Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 9

= July 9 =

13:58, 7 July 2024‎ review of submission by Ndmmeyhhsn
My submission was declined on 7 July 2024 by SafariScribe (talk), because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Can you please be more specific as to which sources you consider to be "unreliable", or which facts you feel are not adequately supported? There are countless reliable sources and references given, as well as a listing of 41 published works in print. My submission is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Tedeschi. Thank you. Ndmmeyhhsn (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As a rule, everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable.
 * "Tedeschi was born in Flemington, New Jersey[...]" - Source?
 * "[Tedeschi] graduated from Hunterdon Central Regional High School in 1974." - Source?
 * "He holds an AAS degree in Photography from the Rochester Institute of Technology (1976)[...]" - Source?
 * "[...]BFA degree in Design from the Kansas City Art Institute (1981)[...]" - Source?
 * "Tedeschi began his professional arts career in 1973 as a freelance photographer for the New York Times and other smaller publications[...]" - Source?
 * "[Tedeschi] was a designer with various firms, most notably HNTB Architects in Kansas City (1980–1981)[...]" - Source?
 * "[...]and Landor Associates in San Francisco (1982–1986, and intermittently 1995–1997)." - Source?
 * "Tedeschi began studying martial arts in 1974 under Joseph Jennings[...]" - Source?
 * "He moved to San Francisco in 1981, where he later trained extensively in Hapkido, Taekwondo, Jujutsu, and Judo." - Source?
 * "His primary martial arts teachers[...]" - One source for each one. (There is no need for four sources on a claim.)
 * Lastly, we do not need an exhaustive bibliography. A "greatest hits" selection is preferred, ideally those which have been reviewed in academia or the news. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I interviewed the subject, Marc Tedeschi, back in 2023. Many of your bulleted points were verified by me in public records, birth certificates, diplomas from high school and colleges, interviews with others who knew him, etc. How should I reference such sources? Should I upload copies of them to a website, such as the Internet Archive @ archive.org (assuming Tedeschi would even give me permission to do that)? Much of his work history is common knowledge in the design profession, and included in some of the design magazines, annuals, and exhibitions already listed under "Publications". Should I reference some those sources under "References"? Thanks. Ndmmeyhhsn (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't. Such sources would not help for notability or to meet the more stringent sourcing requirements for biographical claims. There's a reason we generally recommend finding sources first, then writing an article based off what they explicitly say. Also, being common knowledge "in his design profession" means nothing as Wikipedia's audience is not his peers, but Joe Blow from San Antonio. Inside-baseball knowledge does a Wikipedia article no good unless you have hardcopy to back it up. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

00:09, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid
Please review this page, I've been waiting a while for it to get approved. Rincemermaid (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rincemermaid please be patient. We don't do on-request reviews.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

00:30, 9 July 2024 review of submission by SLMSLMJS
To verify if the draft is complete. Thank you. SLMSLMJS (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This looks like a research essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

03:06, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Cathriewe1
I created the Victra page, but it's frequently rejected. I've maintained all Wikipedia terms, but it's still being rejected. May I know the reasons? Cathriewe1 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft is nothing but a list of acquisitions with no indication of what makes Victra notable. (M&A coverage is considered run-of-the-mill and not significant enough to help for notability.) What is your connexion to Victra? —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 04:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I came across an interesting topic, which is why I created the page. Additionally, I have added notable information from several reputable sites. Cathriewe1 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's test that assertion, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
 * https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/111109-87 is useless for notability (too sparse). As a rule, business profiles have too little information to actually cite. Same applies to https://www.comparably.com/companies/victra.
 * https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-affirms-lsf9-atlantis-holdings-llc-victra-at-b-following-company-sale-outlook-stable-08-11-2021 is useless for notability (routine coverage). Ratings agencies have to publicly make these announcements when they happen.
 * We can't use https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/victra-acquires-go-wireless-301516226.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). PR Newswire only ever publishes press releases.
 * We can't use https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2022/11/03/2548286/0/en/index.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Globe Newswire only ever publishes press releases.
 * We can't use https://patch.com/michigan/detroit/calendar/event/20231128/311764ef-64d7-4f64-be2d-955a60797d8b/victra-is-bringing-new-total-by-verizon-prepaid-cellular-stores-to-center-line-mi (no editorial oversight). The article has a disclaimer at the top: "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own."
 * We can't use https://gritdaily.com/victra-teacher-nominations-attend-ron-clark-academy/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who actually wrote this? (We're leery of role bylines because of how frequently they're used to publish content that bypassed the outlet's editorial processes.)
 * https://www.wral.com/story/free-smartphone-dry-out-service-charging-stations-from-victra/17848908/ is useless for notability (routine coverage). News of a temporary service expansion.
 * The Yahoo! Finance source is 404-compliant, but we wouldn't be able to use it even if it weren't as it's attributed to PR Newswire (see above).
 * None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

