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

= May 13 =

07:58, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Tomboy1977
Why my article is rejected though i submitted lot of citations and proofs Tomboy1977 (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tomboy1977: your draft (not yet an 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. The majority of your sources are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In parenthesis, @Tomboy1977, most of thr sources doesn't meet WP:RS. They are primary sources of YouTube interviews of the subject and in no way, proves notability. The welcome message on your talk page can also serve as help after reading, while following the blue links. Thanks! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

08:11, 13 May 2024 review of submission by PNKAT1993
sir i want published this PNKAT1993 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @PNKAT1993: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please carefully read the messages posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PNKAT1993 your draft has been rejected and deleted under WP:G11... twice. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am telling you. I tagged those pages because they are off from the goals of the encyclopaedia. You may not want to read the speedy deletion messages and follow the links. It's good to use the one by Deepfriedokra especially to this act of promotion. You are also a relatively new editor who can Chanel into cleaning up articles; till after learning about Wikipedia. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

10:49, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Zwedexx
The editor mentioned removing the Linkedin references. Are there others I should remove and should I be adding more references? Zwedexx (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Zwedexx. Firstly you should format your references properly, check out the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE for details. Currently all your URLs are broken as they have a malformed character at the end due to the weird way you've referenced.
 * The sources themselves seem reliable enough. Make sure you include enough secondary independent ones that provide significant coverage in order to satisfy WP:NSPORTS.  Qcne  (talk)  11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zwedexx, I have refilled your referwnves already and still can find database results which is meant for the external link section per MOS:EL. The article looks unique anyway but I will leave it for another editor or look at it again when I have less chance. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

12:01, 13 May 2024 review of submission by KiwiiTV
My declined Wikipedia page Hello, I wrote my first wikipedia page today and it got declined. I just wanted to ask what I can do that it gets accepted next time. Have a great day! Kiwii KiwiiTV (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:ToxicTenshi has zero independent reliable sources and no indication of notability]? Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Find several reliable, indepedent, sources that discuss the subject in detail. Ignore anything that does not meet all the criteria in golden rule.
 * . If you have at least three such sources, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say. (If you haven't, give up, as this is not a suitable subject for Wikipedia).
 * ColinFine (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

12:10, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Projectmix
Hi,

Any advice about creating an article about our company? Projectmix (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Projectmix. Yeah: please do not. Wikipedia is not a business directory but an online encyclopedia of notable topics.
 * I would recommend reading When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia.  Qcne  (talk)  12:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also marked your draft as WP:SPAM and it will soon be deleted.  Qcne  (talk)  12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

12:57, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Steffanhalvorsenekholt
I do not understand why Made With Vue.js is not considered an independent source, and I am not sure I get it right about the links in message body. Are we not allowed to reference to internal wiki pages, as I have removed all external links and also links to the official site.

I only have two links now which is references to Made With Vue.js and Product Hunt, which should be considered reliable sources as it is serious companies and that how run their business for many years. Anyways, if there is nothing we can do to get the page published, you can just delete it.

Kind regards, Steffan Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Steffanhalvorsenekholt I've requested deletion of your draft. In addition, please read the warnings given to you on your talk page and disclose your paid editing. Thank you.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is unfair, I added a disclosure message in the Talk session as required from the very beginning. I have read the warnings, thank you. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref: Teahouse Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not disclosed this on your user page. Please do so. Not doing so is, in your words, unfair. has told you what to do and how to do it. Please just do it. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

14:40, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Reqman
Hi. I certainly need help. Finding what I thought would be a simple fix frustrating.

I was looking to add an article concerning a professional engineering organisation as previous pages have been removed. I have had several submissions declined, fair enough, one usefully pointed out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

I had read the above first but struggled to see how this guidance was met by similar organisations that do have a page (refer to Wiki list on TALK). While I get the point just because one organisation is listed it doesn't mean another one should, for example both being licensed by a Government body to register persons in the engineering profession. If I search on the internet or databases for those other professional bodies that are listed I get even less information that I have included in the citation citations. So how did they manage to meet the above criteria? Even less citations than mine. Some have none. I argument here that omission here creates a bias in results returned by Wikipedia.

