Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 30

= January 30 =

01:22, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan
Hello! I created the Little Z draft article, and it was declined from being published. It said it was because I didn't site references, but I was wondering if I added references if the article could be published, and if not, what would I need to change? Thank you for your time. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mayor Orangutan: this draft is effectively entirely unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable for any article, but especially so for articles on living people. For the same reason, there is also no evidence that the subject is notable. If you can provide sources which support the draft contents and establish notability, you may resubmit this for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mayor Orangutan. I'm afraid that you have done what most new editors do if they try to create an article before they have spent time learning the craft of editing Wikipedia: you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Absolutely the very first task in writing an article is finding sources - not just any sources, but independent, reliable, published sources which discuss the subject in depth|. There are two extremely good reasons why this should be the first thing you do:
 * If you cannot find enough satisfactory sources to base an article on, then you will know that the article cannot be accepted (in Wikipedia jargon, the subject is not notable), and every second you spend on it thereafter will be time wasted.
 * If, having written your draft, you now find sources, you will need to revise your draft so that everything in it can be verified by a reliable source. This is likely to mean substantial rewriting.
 * My standard advice is to leave your draft aside completely for a few months, while you learn about Wikipedia's requirements by making improvements to existing articles; learning particularly about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability.
 * Then you can read your first article and (probably) start your draft again if you find evidence of notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

03:54, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Smadur661
How can i write my submmision accordinly?. Smadur661 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Smadur661: I have rejected your draft, because it isn't a viable encyclopaedia article. In fact, I don't even know what it's about! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

04:14, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 74.119.255.46
I need help writing the page for Orato World Media as it keeps getting deleted 74.119.255.46 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Promotional material is usually deleted on sight, as promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

08:02, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Pilgrimant
The submission was declined, giving exactly the same reason as months ago. However, in the meanwhile the draft was improved, and is full of references that can be verified. The refusal is thus motivated by other reasons, as what it says simply does not stand up scrutiny. Therefore I ask the submission to be sent to another, more reasonable and not so biased reviewer. Pilgrimant. Pilgrimant (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pilgrimant: I would advise against unfounded accusations of bias or other ulterior motives, without any evidence to support your contention, especially when multiple reviewers have seen fit to decline the draft.
 * Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements: every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Which source gives this person's DOB? Where do the details in the 'Education' section come from?
 * I believe the draft was correctly declined, although personally I would have probably declined it for the  reason, instead or in addition to the   one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My reply did not contain any accusation. If a same reply is repeated, to a much improved draft, without giving further reasons, that etymologically corresponds to the repetition of a previous judgment, so it was pre-judged, or pre-judiced.
 * Concerning your point, I am using Wikipedia since a long time, and never saw any date of birth or educational details being ever referenced in an entry. It also does not make much sense, as these data are trivial and can be verified, by official sources. I presume Agnes Horvath has all the relevant documents, but don't see how and why this could or should be put online. What matters are publications, reviews, references, and all these were amply referenced, to publicly available sources.
 * So, I do not understand your claim about minimum online citation requirement, as there are many such online citations in the Draft. Can you "define" minimal citation standard? In terms of number of references per sentences? Or per words? Can you direct me to a site selected by you which meets these requirements? Pilgrimant (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Date of birth is not trivial- if you merited a Wikipedia article, would you not want your date of birth correctly sourced in the article? If you see articles with unsourced dates of birth, that needs to be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * EVERY Wikipedia article I EVER read was with unsourced birth. I just checked several scholars I know, still alive, and there was no such reference in any of these sites. I presume if somebody sees an error with his/ her birth date, corrects it. Pilgrimant (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What utter tosh. Every article has an unreferenced DOB, really? If that's your line of argument, then I'm not going to waste my time even trying to explain, other than signposting you (again) to this: WP:DOB. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a seriously abusive reply. Could you send me ONE wiki entry in which the date of birth is referenced online? Pilgrimant (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are millions of them, more importantly please mention the articles that don't have a referenced birthdate because they will need tagging per WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said I have never seen one. Send please in your reply ONE such link. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rishi Sunak. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that the lede section often doesn't have references because they appear further on in the main body of the articles, but the date of birth MUST be referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. The following then should be deleted (or "updated"):
 * Oliver James Dowden
 * Jeremy Hunt
 * James Spencer Cleverly
 * Michael Gove
 * I stop here, I don't have time to continue going through the current members of the UK Government. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At Michael Gove his date of birth is cited in the first line of the "Early life and education" section. As we said, the source will not necessarily be in the lead or infobox. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Same for James Cleverly. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I see this now. However, these are all politicians, not academics. If you look at academics/ social scientists, this new rule is not shown in their case. See Anthony Giddens or Jürgen Habermas, most famous social scientists. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tagged those for citation needed, please see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "new rule"- WP:BLP is by no means new. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that it isn't necessarily referenced in the lead or infobox, the reference may be in the article itself. I second Theroadislong- please provide one article with an unreferenced DOB so we can remove the unsourced date or tag it. "If somebody sees an error" and corrects it- is ripe for abuse and vandalism with out sources. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ALL of those articles have references for birth dates, you have clearly not read far enough into the articles Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

09:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by WW AA 1
Hello, I would like to understand what references aren't approved or if I need to add any more references. I'm struggling to understand the feedback and need it simplified so I can understand and edit the page please, thank you. WW AA 1 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As said by the reviewer, "This article and the sources it cites to are WP:CHURNALISM pieces or product listing. Current citations do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or raise above WP:PASSING mentions. Does not yet demonstrate WP:N.". Put another way, you used paid promotional pieces or basic product listings as sources- what is needed instead are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this business- sources that on their own(not prompted by or based on information fed by the business) choose to write about the business extensively and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about it- how it meets our special Wikipedia definition of a notable business.  The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles.
 * Do you have an association with this business? 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I work for a marketing agency on behalf of the company. Understood, I will find some more articles and replace them and create a re-review. WW AA 1 (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You must make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure. I will post more information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @WW AA 1: most of the draft content is unreferenced – where is the information coming from, and how do we know it's correct? (Hint: we would know this from the referencing.)
 * And the three sources that are cited do not establish notability: one is WP:FORBESCON, the other two are just routine business reporting, and likely to originate with the company in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there, are there examples you can give me please of references which establish notability at all? WW AA 1 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't give you examples of sources that establish notability for the topic you are writing about- only you can find those. Sources are needed that are independent reliable sources, that speak about this company on their own (not paid promotion, other materials from the business, or annoucements of routine business activities). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

13:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Dinky13
Hi, I am submitting an article about a company. I am a bit confused about copyright permissions when submitting images and logos for this document. Am I correct in thinking that if I use images and brand or company logos that are already in the public domain (i.e., have appeared in independent articles on the internet) and credit the source, these will be acceptable? I have read all the information about non-free logos and criteria, etc., and Wikimedia commons, but it is still confusing. The above is my understanding. And I know I have to tick all the boxes on the template. If you could give me a step-by-step or clear and easy guide to understanding this, I would be very grateful. Thanks so much, Daniela Dinky13 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Logos cannot just be taken from internet and used. They need to be uploaded to this Wikipedia (not Commons) under "fair use" rules. Fair use images cannot be in drafts under these rules, though. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And just to add to this, appearing on the internet is not the same as being in the public domain, in what comes to copyright. The vast majority of images available on the internet are still subject to copyright.
 * This draft is currently unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. Your primary focus should be to provide sources which a) verify the information, and b) establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

14:52, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 狄の用務員
It seems that someone hit the submit button on this article I was writing, can I stop this manuscript submission process?

I don't think there are any critical issues with the quality of the article, but the image acceptance process at Wikimedia has been difficult, and I for one hope to publish the article when the image issue is stable.

