Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 23

= June 23 =

00:30, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy
I asked recently when my wikipage would be reviewed as it has been two months since I submitted it. I would be grateful to receive a response to this question. Belleandpoppy (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Belleandpoppy: for the record, you most recently submitted this draft on May 13; it is now June 23. As it says on top of the page, reviews may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,310 pending submissions. It is impossible to answer your question, as this depends on when a reviewer picks up your draft – could be today, could be weeks from now. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

01:00, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rijomamo
Dear Wikipedia team, I am writing to inform you that my recent article submission to Articles for Creation has undergone a review process. Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that it has not been accepted at this time. The reason provided by your team for the rejection was as follows: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I would like to inquire about the specific requirements for reliable sources that are necessary for the acceptance of my article. I have included inline citations with links to the official websites of the relevant companies, where the information in the article is stated. Additionally, I have provided links to websites that showcase interviews with the person the article is about, and other relevant sources. Despite these efforts, it appears that the article still fell short of meeting the necessary criteria. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide further guidance on what exactly needs to be addressed in order to meet the requirements for article acceptance. I am eager to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the article for reconsideration. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,

Rijomamo

P.S. What criteria are used for acceptance? Are there alternative sources that I can use? Any suggestions to improve source credibility? Rijomamo (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent-of-the-subject source that explicitly corroborates the claim or, failing that, removed wholesale. This is not negotiable, and slapping a source at the end of the paragraph is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 06:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And after actually scanning the draft rather than skimming it, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 06:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Rijomamo! You might not have spotted it, but the words 'reliable sources' in your decline notices are a link to a lot of information about the kind of sources you're looking for. We often sum it up as WP:42 or the golden rule: you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You are trying to establish that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, which don't always match what you might think makes someone notable. So let's have a quick look at your current draft.
 * First, you'll need to learn about how to do citations. Once you've found some reliable sources, read through referencing for beginners before adding any to your draft. You must get this right so that people reading the article can verify your sources and be sure that you're accurately recording what the sources say. Since you are writing about a living person, you also must read WP:BLP, the rules for articles on living people. If you don't follow those rules, parts or all of your article will be removed very quickly.
 * Okay, now we're finally onto the sources! Here's what you have:
 * -Refs 1, 2, 7, 10, 11 are promotional and appear to have been written by Martinez or his publicity team, so they cannot be used (not independent)
 * -Ref 3 is a list of credits, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
 * -Ref 4 is an interview, which cannot be used for notability; you can only use interviews for basic biographical facts like his birthday (not independent). This citation is also completely wrong, because at the moment it's saying that Martinez wrote the article, which he did not.
 * -Refs 5, 6 are images of diplomas, which cannot be used (not significant coverage and probably not something you want everyone on the internet to see in any case)
 * -Ref 8 is a list of people, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
 * -Ref 9 doesn't mention Martinez at all
 * -All the rest of the references are pages about other artists altogether, and are absolutely useless
 * Unfortunately, you have no reliable sources.
 * As a last note, it seems to me that your username suggests you might be Ricardo Jose Martinez Mora. If that is in fact you, I'd like to direct you towards the autobiography policy. Please read it carefully, and also read through why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You'll also want to read the conflict of interest page and follow the instructions to declare your conflict of interest.
 * I hope that's helped you; if you choose to continue with either this draft or joining the wider Wikipedia community to work on other articles, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi StartGrammarTime, thank you for your response. I'm clarifying some point though. I understand everything you said regarding the first part of your reply; however, there are a couple of things you should know in order to have a clearer picture.
 * Ref.4 I think you're mistaken. At any moment it's sayin "Martinez wrote the article". It is literally an interview supporting the claims.
 * Ref 5 and 6 are specific support of the claim they come from. The only way is to show the diplomas from the website the were originated.
 * Ref.8 isn't just a list of people, Ricardo is in that list but there is no direct link to him, rather it has to be scrolled and search but he is in there, again, as a support of the claim of sponsorship from that brand which is very relevant in the musician's world.
 * Ref.9 Effectively doesn't mention the person because it doesn't have an artist section. However, it's mentioned within the Hartke citation that Hartke owns Michael Kelly and in fact, in the Hartke citation it says specifically that the person uses "Michael Kelly Basses".
 * The ref. 10 and 11 in fact were written by the companies referring in the citation and rather than promotion, the citations are intended to support the statement where they come from which is the fact that those companies promote the person and that's significant achievement in the musician's world (I don't know if you are aware of that).
 * The other references were intended to support the fact that Ricardo indeed participated in those recordings that certainly were recipients of the awards it's stated they won.
 * The rest of the information you pin point is accurate regarding the articles and section you suggest to read. I just pointed out these points specifically that I think you should know. Rijomamo (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My responces:
 * Ref 4: Anything a subject says, writes, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for both notability and for any biographical claim that can be contested. Interviews fall into the "Whatever a subject says" territory.
 * Ref 5/6: We don't cite diplomas full stop (too sparse/gov't document). If you want to verify those claims you need a newspaper article or biography that explicitly says so.
 * Ref 8: Sponsorships mean nothing for notability. Any musician of some renown is going to have some form of sponsorship, even if it's just "This is my favourite in town".
 * Ref 9: A distinction without a difference. A source that does not so much as mention a subject cannot be used as a source for that subject.
 * Ref 10/11: There's two problems with that. One, we don't cite PR (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject). Two, anything written by any entity the subject is professionally associated/involved with is tantamount to being written by the subject themselves.
 * The other references: Unless he is specifically listed on the awards these are all effectively notability-by-osmosis claims - essentially, that he's notable because he's attached himself to another notable entity. We do not accept that argument; you need to prove he is notable regardless of his collaborations.
 * —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

04:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Spongebobguy2
I tried to style it after the "List of unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media" but the fail the submission I've made sure to use sources known as reliable by wikipidia and picked well known fan media am I still to broad with my sources and selection? Spongebobguy2 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The page did not look like it was finished when it was declined and it still has sentences that do not have punctuation. Everything on the list needs to have a source. Recon  rabbit  17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

05:22, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Akachukwu Vitalis
I am seeking guidance in ensuring that the article is formatted correctly and that all sources are cited accurately. Akachukwu Vitalis (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Akachukwu Vitalis please read WP:CITE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

07:47, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rullanjar
The article I submitted is the same one I wrote for another website (medium.com). Do I still need to revise it? Rullanjar (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed your link to go to the correct location. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply copy word for word text that you wrote elsewhere to here, this is a copyright violation(even if you are the writer) unless the text was explicitly released with a licence allowing its reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which your text was not). Original text is preferred anyway- text that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the (in this case) musical group, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musical group. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Or, in simpler terms, we can't use text that was published under all-rights-reserved standard copyright because it is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright licencing.) —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 09:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

12:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nakhungu Mukopi
i need reasons why my article was rejected for submission Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nakhungu Mukopi because it is pure spam and will be deleted soon.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you mean it's pure spam? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The submission is littered with promotional text like Committed to developing local talent, she has a keen eye for recognizing and fostering potential to benefit her business empire and the Kenyan economy.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, so what would you recommend instead for it to be published? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nakhungu Mukopi: this draft will not be published, it will be deleted. If you wish to write a new draft about this person, you need to do so by summarising (in your own words, but without any additional 'spin' or embellishment) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about her. This draft cites no such sources (or in fact, any sources at all). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Find places where people with no connection with the subject have chosen, off their own bat, to write about the subject at some length and been published in reliable places. Ignore anything written, published or commissioned by the subject or their associates, and anything based on an interview or press release.
 * Forget everything you personally know about the subject.
 * Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject, citing the sources appropriately.
 * ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

