Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 21

= May 21 =

00:23, 21 May 2024 review of submission by 2A00:23C8:582:8B01:7985:FB88:5B96:2097
Why is Rafe Heydel-Mankoo not afforded a Wikipedia page, when much less celebrated people are ? Is it because of his right wing stance ? By the way, I do make a small annual contribution to Wikipedia. 2A00:23C8:582:8B01:7985:FB88:5B96:2097 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. The reason he doesn't have an article yet is because he doesn't meet notability guidelines for people. In short, it needs multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Currently there isn't; we cannot cite "Find and update company information" as a source. If by 'small contribution' you mean donations, thank you, but we're all volunteers here, and we review articles based on their content.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

04:43, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Itzceltic1999
My page was declined for the following reason :

"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"

I have added as much as reference needed, I dont understand exactly what the above means and what is missing, Can you kindly help me in simple words, Thank You! Itzceltic1999 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Itzceltic1999 in simple words, none of the current sources are usable. We cannot cite YouTube videos as sources, especially those uploaded by the club itself. We also cannot cite Instagram for similar reasons. We need reliable independent sources.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

06:33, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Villkomoses
Hello! fellow editors, like to get updates since I have already tried to satisfy the requirements of the Draft to be considered as an article, though mostly is Porting over the Already approved Content from Chinese Wikipedia (Added citation, wiki links, more refining after MTL of the Original article...)to note this Comic has already been made to an animation which is mentioned in the article also In case if this would be better as a Stub please advise as well ,though from the original article it is already considered not one. Pls. advise, Thanks! Villkomoses (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Villkomoses: please be patient, we have 2,600+ drafts awaiting review, and this one was submitted less than ten days ago.
 * Whether an article on this subject was accepted into the Chinese-language Wikipedia has no bearing on the matter, as each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements.
 * Neither does whether you choose to tag this as a stub (for which it is clearly far too long anyway), as stubs have exactly the same notability and verifiability requirements as more extensive articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, awaiting further updates on this then, Thanks for the prompt Reply! Stay Healthy! Villkomoses (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

08:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by StapesIT
Hello! I'd like to ask you how I can improve on the sources for this article: Draft:Tinify (TinyPNG) I'm writing it on behalf of the company, but I still think it's useful information. However, I can't get it published because the sources are never quite right, so any feedback would be great! StapesIT (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; the title just needs to be placed in double brackets( Joe Biden renders as Joe Biden).
 * Wikipedia is not a mere host of information deemed useful by those providing it, nor is it a place for companies to tell about themselves, their products/offerings, and what they do. You did a nice job doing that, but it's not what we are looking for. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case probably a notable product. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling about a topic and what it does, and goes into detail about what makes the topic important/significant/influential as the sources see it, not as the topic itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! But I already included reliable sources from, e.g. Forbes, talking about Tinify. Why isn't that sufficient? StapesIT (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @StapesIT: see WP:FORBESCON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , these sentences are just a few examples of the vast swathes of highly promotional and unreferenced content that litter your draft. You have declared that you are a paid editor which means that experienced volunteer editors expect that your work on the encyclopedia will be highly professional and fully competent. But no. Here you are, asking competent unpaid volunteer editors to help you earn a living. Do you help any of us to earn a living? Do you have any idea how incongruous and bizarre that is? Why can't you carry out your paid job competently on your own? Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice! StapesIT (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion requested for Draft:Spence_Monroe
Hia folks,

On behalf of @Memevietnam98 who would like a second opinion on my review of this draft Draft:Spence_Monroe.

Context at their Talk Page: User_talk:Memevietnam98.

Would any reviewers be willing to do a check and confirm my feeling that the sources do not show notability, and that there is no inherited notability being a father of a U.S. President?

Cheers!  Qcne  (talk)  10:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a leading question, @Qcne, me old fruit. ;) But yes, FWIW, I concur that the sources fall far short of establishing notability, and having notable offspring confers none, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

11:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Jezreellouie3056
Wikipedia shouldn't be run by people who don't know anything that's happening on the other side of the world. Rather they should develop learning what's going on. No assistance sought. Jezreellouie3056 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

11:23, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Kennedykwangari
Having complied to all the guidelines and instructions, why do I keep receiving the same message, and having our profile page rejected