Of course I understand that the draft is already a public text, and I know that in theory anyone can submit it. However, I find it strange that a user who has not added even a single word would just hit the submit button, and that user has most recently submitted a blank draft, and I don't really believe that users who make such a submission have any idea what they are doing.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do about this issue. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @狄の用務員: yes, it seems submitted it, for reasons best known to them (perhaps they can enlighten us all?). If you're happy to have the draft reviewed, just leave it as it is, otherwise let us know and we can decline it, which removes it from the pending pool for the time being. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you very much. I hope to decline the submission.
 * I am aware of the issues identified by the reviewers and will work quickly to improve them, but since I cannot predict the outcome regarding the images, I would like to return the article to the pending pool and see the results. 狄の用務員 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @狄の用務員: on second thoughts, I've undone the submission rather than declining it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

15:10, 30 January 2024 review of submission by RolfSander
Could someone please explain to me why this article was rejected? Initially, the draft included a section called Computers and meridians. The section was important because it contained several reliable sources that added to the notability of the game Meridians. Besides, it was (in my opinion) written from a neutral point of view. It was not promotional as I'm not associated with any of the gaming platforms mentioned there.

Then two things happened: First, someone completely deleted the Computers and meridians section and all references in it. Next, the submission was rejected because the references did not contain sufficient in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

I don't think this was a fair review process. I would suggest that someone reviews the article again, however, this time also considering the previously deleted section about Computers and meridians. RolfSander (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Meridians (game) has no reliable independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that sources must be reliable and independent. What I don't understand is why you think that the 5 gaming platforms mentioned in the original article are not reliable and independent. Is there any reason to believe that they provide false information about the Meridians game? If not, I consider them to be reliable. The other question is about independence. To the best of my knowledge, none of these gaming platforms pays any money to the inventor of the game, nor do they receive any money from him. Do you have any reason to believe that this might be the case? So let me rephrase my questions:


 * Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms provides inaccurate information, i.e., is not reliable?


 * Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms is not independent? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @RolfSander: I actually agree with the deletion of the 'Computers and meridians' section. It is the same as if an article on a book said that the book can be bought at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Waterstones. How is that relevant (other than in helping to drive sales through those outlets)?
 * Also, just for the record, this draft was not rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only decline (which means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the decline reasons). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is different. Saying that you can buy a book at Amazon and elsewhere is definitely promotional because they make money when selling that book. However, if several gaming platforms have invested time in writing their own code to implement online-play, this clearly adds to the notability of the game.


 * Thanks for explaining the difference between declining and rejecting! Do you have any suggestion how I can revise the article so that it becomes acceptable? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @RolfSander: okay, I will admit to being unfamiliar with these 'gaming platforms'. I assumed that if, as you say, they've invested time and effort into doing something, they hope to gain something from their investment?
 * But even if that's not the case, I don't know what their editorial standards are like, and whether they are secondary sources in a strict sense.
 * Incidentally, the same goes for the last of the deleted sources, which appears to be authored by you.
 * Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think) is that this draft is not written as an encyclopaedia article, but rather a how-to guide explaining the rules and the gameplay. As such, this is contrary to Wikipedia's objectives. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaming platforms: AFAIK, one of the 5 gaming platforms is commercial (Board Game Arena), one is run by a university, and three are maintained as a pure hobby. Thus, only Board Game Arena makes money. They do this via premium accounts, but they do not get or give money from/to game inventors.
 * Sources: says that the very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. I do trust that all 5 cited gaming platforms provide reliable information about Meridians, but I would not trust them when they advertise their own achievements.
 * My program: Yes, the pymerid.py program was written by me. It is open source, and I'm not making any money with it. However, if you think that it should not be mentioned on the Meridians page, that's perfectly fine with me.
 * How-to guide?: Before I started to create the Meridians article, I looked at similar Wikipedia articles that exist already. All of them have a section on rules, and Gomoku for example, also has an example game. There are certainly things that have to be improved in my first draft, but I don't think that we can expect a freshly created page to be perfect. Maybe someone from the Wiki Project Board and table games could review the article and make suggestions how to improve it? RolfSander (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't know what went wrong with your latest comment, but it wiped out several of my recent replies, which I've had to restore manually. When replying to a thread, please just click on the 'reply' link at the end of it, rather than editing the source directly. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about this. I guess that we were editing this page simultaneously. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to use the 'Edit' button. I will use 'reply' from now on. RolfSander (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

