Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 1

= January 1 =

02:32, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Whatif222
Dear wikipedia team can you please tell me that why my draft was not selected. Whatif222 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello @Whatif222, and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason for the decline, as mentioned in the grey box within the template, suggests adding reliable sources to verify the information in the article. Take a look at the links provided in the decline reason and make improvements to the draft accordingly. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

04:45, 1 January 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:2584:7742:D155:6F50:5F8F:2B5D
Sir I Have Provided 12 references, not single reference can make my article approved?. 2402:8100:2584:7742:D155:6F50:5F8F:2B5D (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey there, the sources you provided are from music platforms that might not establish the subject's notability. At the moment, I'm uncertain if the subject meets the criteria for inclusion, especially considering I couldn't find any additional sources on Google. If you happen to find reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject, feel free to add them and then resubmit the draft for another review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also read WP:BLP. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

07:48, 1 January 2024 review of submission by 182.216.4.174
It's a question that needs to be fixed among the articles I wrote I want to know exactly If you tell me exactly, I'll correct it 182.216.4.174 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't find any evidence that Platea lauren mill (or Platea Lauren Mill or Draft:Platea lauren mill or Draft:Platea Lauren Mill) has ever existed. Please give the exact name of the article or draft you are asking about. Did you create it while logged into an account? What was the user name? ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The draft was at Draft:Platea lauren mill (now G11'd), and the user is/was (now blocked). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

08:13, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Technobabylon
Hello - Why does this draft keep getting declined? I have already ensured a good number of articles which are third party with decent coverage having been included. You keep repeating the same generic comment every time and this is not helpful at all. Please clarify which articles are not suitable for this article and I will amend accordingly. Thank you Technobabylon (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Technobabylon: the reason why this keeps getting declined for the same reason is that the said reason has not been addressed. You need to read and understand the decline notice, the grey box inside the large pink box. Click on each of the links, which point to various policies and guidelines. They will tell you what is missing. TL;DNR = there is no evidence whatsoever that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. The referencing consists of two 'profiles' and four things he has written, none of which contributes towards notability in the slightest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the guidelines a number of times already, so no need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again please. I have referenced a number of reputable third party sources and it is unclear what level of famousness is considered as "notable". The reason some of his works are listed is because that particular section is called "Writings and Publications". Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow to reference any works done by the subject, I can delete this entire section altogether, but it will make the article less useful to the public. Apart from this and the book written by the subject, all the other sources are third party (External Links section). Technobabylon (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Technobabylon: you'll note I said read and understand...
 * Yes, you are allowed to list articles written by this person, but they don't contribute towards notability; neither do author/speaker profiles and the like. Once more: we need to see significant coverage of the subject by independent sources.
 * As for the items in the 'External links' (which shouldn't even be there, strictly speaking) and any other appendices like that, if you're relying on them to establish notability, you need to base your draft contents on them, and cite them as sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. All or almost all of the references need to be of that sort. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the references come from third party sources not related to the subject. Hence I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Please read the draft. Technobabylon (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

10:49, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Kalpurstdio
Please publish my article Kalpurstdio (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kalpurstdio: you haven't even submitted it yet. Not that it would be accepted, if you did, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft lacked the information required to submit it(which is provided when you use the Article Wizard) but adding that information would just be academic as your draft was clear promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about someone; any article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

13:41, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Drnvc1978
I'm wondering whether this article is successfully in the queue to be reviewed because it doesn't seem to show in the 'Category:Pending AfC submissions' list, and also it continues to have a message about it being declined even though I subsequently then re-submitted it to address the issue (basically because I'd mistakenly created a duplicate page which I then deleted). The correct page is called 'F.E. Bromige' Drnvc1978 (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link above(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). As noted at the top of your draft, it is submitted and pending.  This may take some time, though the backlog is significantly less than it used to be(it was months, it's now just weeks). Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Happy to be patient, just wanted reassurance it is in the queue! 82.46.55.43 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, just remember to log in when posting. :) 331dot (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

15:45, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Lbhallonquist
Hello,

I am trying to understand my mistake here. From what I see from other Business school pages, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Can you please provide a few examples that indicate that this articles reads as an advertisement?

