Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 28

= March 28 =

05:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 79.110.130.73
We are continuing to work on the resubmission of the article. However, it appears that it has already been written from a neutral point of view and references a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Could you please provide more specific details about the parts of the article that need to be rewritten to ensure compliance with the policies? 79.110.130.73 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft has not been edited since it was declined nearly five months ago.
 * Who is "we"? And what is your relationship with this business?
 * If you are, please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

07:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 103.172.73.129
I don't know now what to publish. I think I need 3 years degree course to publish anything on Wikipedia. It's all a waste of time. 103.172.73.129 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional platform for your non-notable business.
 * Please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

08:36, 28 March 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423
I have submitted my article's review request almost a week ago, but haven't gotten a response. Every time before this, it would only take like 2 days. What's wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @SouthPole5423: nothing is wrong, except that there are many drafts awaiting review. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,045 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That your other reviews were quick was likely just pure chance. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SouthPole5423 your draft is poorly sourced and promotional... "The magazine is known for its diverse and vibrant content, which includes stories, novels, poems, quizzes, magic tricks, adventure tales, travelogues, scientific articles, jokes, and a variety of other engaging features" is CLEARLY not neutral tone! Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

09:57, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Kicks of seven
What can I do for my draft umarjaum to be included on Wikipedia please check my draft umarjaum and then reply me. Kicks of seven (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kicks of seven: nothing, because I've rejected that draft. We only publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable, and your draft presents zero evidence that this is the case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I should delete it? Maybe I can improve the "Kishor Alo" section on the "Prothom Alo" article. SouthPole5423 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SouthPole5423 you don't need to delete Draft:Umarjaum. I did an in-depth look online and could find nothing that can establish notability. Perhaps one day there will be some good sources.
 * Those who reviewed Draft:Kishor Alo gave you some good advice. The first step would be to remove the Medium article, apollo.io source, the mawbiz.com.bd source, because all of them are primary. The rest don't look too good either so please look at the reviewers' comments so you can acquire better sourcing. TLA  tlak 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

10:46, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Agri2024
Please re check this submission Agri2024 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Agri2024: this draft was rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you believe that new evidence of notability has become available which wasn't previously considered, you may make an appeal to the reviewer who rejected this. (Note, though, that neither the JP appointment nor the parliamentary candidacy confer any automatic notability.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

16:07, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Skblole
I don't understand what the problem is here. There's over 60 sources on this article and it's structured exactly the same way as every previous season that's been approved. I need to know more about what I'm expected to do with this if I am supposed to fix it. Skblole (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skblole: what do you mean "over 60 sources"? This draft cites two sources, each only once, leaving the vast majority of the information unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Every single game, competition and transfer is sourced. You're just looking at the ones showing up in the footnotes. Skblole (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skblole: correct, that is all I'm looking at. That is this draft's referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be. It doesn't have to be. It's perfectly fine to have the referencing in immediate proximity to the sourced information, and it's in fact the standard for these football pages on Wikipedia. Skblole (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. If you think that you are following guidelines, why are you using this (usually) voluntary process?
 * I only see two sources. Sources are indeed supposed to be in line with the text they are supporting, I don't see that here. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "what about that one?" argument isn't a good one but I think it's a little different when the argument is "what about every other football season article on Wikipedia?". I have never seen one of these citing each and every game in the footnotes and I think the reason for that is that it would be a mess. It's always done with a link to an official match report next to the game it's referencing. What do you mean you only see two sources? If you think most of them are presented the wrong way that's one thing, but surely you can see that the links are there? And if there's a source that's not in line with something I'm obviously happy to change that. The reason I'm using this process is that I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia operates beyond writing and updating articles, so when my article was removed and made into a draft I saw a link to this page and it made sense to ask about it. I apologize if I took this issue to the wrong place. Skblole (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do see places where you have "source" then a link, this isn't the standard format as I understand it, though my experience with sports related articles is limited. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Vkaralewich
Hi, the article I wrote was denied for significant mention by Nearlyevil665. I was just wondering if this was because I listed the guy's company website as one of the sources. If I remove that will I be fine to resubmit since he does have significant mention in multiple news articles in Hoboken as cited in the sources? Should I find more articles of him? I'm not sure if the reviewer just saw the one bad source and denied it for that reason Vkaralewich (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Vkaralewich: primary sources don't establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend that I delete the article or continue to develop it and find more articles that indicate notability. This guy has a lot of articles about him and he has ads all over hoboken/nyc so everyone knows about him which is why I figured I'd write an article. I think I met the notability unless you think there are specific items within the wikipedia notability article that I am missing? Thanks sorry I am trying to get into Wikipedia Vkaralewich (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you take the image of him as you claimed when you uploaded it? It appears to be professionally taken. It's not necessary to delete the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy
what did I do wrong and what can improve? Girdyguy (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Girdyguy: what you did wrong was that you resubmitted an already rejected draft. Please don't do that again, thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up in school one day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which has articles on notable subjects, not a free web host for pages on micronations which nobody cares about except for their creators.  --Finngall talk  17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it wasn't made in a day it took weeks, and me and my friends didint make it up.if its a hoax then delete all the other mriconation Wikipedia pages List of micronations Girdyguy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * how is this a hoax? Girdyguy (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it not? Anyway, it has now been deleted.
 * Please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

17:25, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Cosmiclatte.sro
The article is rejected because the references are thought to be part of a paid or press campaign. Most of the references in the article are from independent websites that write about similar products. Before I edit and resubmit the article for another review, is there a way to understand exactly which one of the references should be removed from the article? Cosmiclatte.sro (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cosmiclatte.sro: when a publication, even a seemingly reliable one, does a product review or roundup, provides pricing etc. details and a link to the supplier, and overtly or covertly takes a commission from resultant sales, that's not journalism, that's affiliate marketing, and the source cannot be regarded as either independent or genuinely reliable. Churnalism is not much better; it may not act as a sales channel, but is effectively paid promotion, all the same. I haven't analysed the sources in any great detail (you may need to ask the reviewer directly), but they all seemed more or less flaky to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

18:20, 28 March 2024 review of submission by TruckRacingFan1
I would like to know how to create a good article on this topic TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @TruckRacingFan1: probably too late now that the draft has been rejected, but for future reference:
 * Start by finding a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard.
 * Summarise (in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things) what they say about the subject.
 * Cite each source against the information it has provided.
 * This gives you the appropriate content, required references, and proof of notability, all in one fell swoop. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank You TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy
Its not a hoax and the only reason why I made a second was because they deleted the first one when I was gonna fix it. so my I please have help on what to fix so I don't make the same mistake again. Girdyguy (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

22:05, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5
Hello, could you five me more details on why the article was declined and what I can do to get it compliant and approved. Thanks! 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please log in when posting. If you are the creator of the draft, you declared a conflict of interest; what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I further note that you claim to have taken the image of Mr. Chanchaleune, but it appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)