15:24, 30 January 2024 review of submission by OmoAyan
I need help on how to fix page and move them from draft to live. I also don't know how to navigate better the page edit. OmoAyan (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @OmoAyan: which draft are you referring to? Regardless, I recommend that you don't try to publish directly yourself, but instead let more experienced reviewers assess the draft and determine whether it is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you're referring to Draft:Israel Ayanwuyi, and I have hadded a header which will allow you to submit it for review.
 * But it is not ready for that yet. Your references are formatted so badly that I can't work out whether they are of any value or not: please read WP:REFB, and redo your references.
 * Please also note that almost the entire article should be based on what reliable sources, wholly unconnected with Ayanwuyi have published about him. Certainly a link to a site selling his book is utterly worthless for this purpose. (A review of the book, published in a major newspaper, might be helpful, if it talked about him, as well as about the book). ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

15:59, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Etienneadaher
Please tell me why portfolio page was rejected? I will add more data if needed. Etienneadaher (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Etienneadaher: that's because there was no evidence of notability, and no indication of even basic noteworthiness. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your professional etc. achievements, try sites like LinkedIn. Also, see WP:AUTOBIO for reasons why no one should be writing articles about themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am the founder of Ete-services.
 * How do you decide if it is basic noteworthiness or not? Etienneadaher (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you founded the business, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid disclosure, please see WP:PAID.
 * The special Wikipedia definition of a notable business may be found at WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves; our articles about businesses summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a business, showing how the notability definition is met. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

17:33, 30 January 2024 review of submission by MicroSupporter
I’m not sure why this was rejected based on submissions from 2022 and before. Almost all the sources added are from 2023+. This includes LBC, Daily Express and b92. All of which are mainstream media. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @MicroSupporter: this topic has gone through several speedy deletions and no fewer than three AfDs. Unless someone can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the subject is notable, there isn't much point in recreating the draft, as we cannot keep relitigating the matter at AfD ad infinitum. Additionally, I would encourage you to read and consider well the closing remarks in Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is understandable but clearly there are more sources now than over a year and a half ago. What can be done to prove its notability? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

19:53, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Tropicus Chocoholica
Hi there, I seem to have lost my way around Wiki. I was trying to move a page to my namespace (I think that's what one should do if the page isn't ready for primetime?) so that I can "park it" and update it another day. Only I moved it to User: Semperis, which doesn't exist. Then I moved it to User: Tropicus Chocoholica (is that the right thing to do?), but in the process got a glimpse of history that someone else might've converted the page to a draft between my moves? Now I'm thoroughly confused and thought I'd reach out on how best to proceed before creating a tangled web of redirects. Sorry for the mess, and thank you in advance! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tropicus Chocoholica: as you can see here, what happened was
 * You moved this draft into the user space, and in so doing created a user page for a nonexistent user 'Semperis'
 * rectified this by moving it into the draft space at Draft:Semperis (and for the record, this would have been the most appropriate location for it, as that is a viable article title should the draft be accepted)
 * You then moved it back into the user space, this time creating your own user page; however, per WP:UP this is not an appropriate location for an article draft, or a correct use of a user page, hence...
 * UtherSRG moved it again, this time to a subpage in your user space, where it remains at User:Tropicus Chocoholica/Semperis
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've now moved it back to the draft namespace which, as you note, is the correct location. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

20:20, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 12.1.133.226
HI there, I have a question. I see that Ed Stetzer's page (who is a contemporary of David Fitch) has a lot less references and yet was still accepted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Stetzer) Can you help us better understand how to get Dave's page accepted? 12.1.133.226 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If another article is undersourced, you are very welcome to improve its sourcing, or nominate it for deletion if appropriate sources do not exist. You don't have to, but people not doing so is why it is in that state. I see that another editor has now tagged Ed Stetzer as lacking sources and possibly failing notability. Note that that article has been around since 2011, so "accepted" simply doesn't apply. We are more careful about quality nowadays.
 * But that article has zero to do with the acceptability of your draft: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

20:32, 30 January 2024 review of submission by BlakeIsHereStudios
I need some help writing this article as I am currently trying to remove unsourced information from it at the moment and add more information. Draft is open for anyone to edit. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of passing WP:NCORP? Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

22:19, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 98.97.114.252
I don't know why my article was rejected. 98.97.114.252 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not host how to guides. This is why your draft was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)