfSpider
I'm confused as to why this was rejected. These sources are both about as reputable as they get in terms of spiders and there is no information in the stub I wrote that isn't verified in one if not both of the sources. AWolfSpider (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason given for the rejection was a WP:Notability criteria one. Prima facie this requires in-depth coverage by confirmed WP:RS's. This article falls short in both the "in depth" part and the wp:RS part, the latter being due to just mentioning on 2 web sites vs some authoritative published publication. (BTW, there are more species on the planet than there are articles in the entire Wikipedia, so vetting of some type is needed)     IMO the common practice for a species article is that when there is a confirmed reliable source that says that the species exists with some content to put into the article,  and the editor takes the time to write more than a stub on it, that the "in depth" coverage-in-sources criteria gets relaxed.  My advice is to find and add a published confirmed-reliable source and build the article a bit more. If you wish to do that and ping me I'd be happy to take a look at it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

00:26, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Designedits
The decision that this figure is not notable, is entirely subjective and by virtue of the fact that this designer works in the public sphere at an International and domestic level on projects of significant public and private significance is pedantically short-sighted and completely inconsistent with the existence of other Australian figures in this industry who currently have live wikipedia articles. These call on far inferior references and are outdated or not even correctly attributed. (see links at the base of this entry to two examples).

How is it that the importance of the 20 year career of an award-winning, author, internationally published and actively working Australian designer isn't deemed notable? The superficial and subjective nature of this review by user Xegma - a self-professed resident of Kolkata, India, whose special interests are Indian television - demonstrates little understanding of the place this individual holds in this industry - locally or abroad. How is this not peer reviewed, in the context of other articles that have been approved for Wikipedia. It makes very little sense.

James Treble Greg Natale Designedits (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link, the "Draft:" needs to be included. We don't need the whole url when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, just place the title in double brackets, as I've done here.
 * That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is in depth coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Notable" is perhaps an unfortunate word. What it means in Wikipedia speak is none of "important" or "influential", or "famous", or "popular", or even "significant"; it means "there is enough reliable independent material published about the subject to base an article on" - remembering that ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

02:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Rafaelquint99
Requesting a review of the cuisine section to make it more encyclopedic. Added references to section and rephrased part of the section otherwise. Rafaelquint99 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rafaelquint99: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have successfully submitted the draft, and a reviewer will assess it at some point; please be patient.
 * Do you have a connection with this business, by any chance? If so, it needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

06:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Manonmission1970
Hi, Last week, I created article shell for Post Disaster Management Australia, in my sandbox. ... I am working with Dr. Pau Steinfort to co-create this page. There is NO other page on this topic. He brings over 47 years experience in this area, has a PHD and order of Australia, and I have over 20 years in post disaster and community projects, and over 30 year in general program management. I'm really struggling to understand why the core index which i have created in my sandbox was not approved. We are aiming to populate this article, but if Wikipedia doesn't approve the core skeleton of the article, it is not possible to populate the rest of the contents. we have decades of experience in this area, and the materials being consolidated does not existing in a single location. Last week, we were asked again to provide inputs into post disaster recovery, which could easily be put in wikipedia. How can we move this forward. Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Manonmission1970: you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. We publish encyclopaedic articles on subjects which are deemed notable. They are written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, and those sources must be cited both to verify the information and to establish notability. Your draft was unreferenced, and therefore had no evidence of notability. You and your co-author may well be eminent subject matter experts capable of writing about this topic knowledgeably, but that's not what we want; we instead want to see a summary of published information, appropriately referenced, as explained above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An index will not be approved as an article. An article must do as DoubleGrazing states.
 * Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to host information for a "target audience". This is an encyclopedia, typically written by lay people for all lay people. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reason why the table of contents in the sandpit was left unpopulated is because there is a substantive amount of work to be completed in the sandpit, to fully populate the article. If wikipedia is not going to approve the premise of the draft, this is not much point, doing lots of work, only for wikipedia to reject all this work.
 * This seems to be counter, to the logic of having a sandpit to build a strong draft, into a ready to publish article, that meets the wiki standards. We can achieve/prodcuce, better than encyclopedia level notable article on this topic, which is nowhere on Wikipedia, or not really on the internet, except one lite-weight and incomplete source from one Australia Government department. This source is an incomplete view of the topic.
 * We would appreciate your advice, how we can move forward, with decades of experience and knowledge on this topic, we are tryinh to find a way forward on Wikipedia. There is a sea of information, which is challenging to navigate. I would be most grateful, if you can share acceptable pathway forward. We have been trying on best efforts, to advance this consolidation of high value knowledge on this topic. Bye Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The way forward is for you to gather independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, setting aside your personal knowledge and experience. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

