Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 24

= June 24 =

00:49, 24 June 2024 review of submission by CG214
Hey there, just wanted to learn more about why this draft article was denied?

According to the article "Wikipedia:Notability (books)":

"A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."

As linked in the draft article, this book has been reviewed in full by the highly prominent Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, plus several other independent book reviewers, while also being the sole focus of full articles by Christianity Today, Religion Dispatches, and Sojourners. It's also appeared on the bestseller list maintained by USA Today and been the subject of discussion by a number of figures who themselves are the subject of Wikipedia articles.

At minimum, it's been the subject of not just two or more non-trivial published works, but five or more. CG214 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CG214 I haven't looked at all the sources yet, but the reviews don't seem reliable. The Kirkus Review is part of their indie review program, which, if I understand it correctly, is purchased by the author. The Booklife review isn't promising either, as it is paid for by the author. Are there any other reliable sources that aren't paid for?   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the draft article includes several reviews/articles that weren't part of any indie-specific program. Additionally, Kirkus Reviews isn't in the business of including paid-for reviews in its print edition simply because they were paid for, nor does it award recommendation accolades to books simply because they were paid for. CG214 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CG214: yes, it's true that there are Kirkus, Christianity Today, and Booklife (Publishers Weekly) reviews, and those may be enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK. It's also true that these are buried amongst 25 other sources, most of which are primary (interviews, podcasts, the author's own website). If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a case of too much content and too many sources hiding the good stuff. But that's just my guess, so I'm pinging the reviewer for comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I trim the section about the book's writing process? I included that section because I was following a Wikipedia template for articles on books. CG214 (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like SafariScribe removed a couple of paragraphs that had lots of links to Twitter. Guessing those were the cluttery links? CG214 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was me, not SafariScribe :) yes, most of those were me. I removed the review links from the EL section (as most of those were already inline), and some of the twitter sourcing as this doesn't meet our requirements - with the hope this makes it easier to review! Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! CG214 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mdann52 did a wonderful clean up. @CG214, I have cleaned up finally and moved your draft to article space. Please beware of our ways of verifying contents through reliable sources. Apple podcast from a non notable host or itself is not reliable and usually contains (like an interview) something an author or person will say about themselves or their products. Cheers for adding one to Wikipedia, as we hope you do create good articles as you've matched a foot into that. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I'll keep that in mind! CG214 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks for the ping. Though the article may meet WP:NBOOK, I don't see the sources supporting certain facts as some of them reads like novel announcements and advert . Welp, I found only few reviews from heavily dependent unreliable ones. I will only do a favour of cleaning up the draft since I see the submitter is really here to build an Encyclopedia. @DoubleGrazing, don't you think so? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

03:11, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Angela RSM Stone Forest
Dear Helpdesk Assistant,

My article was rejected due to ''This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.''

Would you please advise which part of the article needs further adjustment? Thank you! Angela RSM Stone Forest (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 'Helpdesk Assistant'? I guess that's me...
 * @Angela RSM Stone Forest: the entire draft is written in a promotional manner, and appears to be the company telling the world about itself. We have no interest in that; you can save such content for your own website. Wikipedia articles should simply summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Helpdesk Assistant, thank you for the prompt response. I will tailor the content to meet the guideline. Angela RSM Stone Forest (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

13:21, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Wkln
This draft was rejected because the article already exists in article space, and I was encouraged to merge it into the main article. The problem is how I have a WP:COI with the subject of this article, which means I'm not at liberty to do so without permission. Can someone look at it and determine if it can be posted before my draft gets deleted? Wkln (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Wkln: we can only have one article on a given topic, that's why this cannot be accepted.
 * You may make edit requests on the published article's talk page, using the Edit COI template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done a partial merge of your edits to the main article, with some cleanup and citation changes, including the relevant attribution. If this is an issue, please let me know. Mdann52 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks good, but I notice that one of the references are coughing up a error in the references section. Wkln (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

14:54, 24 June 2024 review of submission by A Guy Like Ivan
I'm a little confused why my draft was rejected. Did I not include enough citations, or were the existing ones not adequate? A Guy Like Ivan (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @A Guy Like Ivan Much of the sources are the subject's own website. You need to provide other sourcing with reliable significant coverage of the topic. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * understood. I think it should be better now. A Guy Like Ivan (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