I added information to TALK but so far no discussion forthcoming.

Some guidance on meeting the Notability criteria for a professional body would be much appreciated. If the history and activities section are removed could the page be added as a stub?

Thanks. Reqman (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Reqman: you have pretty much answered your own question. It is tempting to think that if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then more such stuff can be created, but this clearly makes no sense: just because there are problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia does not mean we should create more such problems. (And if you have identified articles that do not meet referencing or notability etc. requirements, you're welcome to improvement, or tag them for improvement using maintenance templates, or to commence deletion proceedings where improvement is not possible.)
 * To answer your other question about notability criteria for professional bodies, these are the same as for any other organisation, and are laid out in WP:ORG. In other words, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the organisation in question, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of the source, and of each other). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for the prompt response DoubleGrazing. Understood. I get the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point but can see at least 10 pages that do not meet the criteria, and struggle to see many would have significant coverage with independence of the type indicated. But I will leave them as they provide users with accessible information. It would be unfair for example to have such organisations page removed. It is strange but these are organisations who members help make the world tick over yet would be otherwise invisible here and no as straight forward to add in as content on other pages.
 * I was just trying to help out given people have commented to me on the omission so I will stand down. Still I have learned something from the experience. Reqman (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just means that each draft or article is judged on its own merits, and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be problematic, which you would be unaware of. If you want to help us identify and address other problematic articles- of which there are many amongst the nearly 7 million that we have and only a few thousand editors to maintain them- please tell what these other articles you have seen are. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have gotten community review. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or featured articles, which have undergone the same review multiple times over, with all but the first held to more rigourous standards than good-class. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Reqman. I understand your concern about substandard articles getting deleted because they might be "useful"; but usefulness is not part of Wikipedia's purposes. If those articles can be changed to meet Wikipedia's criteria (in most cases, finding suitable independent sources), then they should be; if they can't then they should be deleted. Unfortunately, not many volunteers are willing to spend much time going over tens of thousands of old articles doing this. ColinFine (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

14:43, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Kastark
Hello! The first version of my draft was declined with a reference to WP:CORPDEPTH. I've since updated the draft to include more (and better) references, but since the policy seems to leave some room for judgement I wanted to get another person's perspective on whether the new references are adequate before I resubmit. Thank you in advance for any help! Kastark (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kastark: we don't really do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel that you have addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, you can resubmit and will then get feedback when a reviewer get a chance to assess the draft. If you have specific questions, you may of course ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. Kastark (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

14:45, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Tora08
Im sorry. im not good at this, please deleat my artical. Have a nice day. :) Tora08 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Article tagged for speedy deletion by .   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

16:44, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Saji Edavazhikkal
don't think my draft was reviewed fairly considering some of the other articles references. Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Saji Edavazhikkal: it was certainly correctly declined for lack of notability. On what basis are you alleging unfair treatment, exactly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything unfair about it. Much of your draft is unsourced, at least with in line citations(see WP:REFB), and the citations you have seem to just be routine coverage. The fact that he is a bishop might merit him an article, but any article about him must summarize sources with significant coverage that describe what those sources see as important/significant/influential about him. Is he known for holding particular theological or social views? Does he have certain policies? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reviewer says the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published" however this is not true as most of references show significant coverage the subject (the bishop) being published, also the reviewer says the sources are not "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I think this is grossly unfair as all of the sources are independent of the Bishop and some are also independent secular newspapers that are both independent of the Bishop and the Church.You also say that much of my draft is "unsourced, at least with in line citations." however, if you look at the citations at the end of the paragraph you can see the things mentioned in the paragraph there. Not all bishops hold any "particular theological or social views" personally but are given articles due to the significance of their office.  Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Saji Edavazhikkal
 * Source analysis:-
 * Directly associated with the subject = not independent
 * Indirectly associated with the subject (the Catholic Church) = not independent
 * Appointment news = not significant coverage; probably also not independent (press release?)
 * As #2
 * As #3
 * As #2
 * As #2 and #3
 * As #3
 * As #2 and #3
 * I repeat, this draft was correctly declined, and if you wish to continue claiming unfair treatment you need to start coming up with actual evidence to support that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most articles of similar nature (Bishops) have a similar, less or no references and most of their references are not independent like you deem this to be, If you think this is not worthy then fine, however you would not delete many articles of a similar nature that are poorly referenced or have no reference at all... Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See other stuff exists we certainly WOULD delete any articles which were poorly referenced or have no reference at all. Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bold assertion. Got any specific articles you want to point us to? —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thomas Koorilos Mathew Moolakkatt Joshua Ignathios Abraham Julios Thomas Chakiath Paul Alappatt Anthonios Yaqu'b Yakob Elias Baker Ninan Fenn Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles on Koorilos, Moolakkatt, Julios, Yaqu'b, Elias, and Fenn will go to AfD as soon as I verify there's no sources that possibly exist for them; the rest have enough sources that a deeper look would be needed. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