Kindly assist without bias and sentiments Thank you Kennedykwangari (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kennedykwangari firstly, we don't have 'profile pages' here. All articles are about notable subjects, and are not for promotion. As for the draft itself, it's extremely promotional, with wording like Through Deeplearning.AI, Kennedy has excelled in promoting partnerships..., and it is obviously about yourself. See WP:AUTO. The draft has been tagged for speedy deletion under G11.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kennedykwangari: please read the messages posted on your talk page. TL;DNR = Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself. Continuing down that road will likely get you blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

11:29, 21 May 2024 review of submission by StellaMadeleine
Hello, I recently submitted the Artikel on Stefani Engelstein. Unfortunately, it was rejected because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources." I do not quite understand because everything written in the article can be traced back to her (various) institutional websites or the websites of her publisher(s). Could you please explain? Do you need more sources or a different kind of sources (e.g. more newspaper articles, more reviews etc.)? Thanks and advance StellaMadeleine (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @StellaMadeleine. The problem is the sources are not independent of Stefani. Unless you can prove she meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, we'd need significant coverage of her in multiple reliable independent sources, that are secondary to Stefani. Not from her Institutional or Publisher website.
 * The WP:NACADEMIC criteria is a bit of an odd one, so let me know if you think she specifically passes one of those instead.  Qcne  (talk)  11:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

11:38, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Eruditewookie
I have addressed all the feedback from the reviewer and submitted a revised version of the page. However it still hasn't been accepted (despite all the feedback being addressed and actioned). Is it possible for another reviewer to look at the page - perhaps somebody with more time? Eruditewookie (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Eruditewookie. Draft:Luke_Buckmaster was submitted for review a few weeks ago, but there is a backlog of over 2,600 drafts waiting for review.
 * However, I have looked at the draft and your sources are nearly all WP:PRIMARY still. I would not accept in it's present state. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources. The only one that is secondary is Home Truths: A Memoir and the Guardian: I can't see Luke being mentioned in the book and he is only briefly mentioned in the Guardian article.
 * You therefore haven't yet proven notability under WP:NPERSON, sorry.  Qcne  (talk)  11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's not accurate.
 * Home Truths: A Memoir is one secondary source. Another key secondary source is the referenced newspaper article that is entirely devoted to a discussion of Buckmaster's work (a review of his book). A third secondary reference is a page written about him by a comedian (Tom Ballard). And a fourth secondary reference is the Guardian piece you refer to by Germaine Greer - one of the most prominent feminist authors in history.
 * I don't understand how it's possible that you're saying there's one secondary source when I'm counting four? (which by the way is far more than thousands of other Wikipedia pages about writers and creative people) Eruditewookie (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Four? Where's that number coming from? Right now, there's two at best. The The Guardian article only mentions Buckmaster once, in almost 3000 words of text. Please also see WP:SIGCOV.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the two newspaper articles - from The Weekly Times and the Sydney Morning Herald - devoted entirely to Buckmaster's book? Do they not count? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're seeing different sources. I will go through them one by one:
 * uow.edu.au: Thesis by Buckmaster, so not independent.
 * Home Truths: I cannot find the words "Luke", "critics" or "Buckmaster" in this book when searching inside on Google Books. Google Books may be erroring, but it's usually really good at OCR and picks up other text fine. Are you sure you have cited the correct book?
 * The Guardian: as @CanonNi stated, a single brief mention.
 * The Guardian: Article by Buckmaster, so not Independent.
 * thesaturdaypaper: Article by Buckmaster, so not Independent.
 * So I count one secondary source that does not provide significant coverage and one secondary source that doesn't even seem to include the quote you stated, though I admit as I do not have the physical book in front of me I may be incorrect. This is not four @Eruditewookie!  Qcne  (talk)  12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the correct book. Google books often only show small amounts of a book (otherwise publishers would be rather upset). Would it help if I took a photo of the page from the book and shared it? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, don't do that. You can use offline sources it's just a little more difficult to verify.
 * You mentioned above you added in sources from The Weekly Times and the Sydney Morning Herald: I see no source from Sydney Morning Herald but you are correct, you have an external link (not a citation) for the weeklytimesnow: as this was not properly formatted as a citation it doesn't appear in the References List so both I and @CanonNi missed it.
 * The Weekly Times Now review is okay at reviewing the book he wrote, but doesn't do much to show his notability as an author.  Qcne  (talk)  12:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your list of sources does not include the Sydney Morning Herald and the Weekly Times articles. Are they not appearing? Is it possible these articles are not being seen by your guys, for some reason? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, there is definitely no source in the article for the Sydney Morning Herald; the The Weekly Times source was added as an external link not a citation - so it didn't appear in the Ref List.  Qcne  (talk)  12:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eruditewookie I've now formatted the Weekly Times source as a proper source, and it now appears as ref number #2  Qcne  (talk)  12:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've just converted the two external links into proper citations, as required by WP:EXTERNAL. This has slightly messed up the order of my ref list above.
 * Let me know if you can find the Sydney Morning Herald source?  Qcne  (talk)  12:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have found it and added it to the page. My mistake - I thought I did that Eruditewookie (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, not seeing any new changes. You need to press the Publish button, which commits the changes to the draft.  Qcne  (talk)  12:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the URL - https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/carnage-and-cars-rule-in-this-road-trip-through-george-millers-mad-max-series-20170720-gxf1y5.html
 * (I went in to add it but there was an editing page conflict and now I'm a bit nervous/uncertain, are you able to add this citation for me? thank you....) Eruditewookie (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we probably edit conflicted when I was fixing your citations. Where in the text do you want this citation to go?
 * Regarding the source itself; it is an okay one. It is derived partly from an interview with Buckmaster so has some issues with independence, but does do some review of the book.
 * I am trying to prove notability either via WP:NAUTHOR or the more general WP:NBASIC criteria. I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR unless you can prove criteria #4, significant critical attention? We'd need quite a few more in-depth book reviews for that.
 * Otherwise, I default back to WP:NBASIC. I don't think we are quite there in proving notability under this criteria. Your secondary sources are okay but I think we would need one or two more that really gives significant coverage of Buckmaster through the use of commentary, analysis, discussion. For example, were his blockage of the bridge and arrest reported significantly in any other newspaper - not just him telling the world he did these things, but an independent reporter reporting that he did. Alternatively, do you have any more sources like the Williamson book, where an independent person is describing his contributions?  Qcne  (talk)  12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I didn't cite either of those sources correctly. Now they've been cited. Hopefully that will fulfill the criteria. Thank you. Eruditewookie (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