06:46, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam
The article Draft:Chaman_Chakko is about a notable and upcoming film editor in Indian films. Mustafdesam (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mustafdesam: "notable" and "upcoming" are pretty much mutually exclusive. In any case, this draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reason why the table of contents in the sandpit was left unpopulated is because there is a substantive amount of work to be completed in the sandpit, to fully populate the article. If wikipedia is not going to approve the premise of the draft, this is not much point, doing lots of work, only for wikipedia to reject all this work.
 * This seems to be counter, to the logic of having a sandpit to build a strong draft, into a ready to publish article, that meets the wiki standards. We can achieve/prodcuce, better than encyclopedia level notable article on this topic, which is nowhere on Wikipedia, or not really on the internet, except one lite-weight and incomplete source from one Australia Government department. This source is an incomplete view of the topic.
 * We would appreciate your advice, how we can move forward, with decades of experience and knowledge on this topic, we are tryinh to find a way forward on Wikipedia. There is a sea of information, which is challenging to navigate. I would be most grateful, if you can share acceptable pathway forward. We have been trying on best efforts, to advance this consolidation of high value knowledge on this topic. Bye Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

08:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JoeManMac
I am the staff of Multiable Company and I would like to create a page for the term "Multiable". I am stuck with the reference links since Multiable does not have much qualify reference links. What can I do to create the Multiable page successfully? JoeManMac (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @JoeManMac: the very first thing you need to do is to formally disclose your paid-editing status; I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
 * As for your draft, Wikipedia articles are mostly written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If you cannot find such sources, then it may not be possible to write an article on your employer at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are essentially asking is "I want to build a house, but I don't have land, the permits, or the materials, so how can I build a house successfully?". If you don't have appropriate sources, there cannot be an article about your employer.  Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist, nor is it a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

10:03, 27 February 2024 review of submission by সফিউল ইসলাম
Do you think this article is like a promotion? সফিউল ইসলাম (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your continuous submission without improvement constituted WP:DE, which also shows that your intent is not about any value addition to Wikipedia, instead about just having an article by any means. Also your previous creation draft:Safiul Islam (Researcher), which is the translation of your name in Bengali shows that you are here only to promote yourself and related others. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

11:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia
Why Rejected Articles? SejalMedia (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

11:17, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia
I created article Saurabh Sudam Tamhane, Saurabh is indian actor, There is NO other page on this topic. SejalMedia (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

12:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 102.220.41.253
I don't have enough experience in editing article in Wikipedia, kindly help me, need for support in submision of this article 102.220.41.253 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello IP editor. I have rejected your article draft as not being notable enough for inclusion in the project. There is no indication Ayub meets our criteria for inclusion, sorry.  Qcne  (talk)  12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will help you by advising you to not even try the challenging task of creating a new article until you have spent at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles. When you have an understanding of notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view, you may be ready to read your first article and have a go at creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

14:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Yoleeth
Hi! I used another wikipedia page as an example when writing this one, as they are similar in company type, and also lists some of the product produced. I also used independent, reliable, unbiased sources. Other feedback on why this submission was declined would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Yoleeth (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Woops! Forgot to include the example I used, Adafruit Industries. Yoleeth (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yoleeth: modelling your draft on an existing article is risky (unless, perhaps, the article is rated good, which the Adafruit one isn't), as the article may have issues that haven't been picked up yet, and which you won't want to replicate in your draft.
 * Your primary objective is to find sources that clearly satisfy the WP:NCORP standard for notability, summarise what they have said about the subject, and cite each source against the information it has provided. No additional 'spin' or promotional content should be included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. Your posting above, translated into housebuilding terms, is something like "I tried to build a house that looks like that one", when you don't know anything about surveying, construction methods, or legal requirements for housebuilding in your area. The crucial part of the work (finding suitable sources) needs to be done before writing a single word, because otherwise you risk all you work being wasted if you can't find the sources (in my analogy, the site not being suitable for building on). ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

15:15, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JackMorley23
Good Afternoon, please advise me on why this isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Alex Blake is an world famous actor appearing in some biggest and best selling series of the century. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @JackMorley23: the sources simply aren't sufficient to establish notability. (Not to mention that this is very promotional throughout.) Anyway, the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Double Grazing, can you please explain how the sources are sufficient enough. IMBD is probably one of the biggest platforms for actors in the world (This is the main source). In terms of it been very promotional I would strongly disagree and align that this is the same as any other actor on WIKI. Please advise if this can be reviewed again. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IMDB is user-editable and as such is unacceptable as a source here. If there are other articles that are similar to this draft, please identify them so we can take action. Other poor articles cannot justify adding more poor articles, see Other stuff exists. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have come to the consensus that IMDB is not a reliable source, see WP:IMDB.  Qcne  (talk)  16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

