Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 13

= March 13 =

00:10, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Heartleap
Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone could help me understand why my article was declined? I believe the submission's references do show that the subject qualifies for an article. Would it help to label the article a "stub," similar to this one for musician Gobbinjr? Thank you very much in advance for your help, I really appreciate it! Heartleap (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong Hello! Thank you for looking over the draft! I believe the subject fulfills criteria 1 for musicians and ensembles (WP:NSINGER), but I understand that term "multiple" (in reference to the number of articles pertaining to the subject) is vague/subjective, so people could have differing opinions on what qualifies. Heartleap (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

01:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Journorc
I am wondering if you can link the form I have to sign since I know the person I am writing a wikipedia article about personally please Journorc (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @journorc: you don't sign a form, you declare it publicly. see here. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin
Hello, my newly created article just got rejected after many weeks of waiting to be reviewed. I'm new to Wikipedia and will appreciate any guidance on what should be corrected to make it pass. Thank you so much. Klamakin (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. You had no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, just sources documenting her results. If you can find sources with significant coverage of her, you may first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Writing a draft without first finding reliable independent sources (ones that meet WP:42) is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. At best, it is likely to require rebuilding (rewriting what you have written); and often it will be a complete waste of time, because the house cannot be built (your article cannot be accepted because the subject fails to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability). ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

05:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by WriterPankajRai
Yes, the writer is connected to the topic/subject. But still the content of the page is neutral and not promotional or biased.

Do let me know how to make it more neutral or what changes I should do to make it live. WriterPankajRai (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You still have work to do to make it less promotional. On Wikipedia, there is no difference between "informational" and "promotional".  Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  You might have that, but you need to remove the promotional language and make sure the company is talked about in a very dry manner. As advised, see WP:SOLUTIONS.
 * You declared a connection; as you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that you make the stricter paid editing disclosure. You should do this on your user page and the draft talk page(not the draft itself, I will move it). 331dot (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

10:28, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A
Thanks for the review and feedback. I was wondering what kind of sources do you refer to base your rejection on, as the draft has more than 10 sources and all of them are from viable resources like official university websites or newspapers, and all are explicitly expressing the information cited about the person. I would like to improve the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of the references are by Buehler.
 * See WP:42 for the kind of sources which are not just preferred, but required, in order to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I reviewed the attached pages. I understand, however, please check the mentioned sources again. Of the 13 sources at the moment, there are 2 which could be directly related to the person (his website and a google scholar page). All other are as mentioned independent newspapers or official university websites. I will adapt the two sources in the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:9C26:4306:3EDA:5686 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

10:46, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 45.242.213.33
و 45.242.213.33 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Arabic Wikipedia- drafts must be in English. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * how bout you upload it to arabic wikipedia you meanies 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

10:59, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Thisasia
Hello everyone, i want to ask about the review situation about this article since it has been pending for an approval for many days now. I have provided every requirements that i was asked to do by the previous reviewer, including all Rs. Please may I know the review situation so far? Please do let me know if there is still any thing I haven't done yet. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The review situation is simply as stated on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,021 pending submissions waiting for review." There is nothing more you need to do other than be patient- there is no way to guarantee a speedy review.  Reviews are conducted by volunteers, choosing drafts to review in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oow got it, Thanks for your time. Thisasia (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

11:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ronin408
My submission was declined recently for Draft:Ranil Piyaratna. I'm hoping to improve the draft and get it ready for resubmission.

From the decline notice, I understand that the draft requires more significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm currently gathering more reliable resources for notability.