Below are some of the other Business pages I referenced: Wharton School Ross School of Business Foster School of Business Lbhallonquist (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Lbhallonquist, emphasis mine:
 * - it has evolved into a premier institution, offering comprehensive business education and fostering innovation in the field of business
 * - played a pivotal role in the
 * - has consistently earned recognition for its academic excellence, faculty contributions, and impactful research
 * - crucial component of the Culverhouse College of Business, is recognized for its exceptional graduate programs and commitment to producing business leaders
 * - particularly recognized for its commitment to producing business leaders through rigorous and innovative graduate education
 * etcetera.
 * These are all the sorts of phrases that one would find in a student marketing brochure, and I should know as I used to write them. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia, which should be purely summarising or paraphrasing sources in a dry, formal, neutral way.
 * The existing articles you linked do have some problems themselves, but have far less promotional language than this draft.
 * By any chance do you work for the school, @Lbhallonquist? This type of speak is common amongst Marketers and leads me to believe you may work in the Marketing Department? If so, you must immediately declare this by following the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions. Let me know,  Qcne  (talk)  16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Qcne,
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have remove most of your suggestions. However, I did leave comprehensive business education. Culverhouse provides bachelors, masters, and doctorates, which makes it comprehensive. Not all schools of business do this. For example Harvard and Stanford do not offer bachelors for business. However, I did rewrite some of the content in the paragraph to reflect the meaning. Hopefully, this helps clarify and is sufficient.
 * Additionally, I think the content may sound like marketing speak because I do work in marketing, just not for the school of anything related. I actually work in automotive.
 * Please let me know if I am good to resubmit. Lbhallonquist (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lbhallonquist Can you let me know first if you have any conflict of interest with this school?  Qcne  (talk)  19:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Qcne I have no conflict of interest with the school. I do not work there, nor am I being paid to create this content. Additionally, another moderator added some comments so I took their suggestions as well. Lbhallonquist (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.
 * I think it's going to be difficult for you to write this with a marketing background, its very easy to slip into marketing speak. You must understand that the Wikipedia voice must never be used to promote a subject, make assertations, or try and sway opinion. Pretend you are writing an autopsy report.
 * The draft is written better now, but some of the language could still be tightened up. You also need sources for the Alumni section. I think it is likely passes our notability criteria so hopefully if you can get that done it can be approved.  Qcne  (talk)  19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is still marketing speak. Oy vey. I will look again and will add some sources to the alumi section. I figured linking to their wikipedia pages would suffice. Thanks for your patience on this. Lbhallonquist (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

16:38, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Albertwiki03
Do you have any ideas on how to improve the article so that it qualifies for a Wikipedia article? I think the person is notable enough, having published numerous pieces in some major magazines and journals, and having translated works of a major classical poet. Albertwiki03 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The reviewer left you advice- you need sources that have significant coverage of this person. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

16:52, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Shkumaraman
Hey unemployed person please write and publish an article for me. On the topic. Shkumaraman (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Shkumaraman: please stop attacking others, and stop promoting yourself. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

17:27, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Joshuapark693
I want to make my own website Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Joshuapark693. You can create your own website via any of the website building services, but not on Wikipedia.  Qcne  (talk)  17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a web hosting service.  Qcne  (talk)  17:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to make my own article on Wikipedia about chess. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has an article about chess: chess. You are free to edit it.  Qcne  (talk)  17:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I mean Chess.com Lessons. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean that I want to make my own article about Chess.com Lessons. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have an article about Chess.com, and there is already a section about the Chess.com Lessons. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so should not have a tutorial on how to play Chess.  Qcne  (talk)  17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do feel free to edit and improve the Chess.com article if you would like, please don't let your draft rejection discourage you. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia and we decline hundreds of drafts a week.  Qcne  (talk)  17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

17:28, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Joshuapark693
I want to make my own website Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please don't create multiple topics.  Qcne  (talk)  17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

21:27, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Hoffda
I updated with abundant references. Lots of volunteer organizations like ours are represented on Wikipedia. I reformatted. I’ve been a modest contributor for a number of years. Hoffda (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As noted by reviewers, your formatting makes the draft unreadable. Please review some other articles to learn more about style and structure, as well as Referencing for beginners.
 * If you are editing about your organization, please read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I agree with 331dot that non-standard formatting of your draft makes it exceptionally difficult for a reviewer to analyze. WP:CHEASTSHEET lists the basic formatting wikicode that can be used in the source editor to create section headers, for example. You do not need to try to write a non-standard table of contents or reference list. When your draft is properly formatted, the MediaWiki software creates the table of contents and the reference list automatically, and corrects them automatically when the article or draft is modified. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hoffda. Not one organisation (or person) is "represented" on Wikipedia in the way you suggest, because Wikipedia is not about "representing" anybody or anything: it is about summarising what independent reliable sources have published about something, nothing more. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
 * It is unfortunately quite possible that some of those articles you are referring to have been improperly created or edited, and should be corrected to return them to a neutral point of view, or should be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)