15:28, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Afiddle
Unsure why my article was declined, didn’t see specific comments left by the reviewer (unless I’m just missing them!) Afiddle (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Afiddle: the actual decline reasons are given in the grey box(es) inside the large pink one. Please study them carefully, including following all the links in them, which elaborate more on the issues. (If the reviewer provides additional, optional comments, they would appear below the pink box, but in this case there weren't any.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi—Thanks for the quick response! I suppose I’m more confused because I didn’t see any more specific comments beyond “Not formal enough” and “seems like an advertisement,” which I hadn’t picked up on while writing/reviewing at all.
 * Would love if you/someone else would be able or willing to talk through the finer points of that, because I’m not entirely sure where I’d begin in adjusting things (even having clicked through the linked terms in the grey boxes themselves).
 * Thanks again! Afiddle (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Afiddle, it can be very difficult to spot promotional writing when you're the one doing it, and especially if you're unused to writing Wikipedia articles! Your aim here is to make the text a collection of facts, and only facts. Trim sentences down so that only the most vital information is there. Never add any contention that is not in your source. Never use words like "vital", "leader", "key role", and others along those lines unless the source is using identical or near-identical words, and even then you should probably quote the source in order to use them - these are considered peacock terms and not allowed.
 * I'll grab some sentences at random:
 * •"She is a former American government official, a global development and foreign affairs policymaker" - the source says she is "a senior member of the State Department’s vaccine diplomacy office who has worked for years on global health, anti-corruption and economic programs during Democratic administrations". So you can say she's a former American government official, but the source does not say she is a global development and foreign affairs policymaker. You could say her focus has been on global health, anti-corruption and economic programs.
 * •Further down: "Following the Addis Ababa negotiations, Goodman participated in the U.N. negotiations for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." But the source does not mention her at all; you can't say this without a source that agrees with you.
 * •"Goodman also played a key role in the U.S. Government’s response to the Panama Papers, and represented the U.S. at the U.K.’s 2016 Anti-Corruption Forum." The link does not work, so you need to find a new source or an archived version of the current source, or else remove this too.
 * •"Goodman led the negotiations between the U.S. and the Chinese governments to partner on joint international development goals. This resulted in the groundbreaking 2015 Memorandum of Understanding on U.S.-China Development Cooperation." This link also doesn't work, but I did find an archived version. The source is a government memorandum, which we can't use to establish notability, and it also doesn't mention her name at all. These are pretty big claims so you need an impeccable secondary source, such as a reputable newspaper, that specifically says both that Goodman led the negotiations and uses the word "groundbreaking" to describe the memorandum. The reference is also an external link rather than an inline citation, so you would need to fix that when you find a source.
 * •"In the last six months of the Obama Administration, Goodman assisted President Obama in efforts to secure major commitments on international development. The culmination of these efforts was the White House Summit on Global Development: Real Lives, Real Outcomes, held in July 2016." Again the source doesn't mention her name and is a government press release in any case. You need a secondary source that confirms everything in those sentences.
 * Basically, because this is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person), you need to source every single statement you write. Every source you have needs to fit the golden rule: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that because of this, BLPs are the hardest articles to create!
 * If I were in your shoes, I would go over the entire draft sentence by sentence, making sure every claim has a good source, and that the draft never claims anything that is not stated in the source. It's a big job, but if you want to continue, take your time: there's no rush and no deadlines. As long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it won't be deleted and you can keep on trucking. I hope that's helped! Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

16:56, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Abeeha Awais
can you please suggest me how can i improve its notability? Abeeha Awais (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing you, the subject, or anyone associated with either can directly do to help with notability. Any sources written at the behest of the subject are tainted. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

18:55, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Sarandasatsangi
1. " your username suggests you have a relationship with the organization." What sense is made by this sentence, How can someone judge me based on my user name, Do not have a little professionalism. can you proof how I have a relationship with that organization. based on my username? 2. SSI organizes NSC with topmost national institutes including IITs, details of these conferences on their website is given and attached. what reliability do not you got, on top national institute website. 3.SSI is an independent and pioneer organization of system science, their focuses are research, conferences, books , research paper based on system science research, its not an ancient organization that you searching for in depth data. 4. I created this page because SSI is a national organization, educational, research institute, that it is going to transform human life and solve world problem through research and systems approach. Sarandasatsangi (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * Would someone with a name similar to yours be mentioned in the draft in any capacity? Maybe as its founder, as listed in the infobox? Yes.
 * We don't cite government sources (gov't document). We prefer secondary sources.
 * We're looking for evidence that the organisation has been written about for more than just doing basic organisation things. This argument also reinforces the suspicions of you being associated with the organisation.
 * Resorting to trying to advertize your organisation is an argument that will always lose.
 * —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are so many people in India having similarly with my name. Your claim is baseless and I am an undergraduate student not an advertiser. I thought this as an important topic that's why I created.Now you made me an advertiser, but don't worry, from now I will never edit or create any wiki page. I was not knowing the fact that I will become an advertiser by creating wikipage.Thanks a lot to wiki team.no Need to reply my message, I just get the way of your response already.Thank you. Sarandasatsangi (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not "[make] you an advertiser", you did that yourself in bullet 4 of what you wrote above. At the very least, you're too connected to the subject (despite your protestations) to be able to actually write this article neutrally. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

20:34, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Greenbeetroot
How can I change it so that is is a plausible encyclopedic article? Greenbeetroot (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Start by finding three in-depth, independent sources with editorial oversight, then write an article from scratch based on whatever information those sources explicitly provide. We do not accept plagiarised text. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)