Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 7

= June 7 =

04:41, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia
The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Hal Stern's university page) that are not Hal Stern's employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Hal Stern is a very accomplished scholar---book author, professor, and a Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor at a large U.S. University. It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. universities and scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a more level-headed and potentially more knowledgeable user? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Garden Lover Asia: please do not make assumptions about what knowledge another editor may or may not possess, or imply that they are not "level-headed"; that is just insulting. Also, one does not need to be an expert in a topic area to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines.
 * And another thing: draft reviewers are there to review, not to edit. It isn't our job to improve the drafts up to such standard that they can be accepted, that is entirely the responsibility of the author(s) and other proponents of the draft. So no, it is not "extremely surprising" that this wasn't done here, quite the opposite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have every right to make assumption about User4edits. The page of this editor mentions that he "may be found hunting for promotional and paid articles of Indian businesspeople." and he declined my article on Hal Stern. Later, Mdann52 moved the page to article space, because Mdann52 thought that "clearly meets WP:NPROF from the appointment held alone". This reversal by Mdann52 pretty much proves that User4edits was not knowledgeble and is only trying to reject articles instead of being more open and making Wikipedia what it claims to be: an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add - I decided to approve the article after spending a fair amount of time to check the notability, add some sources and do some further research - however it would also have been perfectly reasonable for me not to do so given how it was when it was reviewed. The three sources I added while doing so help with the notability, and it appears to meet the relevant guidelines, however given how many primary sources were in the article when it was reviewed, I don't think the other users actions were unreasonable or unexpected. Mdann52 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Garden Lover Asia: you seem to be intent on continuing further down the path of aspersions and innuendo, and I am asking you to please stop, and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which relies on people working together, not against each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

04:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia
The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Prof. Braun's university page) that are not his employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Henry Braun is a very accomplished scholar---book author, educator, professor, several prestigious career award winners, fellows of prestigious organizations like AERA, inducted into prestigious organizations like National Academy of Science, former VP of a large non-profit,.... It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a user who is potentially more knowledgeable about the U.S. universities and education system? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @User4edits, who was mentioned by name.
 * @Garden Lover Asia Yes, the subject might be notable per WP:NPROF, but it would need a rewrite and more sources before being published. There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert, and it needs more independent reliable sources. Also, what is your relationship with ? They asked about the same draft a while ago.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Garden Lover Asia has a draft in their sandbox which is of the same subject on which @Seeking absolute truth was editing (draft deleted for promotion). I have left a sock notice on GardenLoverAsia's talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in a small field of research (educational measurement and statistics). So I meet the same people, read research work from the same people, attend presentations of the same people at conferences etc. as others in our field. So it should not be surprising if I am working on the same article as another person (probably in the same field). And yes---I discussed with a couple of researchers that I met at a conference in April (Conference program: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NCME/4b7590fc-3903-444d-b89d-c45b7fa3da3f/UploadedImages/2024_Annual_Meeting/NCME004-AnnualMeeting_Program_FINAL.pdf) about publishing Wikipedia articles on a few people who we thought were thought leaders there: Henry Braun, Robert Mislevy, Randy Bennett, Sandip Sinharay, Alina von Davier (she has a Wikipedia article, we found) etc. So it is possible that another researcher tried to publish an article on Henry Braun or Hal Stern or Sandip Sinharay (who I am working on right now). In addition, instead of focusing on which account is related to who (and trying to be the next Sherlock Holmes), I request you to be fair to the subjects of the articles submitted. Henry Braun is very similar in stature in his field to Eric Bradlow, Li Cai, Paul W. Holland, Alina von Davier etc. who are all in the same field (Prof. Braun was a colleague of three of them) and the references I submitted for Prof. Braun are very similar in nature and number to the references in these other articles. So it is strange that an article on Prof. Braun would be declined when these other articles exist. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * About your statement "There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert", what about the following in the article for Li Cai (who is in the same field as Henry Braun): "The algorithm was recognized as a mathematically rigorous breakthrough in the "curse of dimensionality" or the following in the Wikpedia article for Alina von Davier (same field): "Von Davier is a researcher, innovator, and an executive leader"? If "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "..innovator, and an executive leader" are acceptable, how is "world-renowned expert" be peacocky? Also, I am in the same field and both "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "innovator" are too much of an exaggeration. The only thing that is true is that both Li Cai and Alina von Davier are big self-promoters. Thus, it seems that you are applying double standards in reviewing articles and declined an article on a humble person while accepting those on self-promoters. I will end with the fact that Henry Braun received a career contributions award in 2023 in the same field as Li Cai and Alina von Davier--so an article on him is definitely eligible in what is claimed to be an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. I also see that you editors contradict each other. On the article on Henry Braun, I see that the editor StarryGrandma wrote in April on the article on Henry Braun that the references so far are just fine and yet user4edits etc. think references are not enough. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - the issue here isn't the notability (which I don't think anyone has questioned), however the toning of the article and the fact a lot of the article is not supported by citations, or inproperly cited. I'm happy to do some work on rewording some sections if needed, but in the current form it's not really ready for mainspace. Mdann52 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will highly appreciate if you will help with this article on Henry Braun. As I wrote above, I mimicked the format (and sources) of this article from articles on other people in his field (Li Cai, Eric Bradlow, Paul W. Holland), but probably did not succeed entirely. Thanks---you seem to be so much more helpful than editors like user4edit. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have 5 sources to support that his name is Henry Braun that is just weird and completely unnecessary. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A common reason of decline is the lack of reliable sources and different editors have different opinions about what is reliable. So I thought I would add a few to increase the chance of acceptance. :-) I will revise it soon to reduce the number. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am preparing a submission on Sandip Sinharay that is in my sandbox. Will you please take a quick Look and let me know if you consider him to pass the criteria of a notable person stated in WP:NPROF? I think Sandip Sinharay does pass because of being an editor of a prestigious journal (and past editor of two other journals) in his field, publisher of books (with well-known publishers) and 100+ articles, and winners of important awards in his field. However, I was talking with a few friends (all of whom want to make our field of psychometrics more visible and are bloggers, authors of articles in journals and encyclopedias like Wikipedia etc.) at a recent conference and heard that articles submitted by them on a few other people and Sandip Sinharay were declined for different reasons (not a notable person, self-promotion etc.). Please feel free to do your own research, like you did for Hal Stern, about his notability (or otherwise). There is a news article about him in a leading Bengali newspaper, showing he is notable in another way (by overcoming a terrible accident to later become somewhat successful in life): https://www.anandabazar.com/west-bengal/sandip-singha-roy-shares-his-experience-of-harassments-when-he-was-a-student-at-kharagpur/cid/1453550, but I did not cite that as a source as the Wikipedia editors will immediately protest that. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

