Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 4

= January 4 =

01:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Go1denScarab
Hello: I am trying to create a page about Eugene Chodorow with a friend of mine. Hee is thee Historian and I am the tech guy.

The draft has been denied seemingly because it does not have enough external links to show that enough people are/were talking about Eugene. I notice that there is a much shorter page for August Henkel that has even fewer links. I am confused.

Can someone please give me some concrete advice on what I need to do to make the Chodorow article acceptable?

Thank you Go1denScarab Go1denScarab (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate amd simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
 * The main purpose of an article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. Much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A corollary to what 331dot says: if there is little or no independent published information about a subject, then there is little or no material that can go into an article! ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

01:57, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490
Dark energy and dark matter represent 95% of universe. However, mankind never understood the reactivities of universe because dark energy governs universe in microscopic scale as well in macroscopic scale. Nobody can assume to understand science and universe without considering the impact reactivities of dark energy. This is a reason to which we have a lot of enigmas in all fields of science. The basic reactivity between proton and electron in the atom is not understood yet. They mislead mankind. The big bang theories and all universal science are misinterpreted, and they seem to be pseudo-science because they never understand the implication reactivities of dark energy, dark matter, Higgs Boson, superfluidity and superconductivity, universe expansion reactivities in the process development of universe. Obviously, with no implication of dark energy no one can assume to understand science and technology. Gravity has been poorly explained since the earliest time, and we still have a lot of enigmas. People tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence. This lack of awareness because poor performance is doubly course. Their lack of skills deprives them not only of ability to produce correct responses, but also the expertise necessary to understand that they not producing them. In this planet, people base their perceptions of performance, in part, on their preconceived notions about their wrong skills, because notions often these notions do not correlate with objective performance, they can lead people to make judgements about their performance that have little to do with accomplishment. Obviously, I discovered reactivities of dark energy and all universe and understand the real reactivities of dark energy and all universes. I challenge all mankind on gravity knowledge my legitimate goal is to explains the real reactivities of universe to all people in this planet. Alpha & Omega thermodynamic Sigma ZG Matrix is the highest world technology, explains all universe reactivities and solves all scientific enigmas. I am illuminating this world on Gravity knowledge with implication of dark energy reactivities. What is your problem with my discoveries? I just want to illuminate this world with gravity knowledge? 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you please just stop this 'Mostini Planet' nonsense. You're wasting your own time as well as everyone else's. This topic has less than zero chance of being accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

04:16, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Linddaski
I am just trying to find a sandbox and have no idea what has been rejected. as far as I know, I did not submit anything to anything. Is there a way to start over? Linddaski (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Linddaski, it looks like you submitted your draft for review by mistake- it was declined as it was blank. That's okay though: feel free to edit your sandbox to prepare the draft and, when ready, click the blue Resubmit button.  Qcne  (talk)  09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. i didn't see a blank page, but rather something I know nothing about. In a previous attempt to find a sandbox, I saw my own introduction. There's a video from Wikipedia that gives directions to get to a sand box that is out of date. Are there current directions that you are sure work? Do you think it is possible to do this if you don't code? 216.147.121.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (remember to log in, you seem to have logged yourself out).
 * I would recommend the Visual Editor which is a Microsoft Word-style editor which means you can create and edit articles without having to know our coding language called Wikitext. It is not quite as feature rich as the code editor but should be totally okay for beginners: I use it a lot.
 * The tutorials for the Visual Editor are in that above link. Your sandbox is located at User:Linddaski/sandbox and feel free to play about with the Visual Editor - that's what the sandbox is for.
 * If you do accidentally submit it for review, don't worry. Mistakes can happen!  Qcne  (talk)  14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

04:53, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.176.19.127
need to help on submitting the article on autobiography. Which is denied by you. So how can I improve the same article? So I can submit it without any denied. 122.176.19.127 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no indication this person passes our notability criteria, and the draft is written in a completely unacceptable way.  Qcne  (talk)  09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

05:54:04, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miracle for0110
Hello!

I did paraphrasing, but since my sources are in Thai, I must be ready with this too: WP:RSUEC and lead me to include this: WP:RSUEQ.

References: 2, 14, 15

Sources: Elle Men, Vogue, Elle

Is it fine, or copyright?

What should I do if it's not allowed to quote and trans for footnotes?

Will it be okay if I put the English trans but change the quote in Thai into something like: (see paragraph with bold parts) or (see the second paragraph from the end part)?