In the meantime, are there any other aspects of the draft that need improvement beyond citations, like the structure, neutrality, or formatting? It would be really helpful if you could provide any specific feedback on what areas need the most work. Thank you. Ronin408 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
 * Much of your draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information in an article about a living person must be sourced, see WP:BLP.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person- what makes them important/significant/influential according to sources(not according to the person themselves or their associates). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

14:03, 13 March 2024 review of submission by SamNCL
Hi, The article to which I'm referencing is the page title. I followed the same style and types of references used in the similar pharmaceutical companies such as Cambrex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrex_Corporation) and Lonza Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonza_Group) but my article was rejected for bad sourcing (not in-depth, reliable, secondary or strictly independent). I think they are secondary, independent and reliable, depth is more personal judgement. Could any give any guidance or advice on this please? Either I'm missing something very obvious but I would argue the article I have submitted is more in-line with Wikipedia's guidelines than the two articles linked above, this just seems really inconsistent. SamNCL (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See other crap exists, Cambrex Corporation should probably be deleted it has no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's usually a poor idea to use other random articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; simply place the target page title in double brackets, like this, Joe Biden appears as Joe Biden.
 * You actually have too many sources, and most of those sources document the routine business activities of the company- Wikipedia is looking for what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the sources see it- what we call the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

14:17, 13 March 2024 review of submission by TCWJ
Hi! I have been working and revising a draft for an article on a living person which was rejected again today. I have some questions concerning the reason, as I have a hard time understanding the evaluation of the sources and literature used in the articel. The reviewer contends that the "draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject); reliable; secondary; independent of the subject." The article has 9 different sources listed - 4 of these are in depth articles or reviews published in either peer-reviewed journal ('Research on Steiner Education') or as feature articles in journals and magazines with (non-academic) editorial processes ('Being Human' is a magazine covering all of the North-American anthroposophical scene; 'Zeitschrift Gegenwart' is a well established German magazine running since 1939 growing out of the political movement of 'Dreigliederung'). 4 other sources are from well established academic publishers (University of California Press; Palgrave Macmillian; State University of New York Press; Berliner Wissenshafts Verlag). These sources treat the subject of the article not exclusively, but as part of a discussion, however - as I also indirectly show by the quotations - the subject is not just mentioned in passing but referred to by claims and statements that import significance to the subject. In addition there is one interview published in Goetheanum, which is the worldwide publication for anthroposophy. I would like to ask someone to evaluate the sources and be specific about how this article draft does not fulfill the criteria for Wikipedia. In my experience with academic peer-review processes, rejections should be understandable in relation to the criteria set for publication. I have benefitted a lot from the earlier stages of this draft article where wiki-reviewers have pointed out weaknesses and lacks of the text. However, at the present stage I have a hard time understanding the evaluation and decision. Might there have been a lack of rigour in reviewing these sources? Thank you! TCWJ (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @TCWJ: have you asked the reviewer who most recently declined this to elaborate? It would seem that's the easiest way forward, given that they've analysed the sources already (to the extent that this is possible, given that most of them are offline and the way some of them are cited) whereas we here at the help desk would have to carry out a whole new review. Bear in mind that anything written or said by the subject (including interviews) do not normally count towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you for reply and suggestion. About interview as source of notability I understand, this is obvious. However, when it comes to personal facts, such as where the subject grew up and what education he/she has, can an interview published in a public magazine then count as source? I have assumed that (but maybe wrongly...?) TCWJ (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @TCWJ: yes, close primary sources (which includes interviews) can be used to support non-contentious information like place and date of birth. Something like education is a bit trickier... if the person says they lived in Springfield and went to the local school, that's fine. Whereas if they say they read maths at Cambridge and finished at the age of 16 as the Senior Wrangler, I think we'll need to see independent verification of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, this makes sense. Thank you. TCWJ (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

15:35, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Lakestein
i tried uploading club logo that was created by the owner SGFC Athletics but i kept getting it removed. . also the clubs photograph at the stadium during its activities were also removed as being copyrighted.