05:56, 9 July 2024 review of submission by 2404:3100:140D:FBD2:ACE5:F6FF:FE71:9EDF
Please review this article 2404:3100:140D:FBD2:ACE5:F6FF:FE71:9EDF (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot, as the draft has been rejected. None of the sources establish notablity, and the draft is promotional in tone.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

06:19, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Tincee Hema
Hello, I am writing here seeking some assistance in understanding the reason for rejection of the submitted draft. The article I am trying to submit is for a well known malayalam film director - Ullas Chemban. I have included all the available legitimate references about him in the draft. And the references has more elaborate details about him and his work. So not sure what specifically needs to be added for the draft to be published. It would be much appreciated if you can give me a more specific feedback on what else is missing with regards to significant coverage. Thank you very much! Appreciate your help !!! Tincee Hema (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tincee Hema the draft has been declined, not rejected. (rejected means that it cannot be resubmitted) The sources are about his movies rather than him, and are therefore not significant coverage. The references are also not properly formatted and cluttered at the bottom, see Help:Referencing for beginners.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response ! Will check. Tincee Hema (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources aren't helpful. Two are reviews of a single movie; the other two are clearly labeled as interviews in the URL. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 06:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response ! Tincee Hema (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

10:03, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Non so che nome scegliere
Why was it rejected?!?!?!? Non so che nome scegliere (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because we already have an article on the topic here UEFA Euro 2024. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong Yes but the system does not make me edit it!!! Non so che nome scegliere (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * UEFA Euro 2024 is protected to prevent vandalism, but you can request an edit at Talk:UEFA Euro 2024. Wikishovel (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Non so che nome scegliere: that's because that article is semi-protected, which means that your account needs to be four days old to edit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

10:38, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio
My article got rejected but it wasn't offensive nor it was a hoax or such stuff Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio: this is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft (and I think you know it); please stop now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

12:28, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Metrixpk
Dear Wikipedia Team,

I'm reaching out on behalf of Metrix Pakistan, a notable organization in Pakistan focused on youth empowerment, education, and community development. Recently, an article about Metrix Pakistan was created on Wikipedia, but it was promptly rejected due to concerns about notability and reliability of sources. We at Metrix Pakistan are surprised and concerned by this decision, as our organization has a significant impact in Pakistan and has collaborated with government entities, educational institutions, and international organizations. Our work has been recognized and reported by reputable media outlets and sources. We kindly request a reassessment of the article, as we believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We would appreciate it if an experienced editor could review the article and provide guidance on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards. We look forward to your response and assistance in showcasing Metrix Pakistan's contributions to the global community.