10:33, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Yatharthsrivastava
Inquiry for decline Hi I was told that my article Draft:Sukesha didn't have proper citations, though I had included four citations: three from published books and one from a respected website that has often been cited in wiki articles. I would love to get some feedback on where I can improve. First source: Amar Chitra Katha, a respectable comic book series that does research accurately on all of its issues on mythology Second source: Vettam Mani's Puranic Encyclopaedia, a comprehensive work that talks about all mythological figures in Hindu myth. Third source: Wisdom Library, which is a respectable website that is used by wiki for multiple articles on Hindu mythology Fourth source: A direct translation of Ramayana, which talks about my character. Yatharthsrivastava (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Yatharthsrivastava: it's difficult to tell how much of what you've written is actually supported by the sources, as you haven't cited them inline (which, in fairness, is not absolutely mandatory, but very much the preferred method nevertheless); see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
 * Also, offline sources must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.
 * BTW, it seems sources 2 and 3 are actually the same? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed the formatting of your post to remove "inquiry for decline" as a redlink, that's where the draft title goes. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

10:59, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020
Why is there a block on this? It has been cleaned up and now includes the references which prove notability. 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how you've done that, but if you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

12:58, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin
Hello! How can I know of my article about Daniel Druhora is ready to be published? Kamila Fomin (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kamila Fomin: if you're asking about Draft:Daniel Druhora (like you did the last time), then please link to that draft, not the one in your sandbox.
 * I declined this draft a couple of weeks ago. It has been edited since then, but not resubmitted. The way you find out if it's ready for publication is you resubmit it for another review (whenever you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

14:34, 7 June 2024 review of submission by MarkCeline
hi, i recently edited an article, It got declined and the user who declined stated exact reasons too. The problem is, english is not my first language, therefore I am having trouble understanding the instructions. I can try retyping what the user said. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Please word it in simpler terms and help me. MarkCeline (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @MarkCeline: the decline notice says that the subject is not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you DoubleGrazing MarkCeline (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarkCeline It was me who declined the draft. I asked you to go through H:YFA and WP:REFB. Kindly read other articles like Vyapam scam. I would ask you to continue the article. Other users would join for sure. And, we reviewers are not here just to decline. We use to improve the articles appear notable. Keep improving. If you need any help, please ask me. I would be happy to assist. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Twinkle1990. It means a lot. MarkCeline (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For any assistance and improvement of the draft, you are always welcome to my talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Here is the edited article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neet_Scam_2024 MarkCeline (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

15:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Sjoseph2024
I am an elected State Executive Committee member of the Texas Republican Party, and I would like to create my Wikipedia page with all relevant information. Sjoseph2024 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your draft is wholly unsourced and reads like a resume. A Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  Frankly, it would be unusual for a state level party official who does not hold public office to draw the coverage needed to merit an article, but it's not impossible. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any article about you would not be "your Wikipedia page", it would be an article about you, no different than if the New York Times wrote about you. You wouldn't have an exclusive right to edit the article, and cannot keep it on the text that you might prefer it have.  Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory.  See WP:PROUD for more information, as well as WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Afternoon, Sjoseph2024. Firstly, can I please make you aware of WP:AUTOBIO, which is our guidelines for such pages. Generally speaking, you should not publish articles on yourself.
 * Secondly, you would need to meet the criteria at WP:NPOL to show you are notable enough for an article. Candidates for office are generally not notable, so you would need to show you met WP:GNG. From a quick search, I cannot find adaquate sourcing to meet that bar.
 * Thirdly, the draft is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable under our rules for articles on living people. For good reason, we don't allow people to make claims on here they are the subject and X is true, as editors and our readers have no way of verifying that that person is who they say they are. Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this user isn't seeking public office(which doesn't meet NPOL anyway), they are a member of the party's executive committee, essentially on the board. They would probably need to meet WP:BIO and for that there would need to be coverage discussing their influence on the party/its candidates/its ideology/etc. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't identify as mean, I hope that isn't a reflection on my comment :)
 * But thanks for putting what I was trying to say in a more succinct form! Mdann52 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

17:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Singhizking
Hello. My draft has been declined. How do i edit it so that it gets accepted and published as an article. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't cite wikis in general (no editorial oversight). The topic of your draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asian social strata and castes). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * if i add this contentious topic to my draft will it be accepted Singhizking (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You misread what I wrote; I'll clarify. The draft is in a topic area that is considered problematic - specifically, South Asian castes and similar social strata - and so there will be increased scrutiny on your draft as a result. This does not affect the chance of your draft being accepted, but it does mean you need to be careful about how you go about writing this. As to your draft being accepted, you currently have no usable sources at all; as I said, we do not cite wikis. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please can you give me a usable source. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's your job. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject scholarly sources that discuss the surname at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

18:05, 7 June 2024 review of submission by StephenFlint
Because, I just wanna make sure it will submitted or not. That's all! StephenFlint (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your only source is a video from the subject's own YouTube channel. Not only is this completely unacceptable, one source by itself - no matter how good it is - cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Already just wanna know how good or bad it is. Just remind me! StephenFlint (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's bad and has been deleted.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah that's right that's never good. StephenFlint (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

21:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Abhidiit
I created a page about myself. It was declined. I have little to no experience of creating wikipedia pages. My page was declined and I can see editor's comments. But I dont know how to fix those issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abhidiit (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or post their resume. Please see the autobiography policy. It is not recommended that you write about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden.  Any article about you must not merely document your accomplishments, it must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable academic.  Please see Your First Article.  You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

22:31, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 39.34.132.104
I want to publish the article of Ayaz Sheikh. He is my cousin brother and he is a Pakistani playback singer. Can you help me in publishing or creating his article? I have not made any financial deal with Ayaz Sheikh for this work and Ayaz Sheikh's page is already created administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. Please help and support create English Wikipedia Short Page Ayaz Sheikh. If you have an authority. 39.34.132.104 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You draft has already been deleted as unambiguous advertising, which is not permitted on English Wikiepdia. If there is ever an article about your cousin, it will be a summary of what people unconnected with him have published about him, not what he or his associates wish to say.
 * Also, if he is your cousin, then you have a conflict of interest, whether you have a financial arrangement of not: this does not prevent you from creating an article about him, but it makes it harder, because you are likely to find it difficult to write in a sufficiently neutral point of view.
 * What happens on other Wikipedia versions does not concern us here: each version of Wikipedia is a separate project, and has its own rules, policies, and procedures. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

17:54, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 120.56.167.234
The article User: Fishsicles/sandbox has been made redundant by the publishing of Sodium tetrapropylborate, so i want to cleanup the article as per WP:CLEANUP and make it an redirect to that article. Thanks, 120.56.167.234. 120.56.167.99 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That doesn't even make any sense. In any case, you've managed to get yourself blocked (for evading an earlier block, it seems), so take a break and find something to do in the real world instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This IP user seems to have deleted content from today's section, and it cannot be easily restored due to subsequent edits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)