12:00, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Cziksee
I don't understand why this article submission is declined for a lack of reliable sources, as it is sourced the exact same way badminton tournaments have been for years. Why is it different this time ? Am I missing something ? Thank you for your help. Cziksee (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Cziksee. We review articles on their own merit, and both sources are primary sources. Do you have any secondary sources that discusses the tournament?  Qcne  (talk)  12:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No other source has ever been needed for this type of article, so I wouldn't know what to add, or where. I'll let someone more experienced on wikipedia than I do it. I'd appreciate if you could tell me why it was never an issue before, since all other tournaments seem to include only two primary sources, which I don't quite understand. Cziksee (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cziksee: there can be many reasons for that. In the past notability and referencing requirements were much less strict. Perhaps those earlier articles were created by users with sufficient permissions to create them directly without going through a review process. It could be that those existing articles should in fact be deleted or otherwise dealt with, but no one has got around to doing it yet (we do have approaching 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia). But regardless of how those articles came about, new articles must meet the currently-applicable policies and guidelines. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried adding a few sources. Can anyone confirm that I've done relevant changes towards article creation ? Cziksee (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Accepted  Qcne  (talk)  14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, have a great day. Cziksee (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

12:14, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Rafik.hannachi
Hello,

I hope this finds you well.

I would like assistance concerning the rejection of the article, I have altered the article according to the person who reviewed it. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging rejecting reviewer @DoubleGrazing  Qcne  (talk)  12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, @Qcne. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rafik.hannachi: before I even take a(nother) look at the draft, I note that one thing you haven't done is disclose your paid editing. This was queried on your talk page months ago, twice, and also mentioned in my rejection comments. Please do so now. This is a hard requirement, not an optional extra. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha! Seems like I need to correct myself, albeit only slightly. A paid-editing disclosure has been made in this edit summary (IMO the least useful method to disclose, because if the disclosure isn't immediately obvious it's arguably not much of a disclosure; however, it's not this user's fault that we do accept this method). It was made the day after I had rejected the draft, and also a day after the user explicitly told me on their other account's talk page that they are "not getting compensated for the draft". Just wanted to set the record straight on that point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This draft is promotional in tone, and reads more like an advert. I will be tagging it for speedy deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your reply. Just to also clarify, I am actually not getting extra compensated in any way concerning the draft, it is just part of my duties because of the nature of my job. Can you please advice on which parts that seem promotional so I can edit them. Thanks a lot in advance.  Rafik.hannachi (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rafik.hannachi: the question wasn't are you being "extra compensated", but are you being "compensated", which you said you weren't. We take undisclosed paid editing quite seriously here, just so you know.
 * There is nothing to edit, as the draft has now been deleted.
 * You should read this, if you haven't already, and also show it to your boss: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

