Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 31

= January 31 =

04:25, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 92.99.181.18
Hi I am trying to understand why the articles were getting rejected. 92.99.181.18 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted.  Declined means that it may be resubmitted.  Please read the messages left by reviewers carefully, these explain the issues with the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

09:59, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam
how to improve it for submission Mustafdesam (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

11:16, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Matovu256
This is a real person that exists and so helpful to the Ugandan community Matovu256 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No one doubts that the person is real, but the sources you provided are not appropriate for establishing that this person meets the definition of a notable person, so the draft was rejected, meaning that it wil not be considered further, and finally deleted. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you mean he cannot be added on wikipedia!? What is required now?  Matovu256 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not every person merits a Wikipedia article; this isn't a mere database of people that exist. Articles here summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Blogs are generally not appropriate sources, as they lack fact checking, editoral control, and other journalistic standards. Please review the definition of a notable person and if you have independent reliable sources that can be summarized and establish that this person meets that definition, let us know. Those would be things like news stories that discuss his influence or significance as the source sees it, not as he himself might see it(so no interviews, blogs, press releases, or annoucements of routine activities). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

11:58, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 116.90.110.172
Portable Site Offices,Portable Houses,Portable Labor Camps,Portable Mosques,Portable Restrooms,Portable Storage,Portable Warehouse,Portable Staff Camps,Portable School,Portable shop Portable Log Cabin, Portable Storage Facilities,Portable Bathrooms,Portable Pantry,Portable Mess Halls,Portable Building,Portable Hanger,Portable Toilet Units,Portable Meeting Hall,Portable Water Tanks,Portable Joint Room,Portable Containers,Portable Hotel

116.90.110.172 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Entirely portable refusal, since this is just a list of stuff and the draft is deleted 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

13:31, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Infomanfromearth
what sort of sources and cites would make it go through, eg how many different sources. Infomanfromearth (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not about number. It's about quality and purpose.
 * The purpose of a citation is to validate a statement about the subject of the article - nothing else. In order to do this it has to be a reliable source; and the majority of the article must come from sources which are also wholly unconnected with the subject.
 * A citation that does not mention the subject of the Wikipedia article - like many of yours - is a waste of everybody's time.
 * The way to write an article in Wikipedia is first to find several sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find these, then you write a summary of what they say about the subject. Nothing that the subject says, writes, creates, or does, is relevant unless some of those independent commentators have written about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

19:01, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Twentysumn
wondering if the subject has enough citations for publishing, and if not which ones are not credible? Twentysumn (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Twentysumn: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
 * For future reference, BroadwayWorld, IMDb, and the NY Post are not considered reliable sources. You can find out more about specific publications at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 98.114.59.56
I wish for this article to become real. I feel Michael is a worthy enough voice actor to have his own to get to have his own Wikipedia page. 98.114.59.56 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Alas, your wish won't come true, on this occasion. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that "worthy" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wikipedia has articles on worthy people and thoroughly unworthy people. What matters is whether there is enough indepedent, reliably published material about the subject, to base an article on. Unfortunately, voice actors seem to be one of the groups of subjects that don't get written about much, so they tend to be under-represented in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

22:06, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Dfrankow
To me, this page is clearly notable. It is a government agency that spends >$100 million per year, and is already mentioned on several pages on Wikipedia. I can find lots of articles referring to it from accepted media. See for example https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22minneapolis+public+housing+authority%22+site%3Astartribune.com&atb=v154-1&ia=web.

However, I cannot find any secondary sources that describe it. I know Wikipedia wants secondary sources, but people do not tend to write long reference articles about government agencies.

So, I fear it will not be accepted due to sources. Not sure what to do. Ideas? dfrankow (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dfrankow: you have submitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment of notability sooner or later. Was there anything specific you wanted to ask in the meantime?
 * Please note that notability for organisations is defined in WP:ORG, and essentially depends on appropriate sources being available which can be summarised into an article. Being a public body, spending a lot of money, or being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.
 * After I posted this, User:Suriname0 added a bunch of links, and I added more links, that I hope show notability by the rules. I have no other specific questions at this time. dfrankow (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

22:20, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang
Can you help with anything for this, please? Ngaihthang (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ngaihthang: nothing doing; this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than 11 previous declines, I might add!), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)