13:20, 23 June 2024 review of submission by TheNuggeteer
I got my draft rejected for non-notability, but I dont think this is non-notable/non-reliable, is this topic reliable/notable or not? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your draft has not been rejected (which would mean the end of the process) but declined. The decline notice is not saying that the party is non-notable, but says that the draft does not yet cite adequate sources to establish that it is notable in the special sense used by Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

13:24, 23 June 2024 review of submission by 5.62.145.144
shut it you have no advice over me 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So why did you ask a question here?   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT SHAPED LIKE A FERRIS WHEEL
 * -CaseOh 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this neccessary? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * idk lol. just my C O U N T R Y 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, as a geofiction guru myself, I've long learned the hard way too: Worldbuilding is frowned upon across WP (even in userspace); see also WP:FAKEARTICLE. There are different other avenues to discuss/showcase your creation--Reddit, StackExchange, Cartographers' Guild, your own blog (if you do have one), maybe a Miraheze wiki of your own (like I already have)...the list goes on. Should you come back in July (when your block expires), we encourage you to take up editing pages on real-world places and subjects, and creating material that adheres to WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

14:31, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Pentpark2019
Hello, this page was recently rejected. I was curious to get more thoughts on the sources I had provided on the talk page Draft talk:Arthur L Aidala. Any help is appreciated. I have already declared my conflict of interest at my user page. Pentpark2019 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that a draft may be resubmitted.
 * The draft does little more than document his media appearances. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely documenting facts about the person, it goes into detail about what the source says is important/significant/influential about the person.  Has Mr. Aidala had a particular influence on the legal field?  Created new legal theories or strategies?  Argued notable cases before SCOTUS?  Things like that. Merely appearing on TV does not confer notability. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

16:37, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi
My Wikipedia article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vellachintalagudem) was not approved. Could you please tell me what changes are needed to get it approved? Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to provide sources for ALL the information not just the census figures. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using "beautiful village" in the very first sentence alone won't cut it per WP:PUFFERY, either. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

20:15, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nicholas Cusanus
I am trying to create a new article, but it keeps on being rejected. The last time because of unreliable sources. The page (on a university professor) contains sources and references to university and publisher’s pages, so I am not quite sure what the reviewer could possible mean, because it was not specified. How to move forward? Every time I change something, I have to wait for months for a new version to be reviewed. Nicholas Cusanus (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you are having a similar experience to most of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new editors who plunge straight away into the challenging task of trying to create a new article, before they have spent a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works.
 * My advice is always to not even think of creating a new article until you have direct practical experience of the meaning and application of fundamental principles such as verifiability, reliable independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
 * What I will say is that ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nicholas Cusanus, let's see if I can help make sense of it. You're writing about an academic, so you need to establish notability (in Wikipedia terms) via either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG.
 * I'm going to assume you're attempting to use NPROF, because that's usually much easier for an academic than GNG. There's a list of criteria on the NPROF page, and interestingly, I see that one of them (#5) states "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". In your draft, I also see what appear to be two named chairs, and as an Australian I think it could be argued that ACU is indeed a major institution of higher education and research. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but that does make me think he might meet criteria 5, and that your only problem here is finding non-primary sources. But then it does seem like secondary sources usually aren't interested in people becoming chairs (fair enough, it's not super exciting news).
 * It might be worthwhile either waiting to see if someone with more experience comes along to help answer your question here, making a comment on your draft that you're relying on NPROF criteria 5, or politely asking the most recent reviewer whether they could clarify the problem with sourcing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

23:50, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Carolynpethick
I need assistance for Carolyn's Wikipedia page Carolynpethick (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * To refrain @CanonNi's AFC-rejection summary: "Promotional autobiography. 3 previous declines." WP offers userpages that you can use to express yourself in the context of your activity/goals/pursuits hereon. Remember, taking it to article or draft space is highly discouraged; see also WP:COI (which you must have disclosed beforehand). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)