12:39, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Awise1203
I need to know where can I find more reliable sources. Awise1203 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Awise1203: the way the process works is that you summarise what reliable and independent sources have said about a subject, then cite those sources as your references; not first write whatever you want, and then try to find sources that back up what you've written – that's known as editing WP:BACKWARD.
 * If this series is only starting today, it's perfectly possible that sufficient sources don't yet exist (beyond the broadcaster's pre-launch publicity and things of that ilk, which obviously couldn't be used to establish notability). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

16:25, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Johnsamuels0
I don't understand which parts of this Wikipedia page are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia. Everything is written objectively with multiple sources. I want to emphasize that the doctor has authored many books, and the page primarily focuses on his publications.

Johnsamuels0 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Johnsamuels0 please consult the reviewer who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

19:19, 21 May 2024 review of submission by PeaRidge62
Why is this page continually being rejected due to Valentina Gomez not being a politician? Shane Schoeller has his own Wikipedia page despite having less reliable sources, being a less significant candidate, and having the exact same number of sources as the draft article on Gomez. PeaRidge62 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been declined NOT rejected, it is not clear how they pass the criteria at WP:NPOLITICIAN, it's not that we don't believe they are one. Also see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, but I still do not understand how much information and reliable sources I need to put on the page in order for it to be approved. PeaRidge62 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PeaRidge62 Sufficient to verify, prove with referencing that they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Neither overdo this nor underdo it. Using Nike's slogan, "Just Do It!" 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, the draft of this article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. I look forward to its approval. PeaRidge62 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PeaRidge62 looking forward may take some time 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PeaRidge62 Anther reviewer has rejected this draft. It will not proceed further. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

21:10:16, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7
Hello! I have recently attempted to get this schools wikipedia article online, And used plenty of good spaces. However, I have to notice that it has gotten declined, no reason specified by the reviewer. The AfC message says that my references do not qualify, However, all links are official links from the district. Do I need to resolve my 's in my article? coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
 * We can't use https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?ID=370472001858 (too sparse). Search engine results are never acceptable sources, and as a rule government sources are useless for notability.
 * I can't assess https://www.wcpss.net/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcpss.net%2Fsite%2Fdefault.aspx%3FDomainID%3D4376 (technical barrier). The webpage appears to be misconfigured; it's throwing up a server runtime error.
 * https://ncreports.ondemand.sas.com/src/school?school=920416&year=2023 is useless for notability (too sparse). Content-free profile.
 * https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/north-carolina/fuller-elementary-242377 " " " " (" "). "-" ".
 * None of your sources are any good. Do you have any news reports about the school? —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found a few sources, but I still think this is close on notability as these mainly focus on the building works. I can't find any coverage of the School of Excellence award, which is a shame as this would have tipped it over the line I think. Mdann52 (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did find one, As it is documented on the official school page-https://www.wcpss.net/fulleres you should see it on the side. This link is for the excellence notation, and a proof that the school was previously distinction. Here is the link for distinction: https://www.wcpss.net/domain/4814 coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cooldudeseven7: it's not the 'School of Excellence award' (whatever that may be, exactly) per se that would make this school notable; it's that it might (or might not) have resulted in coverage in secondary sources which could help this school satisfy the WP:ORG notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. The "Excellence award" is related to the Magnet Schools of America merit awards, where "distinction" is lower than "excellence" coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I have fixed some links, done some edits, and please read my message above, too:

21:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by PhilDaBirdMan
I'm trying to make a route diagram but the source code isn't really working. PhilDaBirdMan (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @PhilDaBirdMan: that's not really an AfC matter; you may wish to ask at the general help desk instead, or on the Template talk:Routemap page (and if you do, please be more specific than "isn't really working"). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

21:24, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Ellpasha
Hello, I hope you are well. I need some advice on why my request was rejected. can you provide me more data Ellpasha (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! Although I am not a official AfC reviewer, I have a few tips. When reading over your article, I noticed that there are not a lot of details, nor have you have placed an Infobox. Looking at this other music-related article, of Jvke, You might want to take some inspiration from here. coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources are usable (One is too sparse, the other is pretty much just stuff he says). Infoboxen are the least of your worries; you need to find better sources first. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Shoja news/review sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 21:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)