16:57, 13 May 2024 review of submission by 173.63.169.98
accept it now I will make it better 173.63.169.98 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. You have no independent sources that discuss the use or history of this flag. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

20:29, 13 May 2024 review of submission by 71.167.7.207
I am confused as to why this article would be declined. Lisa Davis has held positions in the International Criminal Court and the State Department and is a law professor at CUNY Law. I have found numerous other instances of people in these positionshaving Wikipedia pages, often with fewer third party citations than this one. As to the quality of the citation sources, they include the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, Buzzfeed News, and others - all of which are independent of the subject of the article. Are you suggesting these sources are not verifiable? 71.167.7.207 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, and limited volunteer time to address them. If you want to tell us what these other articles are, we can take action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
 * What are the three best sources that provide significant coverage of Lisa Davis? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):
 * https://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty/directory/davis/ and any other source on that domain is useless for notability (connexion to subject). CUNY Law is Davis' employer and thus not independent of her as far as we are concerned.
 * We can't use https://peqod.com/prof/Lisa_Davis (too sparse). Literally no content here.
 * https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/human-rights-groups-file-legal-petition-sexual-violence-against is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). Press release. While I'm willing to buy Davis has no direct or indirect connexion to the CCR, press releases as a rule are useless as sources since they're intended to promote or otherwise raise awareness of something in a biased manner.
 * https://arc-international.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/El-Escrito-de-amicus-curiae-en-ingles.pdf is useless for notability (gov't document). Court cases are always considered government documents and cannot be directly cited; you need to cite a news article that discusses the case or document and Davis' role in it.
 * https://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_239_ing.pdf has the exact same issues as the previous source.
 * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/these-lawyers-have-a-case-for-charging-isis-with-killing is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Davis; article merely quotes her.
 * https://ilg2.org/2018/01/25/activists-launch-case-for-prosecution-of-isis-crimes-against-women-and-lgbtiq-persons/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Authored by Davis.
 * We can't use https://www.law.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/page-assets/academics/clinics/hrgj/CAH_English.pdf (no editorial oversight). Open letter to the UN. Again, you need to find a source that discusses this letter and Davis' role in its writing.
 * https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2019/english/a_74_10_advance.pdf is a non-sequitur. (A source that doesn't so much as mention Davis is going to be completely useless as a source about her.)
 * https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-12-07-Policy-on-the-Crime-of-Gender-Persecution.pdf is useless for notability (too sparse). One-line mention of an appointment in a footnote and a name-drop in a contacts list. Not enough to cite.
 * We can't cite https://www.justicerapidresponse.org/what-we-do/sexual-gender-based-violence/ (no editorial oversight) and even if we could, it's useless for notability (too sparse). Presser from JRR that name-drops Davis.
 * https://www.frauenrat.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/W7_Project-Handbook-2022.pdf is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop in a group membership list.
 * We do not judge sources solely by who puts the source out; we have to also take the content of the source - i.e. what the source actually says - into account as well. Not every article an outlet puts out on a subject is going to be of any use. On a related note, have you had a look at WP:NPROF? —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

21:24, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65
What am I doing wrong? And how can I change to biography? Altberry65 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You need much better sources that discuss Berry at length. The Allmusic cite here is unusable (too sparse), and we don't like citing Allmusic for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)