I will highly appreciate it if i get help and lead to get the logo added. Can anyone come to my aid Lakestein (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Lakestein: this draft was accepted a month ago, so any further editing isn't an AfC matter anymore. You may wish to ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

18:21, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Olilke
This is my first article on Wikipedia. I don't have much of information, as he's a not well-know, yet very talented artist. As I learn more, I'll be updating it. Is it possible to do it this way? The information I have so far is accurate. Also, I'd like to add a self portrait of the painter the article is about. When I try to do that, I'm asked to verify that this is my own work. It is not, but it has no copywrite. How do I get around it? I have other questions, but let me start with these two. Thank you in advance, Olga. Olilke (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Olilke: may I ask a question in turn: where does the information in your draft come from, is it all from the one source you've listed (although not cited) at the bottom? While it isn't a requirement, per se, it would be a very good habit to get into for you to cite your sources inline, see WP:REFB / WP:ILC.
 * For this draft to be accepted, you will need to either cite sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, or else demonstrate that this person meets the special WP:ARTIST guideline. The single source currently shown is insufficient to do either.
 * As for the image, I would just leave it out for now, as it has no bearing on whether this draft will be accepted or not. (BTW, you say the image is not under copyright – how do you know that?)
 * Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, like nearly everybody who tries to write a Wikipedia article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
 * First find several independent reliable sources about the subject (see WP:42). Then, forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC for Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee)
Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) Previously declined by @DoubleGrazing, Broc

Please i want to say that this declined submission this time probably have all reliable source needed for an article, The reviewer declined it just because of few English source that was used to reference her music work. Of which I do provided more than two source for her music. All her music has many Rs when you search them in chinese rather than English. The Baidu was never used to Cite for her bio but only used as an external links for chinese companies profile or description that was not on Wikipedia.

I provided lots of source for her Biography both in local news and independent source, all both in chinese and thai and not English hence a clear translation is required for clear understanding.

Sometimes when talking about source, I will probably say that Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) has more better sources than most of the countless artist celebrity article i have seen on Wikipedia, she got better source more than most of her Rocket Girls 101 colleagues articles on Wikipedia. She probably got better sources than this actress Wang Churan article. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've already answered this on your talk page where you pinged me, but I guess you either didn't read my answer or didn't like it. Okay, let's wait for someone else to respond, so you at least get a second opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tone is not appropriate fan cruft fluff includes “astounded and impressed the audience when she melodically sang the songs” “Ziting triumphed “ “her first public recognition and dreams coming true” “Li Ziting's father has always loved his motherland” “Ziting have always loved both Thai and chinese culture regardless as she adores both culture and speaks both language effortlessly.” “Ziting's favorite pet dog called 'Melody' suddenly died” “a trending hashtag #JusticeForMimi” Please remove. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting, i will do the needful. Thisasia (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

19:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ashishtheblogger
My article was rejected Ashishtheblogger (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ashishtheblogger: your draft (not article) was declined (not rejected), because it is effectively unreferenced with no evidence of notability. Now, did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345
Hi, I just want to know if sources and references in different language than the Wikipedia page okay to use? And what is the general guideline on press reviews and critics opinions (with sources)? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S. How would one cite a CD that has been published? Hkc345 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, non-English sources are acceptable, provided they meet the criteria in WP:42, and there are not better-quality English sources.
 * And reviews are often among the best sources, with a couple of provisos:
 * They must be reliably published: a review in a user-contributed site like Goodreads or Amazon should not be cited.
 * They need to contain significant coverage of the subject. A review of a book or album will often be valuable for an article about that book or album; but whether or not it is useful for an article about the writer or musician depends on how much it says about them as opposed to the particular work.
 * ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

22:51, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E
can someone fix this page and make the page good just let this on wikipedia. 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The answer is No. If you want to create an article, my advice is always to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing articles; then read your first article for how to proceed. Note that absolutely the first task in writing an encyclopaedia article is finding the sources, because that's what the article must be based on. Beginning writing an article without first finding sources is like starting to build a house without levelling the ground or checking local building regulations. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

23:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Thevalleyoft
I am trying to make the company more recognized, but the request to create the page was rejected. There is no intention of an advertisement. Thevalleyoft (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and its offerings. That is considered promotional here. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chose on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "To make the company more recognized" is another way of saying "to promote the company". That is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)