15:38, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 31.4.159.31
If Gibraltar Wave FC were a men`s football club there would be no doubts. Being a women`s team......what a pity guys 31.4.159.31 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you asking a question? The rejection has absolutely zero to do with the fact that this is a women's team. As a reviewer stated "A new football club with no participation in notable events. Records section is also unsourced." 331dot (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

16:58, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Sojijos
How can I create relevant articles that will not get rejected? Sojijos (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You linked to your user page, but are you referring to Draft:Advenser? It was declined, not rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By understanding Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

17:37, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7
Hi. This draft article was declined due to needing more published sources. I have included the following: a published article in a peer reviewed scientific journal; a link to a article by UPI - United Press International, and a recent book written by experts in the field, which covers the idea, showing that it has gained at least some acceptance. I don't understand why more sources should be needed. Could someone expand on what exactly is needed and why please? Hewer7 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You have described their theory, but not offered sources that discuss what makes it important, or notable. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the book I referenced explains why it is notable. It is an alternative idea that fits within general relativity and produces a universe that is “looks essentially identical to the aftermath of the big bang” according to big bang supporting cosmologists Barnes and Lewis. Geraint Lewis, according to his Wikipedia page is " a Professor of Astrophysics (Teaching and Research) at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, part of the University of Sydney's School of Physics. He is head of the Gravitational Astrophysics Group. He was previously the Associate Head for Research at the School of Physics, and held an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship between 2011 and 2015. Lewis won the 2016 Walter Boas Medal in recognition of excellence in research in Physics. In 2021, he was awarded the David Allen Prize of the Astronomical Society of Australia for exceptional achievement in astronomy communication." Hewer7 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

17:49, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7
Hi. The draft article was declined due to needing more or better sources. However I have included references to: a well respected peer reviewed science journal; an article published by United Press International; a book written by experts in the field around 17 years after the initial scientific paper. I felt that these should be enough. Could you please explain what more is required, if so, and why? Hewer7 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ignore please, duplicate Hewer7 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

18:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Founderofthecity1234
Please help me fix this draft, I do not know and understand why it keeps getting rejected when it is done in the same tone and context as other pages in the same field Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your article has many big problems but IMO the article could be passed anyway.  The key thing is meeting wp:notability and I took the time to go though that mess of a "reference" section (which is really set up as just a list of external links)    and found sources that provide the requisite coverage.   Hypothetically you could resubmit for review and ping me and I'd pass it but why not fix up some of the severe problems and have some fun and learn first? Start by learning the basic way on how to do references and citations in Wikipedia  and then put n references and cites to them into the article. Also convert those two in-line external links into cites to references.  The tone isn't too bad but you can improve it by finding the sources (in your list) that provide in depth coverage of the topic and put some material from them into the article, cited to that reference. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

20:09, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200
Please tell me what I did wrong in creating the River Ridge Commerce Center page RRCC6200 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Too many serious problems to try to cover here. BTW including copyvio. Suggest not pursuing trying to create this at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * (User blocked. Also, renamed to .) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

21:11, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200
Can I keep the name and change the content to abide by the rules of Wikipedia? RRCC6200 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @RRCC6200 this is likely to be deleted for violating Wikipedia's rules against promotion but you are welcome to recreate a draft that is within policies and guidelines. See Your first article for guidance along with WP:BACKWARD and avoid WP:PEACOCK terms (i.e. start with what reputable sources that have no affiliation with the topic have about written it and work from there).  S0091 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

22:12, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Artisticresearch
Jason Pine is a Berlin Prize-winning writer and anthropologist, and serves as a full professor at the State University of New York. His distinguished career and contributions to the field of anthropology are well-documented through numerous secondary sources, underlining his fulfillment of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Pine's work, which spans ethnography, cultural analysis, and the study of socio-economic dynamics, has garnered recognition for its depth and impact. Artistic Research (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a question? I have declined your draft because the tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. For example it is littered with ridiculous, inappropriate puffery and unsourced content “Pine’s work eschews the use of ethnographic research for transcendental theory-making” “He immerses readers directly into the environments he studies,” “Pine's work demonstrates a commitment to making scholarly research accessible to a wider audience through careful attention to the art of writing and reading” etc etc etc it will need a complete re-write.Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now rejected this draft, @Artisticresearch, as you submitted it again with promotional language throughout. Either read and understand WP:NPOV or don't waste any more volunteer time. Thanks.  Qcne  (talk)  11:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)