Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 22

= March 22 =

02:02, 22 March 2024 review of submission by Tom windows
he is a real thing Tom windows (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @tom windows: wikipedia is not a catalog of everything that exists. ltb d l (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

05:05, 22 March 2024 review of submission by Bertsnert
I have made some more amendments to this article to reduce some of the bluster, but would appreciate guidance to any specific sections which still sound like an advertisement.

I've also added some additional sources beyond the organisation's web page.

I believe this organisation is notable enough for Wikipedia, as it has made a major impact in public health, but I didn't want to just add lists of references to journal articles or profiles of prominent researchers.

Bertsnert (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bertsnert: promotionality can take many forms, it can be the content, the language/tone, or the sourcing (as in, if it's the organisation 'telling the world' about itself, without citing independent and reliable third-party sources, that is by definition promotional). I think in this case it's all of the above.
 * You also need to have another look at notability. It doesn't arise from having "made a major impact in public health", or anything of that sort. It arises from significant coverage in multiple independent sources meeting the WP:GNG standard. Granted, I've not analysed the sources in this draft in any detail, but a quick scan suggests they don't amount to sufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , your draft says . That raises the obvious question of why this specific council ought to have a freestanding article instead of being covered in one of eight subsections of Cancer Council Australia. The relevant content guideline language can be found at WP:BRANCH which says

Unless there is something dramatically different about this regional council as opposed to the other seven councils, I do not see why it needs a separate article. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

08:47, 22 March 2024 review of submission by Robertlengsfeld3
reliable secondary sources and how to find and add them Robertlengsfeld3 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about a person, not what they want to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

09:00, 22 March 2024 review of submission by JustinYuAu
Hello, after multiple revisions, I received feedback on the entry [Draft:Yuewen (China Literature Limited)] as follows: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia'. How should I modify the content to have my entry officially created? Please help me with submission. Many thanks!!! JustinYuAu (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Rejected means that it will not be considered further- that there is nothing more you can do at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AMOUNT. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

09:22, 22 March 2024 review of submission by DESTEN Alasdair
Hello, it would be helpful to know if there are any formatting errors outstanding in my draft which may impact the submission's success.

Thanks in advance!

Cheers, Al DESTEN Alasdair (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
 * Formatting errors in an of themselves should not affect the draft as long as the sources and text are acceptable. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

14:17, 22 March 2024 review of submission by SPMLive
I wrote a bio on a player I represent and having trouble. Help SPMLive (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @SPMLive: yes, you wrote two, and after declining both a couple of times I eventually rejected them, since you just kept resubmitting without any real attempt at addressing the decline reasons.
 * Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for promotion and username. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

16:15, 22 March 2024 review of submission by Springfaerie
I don’t understand what I did wrong Springfaerie (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Springfaerie, you didn't do anything wrong. You simply wrote a draft about a person who does not yet meet our notability guidelines. This is a common mistake new editors make: we would recommend you spend a few months learning the Wikipedia guidelines and policies and improving existing articles before trying to create a new article. Qcne (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the person I wrote about is notable, I guess I just need to add more references? Springfaerie (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Springfaerie: whether the person is or isn't notable isn't given and remains to be seen.
 * You need to cite better sources, rather than more per se. You're currently citing Medium (non-reliable source) and IMDb (ditto), and a commercial agency. None of these help to establish notability in the slightest.
 * You also need to make sure that you're properly supporting the contents, incl. all personal details and anything potentially contentious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone's notability is defined by the references. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

16:33, 22 March 2024 review of submission by SpanielLD
I submitted a draft for my Ecological Structural Instability page and I am not quite satisfied with the outcome. I received feedback saying that this read too much as an essay which is understandable and I will correct this, however the feedback stating that the information given was not factual but it is. Could you please look into this further as all information provided and referenced in this article was drawn from reliable, published studies from respected researchers.

Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. SpanielLD (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @SpanielLD, I do not see anywhere where the reviewer stated the draft contained factual errors? Pinging declining reviewer @Star Mississippi. Qcne (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Qcne that's correct. The tone is the most problematic but with unsourced items such as Mathematical analysis can provide more in depth understanding of ecological structural instability, especially because the effects of indirect interactions can be counter-intuitive, and can be used to make quantitative predictions. we have no way of knowing whether the information is factual or not as you have not provided sourcing. Let me know if that's helpful @SpanielLD Star   Mississippi  16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft begins with a defintion, and then cites a paper which I can only read the introduction to, but the phrase does not occur in that. Does that paper define the phrase?
 * Thereafter there is no citation in your draft until one which is attached to a sentence beginning, "For example". In other words, there is no source cited for the bulk of the contents of the article.
 * Is it all derived from that first citation? If so, it should be cited several times, probably with page or at least section numbers for the different claims it support.
 * The apparent absence of citations for the main claims, and also the fact that the title phrase occurs in none of the titles of the papers cited, leads me to suspect that the draft is largely original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. If I am wrong, it is up to you to show that every definition, every argument, every conclusion, is taken from one or other reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

17:40, 22 March 2024 review of submission by LearnologyX
I've attempted to resolve the issue and have cited the information in accordance with the guidelines outlined in WP:BLP. Additionally, I've strived to maintain a neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV. However, it's important to acknowledge that every editor may have different approaches and interpretations of the guidelines. Therefore, I would appreciate assistance in further improving the draft. Your observations and opinions on whether the current version of the draft has addressed the AfC rejection would be invaluable. It is my humble request that you consider this draft as a stub, open to improvement by others as per WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. LearnologyX (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

17:56, 22 March 2024 review of submission by Vertigo2416
My initial draft was rejected, requesting additional citations. I have made changes and resubmitted. Is this still in the review process, or has it been rejected again? Vertigo2416 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The draft was declined not rejected, you have not re-submitted it for review. I would advise that you stop spamming his name all over Wikipedia too as that is extremely unhelpful and disruptive, especially as the edits are unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

21:26, 22 March 2024 review of submission by 2001:56A:7067:7C00:C50C:E1DE:594E:496F
What can help it become published? 2001:56A:7067:7C00:C50C:E1DE:594E:496F (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Nothing. It has been rejected. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Google News pulls up possibly usable stuff. If this is properly sourced there is a chance this is notable enough to be accepted. TLA  tlak 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)