Best regards,

Metrix Pakistan Metrixpk (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Metrixpk: the draft has been reviewed by experienced editors, found wanting, and consequently been rejected.
 * You must make a paid-editing disclosure before you edit any further. I will post instructions on your talk page.
 * I must also ask, did you previously edit under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * D Metrixpk (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

13:17, 9 July 2024 review of submission by RichardMeier33
I have been working on the draft Henrik von Scheel for while. It´s the second time. I used allot of time to build the verifiable links, and to improve the text. I am new and I am fell I am stuck. I would appreciate some help to learn from the some of the senior guards. RichardMeier33 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @RichardMeier33! You have a couple of problems with your draft at the moment. One is that it sounds like you are trying to tell everyone how wonderful Henrik von Scheel is - and he might be a great person, but in Wikipedia articles we need to have a very neutral tone. We cannot say "played a pivotal role" or "significantly contributed" or anything else like that unless we are using the same words as a source. Sometimes it helps to think of it as a collection of facts: He was born in this place. He did this thing, and then did that thing.
 * The second problem is your sources. You need to find sources that establish von Scheel is notable by Wikipedia standards; there's a few ways people can be notable, so have a look and decide which one you are going to try to meet. Because von Scheel is also a living person, you need to follow the rules for biographies of living people (BLPs). This means you need to have a suitable source for every single statement in the draft.
 * Your sources need to fit WP:42, the "golden rule" - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If a source doesn't match all three of those, it is not a good source and you shouldn't use it. Remember, the goal here is to show that your subject is notable, so you want all of your sources to support that in some way. I'm going to go over some of your current sources and try to show you which ones are good:
 * 1) doesn't work, so you will probably have to fix that link before we can assess it!
 * 2) seems to have been written by von Scheel, so it is not independent. It also doesn't talk about von Scheel, but about Industry 4.0, so it doesn't have significant coverage of him. You can't use this to show notability.
 * 3) is an interview (not independent), and again about Industry 4.0 (not significant coverage). You can't use this either.
 * 4) is the same as 2) and 3)
 * 5) is the same as 4), only it's about Dubai instead of von Scheel.
 * 6) is a list of people, so it has no significant coverage; this doesn't show notability.
 * 7) is the same as 4)
 * 8) is also the same as 4)
 * 9) is from a company that employs him (not independent, not reliable); this is also no good.
 * 10) is a Wikipedia link; we don't cite Wikipedia. The linked page also doesn't mention von Scheel at all, so it's useless.
 * I'm going to stop there, because hopefully that will give you an idea of what you need to fix. A lot of your sources seem to be things von Scheel has written, which can't be used for notability. I think you're going to have to start over again, looking for sources - newspaper articles, online articles, books, etc - that are about Henrik von Scheel, not about Industry 4.0, and that are not interviews he's done. Your other option is to abandon the draft for the moment, and see whether there's any information you could add to the Fourth Industrial Revolution article instead, since most of your sources focus on that instead. Whatever you decide, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

18:52, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Amphoracat
I see that my draft article has been refused and I am somewhat confused. I have been told that Charles Schneider doesn't meet the notability and reliable sources criteria, but I have included a plethora of links and sources to his works and publications which provide proof of his extensive output. I am in need of guidance about what I can do to improve this article so it can meet the standards referenced. I have some additional newspaper articles and podcast interviews--will these help meet the standard? Are actual book publications not suitable in themselves, but one needs to have actual reviews of the books written in order to indicate that they were published? Specifically, how many additional citations would be needed for this draft article to be accepted? Thank you for your assistance. Amphoracat (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You need to demonstrate that Schneider's works have been professionally reviewed, and/or that he has won awards for his work. See WP:NAUTHOR. Merely linking to sources that show his works exist does not help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

22:52, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Artem 2013 123
It's a REAL country. Please bring back this article. Artem 2013 123 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Artem 2013 123: If you haven't already, please consider taking your concept to MicroWiki in the meantime. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Come back when several independent reliable sources have written at some length about your invention. Until that happens, it cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

23:33, 9 July 2024 review of submission by 2601:18E:D000:4DD0:54FA:196:EC4D:E57D
he is cool 2601:18E:D000:4DD0:54FA:196:EC4D:E57D (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No sources, no article, no debate. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)