Or not even trans and directly put those see here, see there? Miracle for0110 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Miracle for0110: sorry, I'm really struggling to understand what you're asking, but I'll take a wild guess... Yes, you are allowed to quote a source, as long as you mark it clearly as a quotation. Yes, it's okay to cite non-English sources. Yes, it would help the reviewers (and later readers) if you could include in the citation a short quotation translated into English. Does any of that answer your question(s)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer and verifying~
 * And maybe I should have highlighted the copyright part.
 * Elle Men. Vogue. Elle. With these 3 fashion magazines (Thailand), can I still do all of them?
 * I'm new and don't know... not sure how copyright works for this type of source... Miracle for0110 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Miracle for0110, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean either. You're perfectly allowed to quote the Thai. That isn't a copyright violation. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean like this one, I found it later on... https://vogue.co.th/privacy (the legal part). Turn out, we can't for free. Texts and images are not allowed to redistribute without getting their direct consent. No fair-use for Thai fashion magazines. So I've decided to remove them all...
 * @Asilvering Thank you for your nice response~
 * To @DoubleGrazing too, for trying to help me out earlier~ Miracle for0110 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Miracle for0110, that refers to copying out large sections of text. A brief direct quotation is perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving me assurance about this topic! I will remember it for my next time 💙 Miracle for0110 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

06:10, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 58.146.122.144
can you please help me to create this page 58.146.122.144 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

09:00, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Stopdeletingposts!
what what? lol why wiki keep on stoping this post it's truth. Stopdeletingposts! (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, you haven't written a Wikipedia page, you've written a series of bullet points. We are looking for an encyclopaedic article that is summarising information from reliable sources.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

10:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Naomicreative
Hi, I've submitted a draft article for review ( John Cameron T.V presenter) but I am new to this and wondered if you could advise if this has successfully made it to the review stage? When tried to publish I received the notification  - No stashed content found for 1190716733/92fef679-9e69-11ee-bd29-d094663b40e2. I would be so grateful for any feedback and advice so that I can publish this. Many thanks, Naomi Naomicreative (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Naomicreative: sorry, I can't find any record of a draft like that in your edit history. Could you have done this under another account, or from an IP (ie. unregistered) user? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is this Draft:John Cameron (British Antiques Expert and TV Presenter). Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're helping this user over on the WP:HELPDESK too. You wouldn't know, @Naomicreative, but we try not to have multiple threads on the same topic across different help forums as it can get confusing.  Qcne  (talk)  11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes this is the one. Pls can you advise what I need to do next. Much appreciated. Naomicreative (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your username appears to indicate a professional connection, please disclose any paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving my message over from the Help Desk...
 * Thanks @Naomicreative, yep you created this draft while logged out. That's okay though.
 * You've not actually submitted this for review yet, so I'm not sure where you got the "Review waiting..." message from. By any chance is there a second draft, similarly named?
 * To submit for review click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. However, don't do that yet as the draft has some inappropriate language and incorrect referencing in it and would be declined in it's present state.
 * You currently have no references but a bunch of empty in-line citations, which makes me think you perhaps copied the draft from somewhere, maybe Microsoft Word? We need in-line citations for every statement. I would recommend following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE to understand how to do this.
 * Some of the inappropriate language that breaks our neutrality policy includes:
 * - renowned for his appearances
 * - consistent expert presenter
 * - diverse portfolio
 * - featured nostalgic songs
 * - often sought after for his after-dinner auctioneering expertise and knowledge
 * Please have a read of our WP:NPOV policy.
 * Let us know if you have any questions.  Qcne  (talk)  11:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for coming back to me. Really appreciate the help. I will work on editing the wording. Should I log in and start again and make sure it has in line citations? thanks Naomicreative (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

12:55, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Parizadshaikh
Hi, i hope you are well. I am looking for publishing my draft ,but i dont know how much time will it take or how do. i give references? Parizadshaikh (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles about people summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable person.  If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media.  Your draft is completely unsourced and does not at all make clear what makes you a notable person.  The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

13:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miladhshahi
Hi, I’m trying to create a Behzad Heidarishahi Wikipedia page with sufficient information and sources. But I couldn’t quite figure out why it's been declined. Would appreciate your help in understanding the issue, please.

Kind regards, Milad Heidarishahi Miladhshahi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Miladhshahi: this draft was declined for inadequate referencing. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. Also, you have listed a number of external sources under 'References', but those are not cited anywhere, and are therefore not particularly useful for anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

13:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Robertforwork
How can I rewrite a conclusion? Robertforwork (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Robertforwork: sorry, I don't understand the question – what "conclusion"? If you mean the section that usually comes at the end of an essay or similar, then encyclopaedia articles do not include such conclusions, principally because our job as article writers is to present facts and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
 * In any case, this draft has now been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry i write it wrong.
 * It's said "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
 * How i can pass this warning and what i should do? Robertforwork (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time.  You offered no sources other than those associated with the company. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  If you are able to do that, please appeal to the last reviewer and offer the independent sources you can summarize.
 * If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

16:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Reliablerani
i have added citations too, what is the problem with the article? please help me fix it Reliablerani (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You have not properly used in-line citations. Instead, you have used external links and then dumped the bare URLs at the bottom of the article. This is not how articles should be formatted.
 * You will need to re-create all the citations properly using in-line citations. Please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
 * The article will be declined again if the citations do not follow our standard.  Qcne  (talk)  16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Reliablerani: the problem is that your draft only cites one source (twice). It then has inline external links, which aren't actually even allowed, as well as a number of additional external links at the end. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using the dynamic method of inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * oh thankyou so much 103.58.154.165 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

16:51, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 888AE0
My text for it is not popping up. Also i have more ideas for the tag things. I would put “Irish dance” and “Down syndrome” I hope this gets fixed. 888AE0 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft has never had any text in it other than "why is it all gone"; if you had typed it in somewhere, it is now lost unfortunately. You may edit the draft to add text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

why was if rejected again. I DID AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY ABOUT ME. 888AE0 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do not start a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

17:14, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Emanon17
I'm unsure about the specific reasons the UCINET page submission was rejected. I understand the references are at fault, and I would like to better understand what specific areas (e.g. not in-depth enough, reliable, independent, etc.) need to be addressed and any specific examples from the draft UCINET page. Emanon17 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your draft just tells of this software and what it does, it does not summarize significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources showing how it is notable- what do independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about it? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

17:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.172.74.215
Please explain me as I can this artist is notable on Google by name arunadh007 122.172.74.215 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Unsourced drafts that do not demonstrate notability will not be accepted. If this person meets our definition of a notable musician, you haven't demonstrated that. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, sorry.  Qcne  (talk)  17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

18:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Louep147
Draft article: Draft:EssentialTech Centre

Hello, I do not understand the reason for the article being declined: I rewrote the article with numerous additional sources (mostly peer-reviewed journals) and can see little difference between the declined article and the accepted one on a similar topic, here: Harvard Humanitarian Initiative

Many thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Content like "renowned for its contributions to science, technology, and engineering." "one of Switzerland's leading universities" "address global challenges through a multifaceted approach that applies technological innovation to three intersecting challenges" "EssentialTech uses a holistic approach" "a number of initiatives that have garnered significant attention in the humanitarian and development space" is promotional, marketing garbage. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists; that another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. It too could be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Harvard Humanitarian Initiative is a VERY poor article with a number of issues and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the (somewhat dismissive) feedback. That wasn't what I understood as the reason why the article was rejected though: both reviewers seemed to cite an issue with the sources instead. Are you saying that if the language is adjusted to more neutral, then the sources are largely ok and it should be accepted? Louep147 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources do not show that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
 * Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, our intention is not to be "dismissive", but to be clear to avoid misunderstanding. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries: it was just the "promotional, marketing garbage" line that riled me a little.
 * I do not work there, but I do work in a related sector in the geographical area and it was frustrating me that there was no entry for an organisation that is considered 'notable' locally and in the aid sector internationally.
 * The peer-reviewed journals in which it publishes are some of the highest-ranked in the world and there are numerous sources of national newspapers in the references. To me, it would seem that this should ensure it meets at least some of the criteria outlined in your link of 'notable organisation'. Either that, or the definition is just very arbitrary and US-centric.
 * Any further advice on whether this is worth redrafting is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louep147: there is nothing US-centric or arbitrary about the definition of a notable organisation (and I quote from WP:ORGCRIT): "[an] organization [...] is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * Publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals is not a notability criterion for organisations.
 * I'm not quite sure what 'local' or 'sectoral' notability might mean in the context of Wikipedia's definition of notability, except to say that hyperlocal secondary sources are usually not considered sufficient for establishing notability, as they tend to have very low threshold for publishing local-interest stories.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that then would be fundamental issue: for someone who has an interest in the aid or medical device sector (or lives in a geographic area where aid is provided), this would be considered useful information, worthy of an article that could help provide knowledge. To a generalist Europe or US-based editor, it is not considered as relevant as information on a band etc...
 * I would argue against the claim that national newspaper coverage counts as 'hyperlocal', but it seems the editorial line is otherwise. Thanks for the feedback; it's disappointing that Wikipedia lacks the editorial diversity required to create something that is useful for all, but understandable.  Louep147 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louep147: just to be clear, I didn't say that national newspapers are hyperlocal. You stated that this subject is "'notable' locally", and I was just picking up on that to qualify the 'secondary sources' part of the notability guideline, in that very local media may not be sufficient to establish global notability. In saying this, I make a distinction between local and national.
 * Apart from that, the issue hinges on Wikipedia's concept of 'notability', which does not mean 'importance' or 'fame' or 'usefulness' etc., but instead whether the subject has been previously covered in appropriate publications or media. This is a fundamental prerequisite, because Wikipedia only summarises such coverage. From this it inevitably follows that if such coverage does not exist, it cannot be summarised, and therefore an article on that subject cannot be published in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

23:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by SapiensYK
Not sure how to fix my footnotes. Also not sure how to submit the article for review Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To resubmit just click the "resubmit" button in the decline message. You must remove all citations to Wikipedia- Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)