Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 April 16

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 15 << Mar | April | May >> April 17 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 16

edit

00:59, 16 April 2025 review of submission by Pitchfork Games

edit

Hi there,

This draft is for a recently released indie video game, which has several independent reviews on the distribution platform, Steam. It is the first game by Pitchfork Games, whose YouTube channel, Pitchfork Academy, has been established almost 2 years ago and has over 21,200 subscribers. It is most definitely notable, but I'm at a loss as to how to satisfy the requirements get the draft recognized as being notable. Any assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Pitchfork Games (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIABLE discusses what reliable sources are. Reliable sources are absolutely necessary to have a Wikipedia article. You need significant coverage of this game by independent sources, independent of the developer or publisher. YouTube is not a reliable source because it's user-generated content, nor are user reviews on Steam. A Steam listing is not independent of the developer/publisher. I see no suitable coverage of this game; in fact, pretty much everything about Skyblocker is about a Minecraft mod. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:00, 16 April 2025 review of submission by 74.67.49.216

edit

Why can't bean be on Wikipedia?????? 74.67.49.216 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bean is unfortunately not notable. For something to be included on Wikipedia, it has to have several independent reliable sources talking about it; Bean doesn't. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 16 April 2025 review of submission by Aubreeprincess

edit

I need help. I need additional references for the notability of Violet Sky. She is popular, I know for sure she is Aubreeprincess (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aubreeprincess: sorry, but the onus is fully on you to find the necessary sources that demonstrate notability. And whether "she is popular" isn't the issue, but whether she is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think she is not notable, wait until you see my essay that she is notable for her. (Personal attack removed). Go back to sleep, and have a dream and think about it. (Personal attack removed) Violet Sky needs significant coverage. I'm not a bully, I'm just drawn that way. Nobody is helping me!!! Aubreeprincess (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konsey Haber

edit

https://t.me/KonseyHaber 81.214.104.100 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 16 April 2025 review of submission by KingMarble 001

edit

I have my article being rejected from Wiki web browser, what must I do? KingMarble 001 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KingMarble 001 There is nothing you can do, rejection is the end of the line for a draft. Your draft is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 16 April 2025 review of submission by Phoenixeb

edit

Hello, My article was recently declined for submission. I’ve since removed the external links and rewritten the content to ensure it is no longer promotional in tone. I would really appreciate any guidance or specific feedback on what I can improve further in order to meet the standards for acceptance.

Thank you in advance for your help. Phoenixeb (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoenixeb: please see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 16 April 2025 review of submission by Writing Soul

edit

Can someone help for updating reliable source & making it non promotional ? Writing Soul (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Soul I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended; you need the full, exact title.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We can't find sources for you- you should have these in hand before writing(see WP:BACKWARD). If you just want to tell the world about this organization, you should do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 16 April 2025 review of submission by AFIANS

edit

why is my article declined AFIANS (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AFIANS: as the decline notice says (or said, before you removed it), the draft is insufficiently referenced. Which is to say it is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I see now that you didn't actually remove the notice, only pushed it down. My bad. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You need to change your username. Usernames must relate to a specific individual, whereas yours is a collective term which implies multiple individuals using it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thax AFIANS (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 16 April 2025 review of submission by João Cardielos

edit

Thank you for the feedback. I’d like to clarify that it was never my intention for the draft to come across as promotional. I’m fully aware that Wikipedia requires a neutral tone, and I’ve made efforts to follow those guidelines throughout the draft.

Regarding the claim that all references are materials produced by the subject: that’s not accurate. A significant portion of the references are from independent, reliable sources such as Público and other established media outlets. I took care to include these specifically to meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards.

In relation to the concern about the use of AI-generated content, I’d like to emphasize that while I did use tools like ChatGPT to help condense certain sentences or clarify language, I did so with the intent of making the article more factual and less subjective. Particularly when dealing with sources that were themselves written in a more enthusiastic or fan-like tone. All sources cited are genuine and verifiable.

That said, I’m very open to suggestions on specific parts of the text that need adjustment to better align with Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to ensure the article is neutral, well-sourced, and appropriate for inclusion. Please let me know which sections should be revised or clarified further.

Thank you again for your time and review. Asdi12 14:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

João Cardielos What is the nature of your conflict of interest?
Most of the draft is about the musicians of the label, or the activities of the label. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word.
Please do not use an AI to reply; we want to hear from you, not an AI, and talk page posts are not expected to be grammatically and stylistically perfect. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I used to be an intern at the label but I started the draft before. I believe the draft shows how notable the label is through a lot of reliable sources. I just want it to get better. Asdi12 14:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see neutral point of view. Language like "Discotexas celebrated its 17 year anniversary with events" is not neutral. As I also said, most of the draft discusses the musicians of the label, not the label itself. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright is it because of the word "celebrated" should it be: "Discotexas marked its 17th anniversary with events in Lisbon and Porto."? I get what you mean about discussing the musicians. Maybe I should create drafts for articles about those musicians instead. And keep this draft just for strictly label stuff. What would you recommend? Asdi12 14:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I would focus on the label right now. (If you want to write about the musicians, see their notability criteria. I'm not certain a 17th anniversary warrants inclusion at all, but it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@João Cardielos: yes, this draft should be about the label, and not about associated subjects such as artists it represents. That would have the added advantage of cutting down the content, which currently (at nearly 70k bytes) is so extensive that many reviewers will simply groan and move on, rather than reviewing this.
And yes, "marked" is an improvement over "celebrated", but TBH, you could leave that whole passage out, because either way it isn't exactly encyclopaedic content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but I'm mostly referring events related to some releases so it has been difficult for me to make that distinction as clear as possible. Some of the events are easier so I'll edit that further. On the other side I don't feel i'm guilty of having a long draft. And why would that be an issue it doesn't seem fair. I know other articles may not be good for comparison as they might have issues as well but I've pushed a lot of effort to make them comparable to other electronic music labels articles and I feel I might be closer to wikipedia guidelines in many of the terms. Is there anything else you think might help me to just keep improving the article. Asdi12 15:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@João Cardielos: reducing the issue down to its bare essence, all you really need to do at this stage is to demonstrate that the subject is notable, by summarising what 3-5 sources meeting the WP:GNG standard have said about it. Anything else is 'nice-to-have' which could, and arguably should, be added later once the article has been published. Sure, you're free to write chapter and verse, if you wish, include every single detail and cite 100+ sources, but don't be surprised if your draft then withers on the vine because it puts off reviewers (all of whom are volunteers donating their time and effort, lest we forget) from reviewing it. It's your call, of course; I'm only trying to give you pragmatic advice, it's up to you whether you take it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @João Cardielos. The draft is promotional because, like many inexperienced editors who try the challenging task of creating an article, you have told us what the company wants people to know about it.
Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the company wants people to know about it: the article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about the company; and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 16 April 2025 review of submission by AbstractNest45

edit

What needs improvement? AbstractNest45 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbstractNest45: we don't do on-demand (pre-)reviews here at the help desk, you need to submit your draft to get it reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AbstractNest45. First you need to get rid of the external links - see WP:EL.
More important, it doesn't look to me as if you have a single reference which meets the triple criteria of being reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject - see WP:42. Without such sources, you don't have an article, because a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and very little else. All those prizes do not help unless the prizes are notable (have or could have a Wikipedia article about them). ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 16 April 2025 review of submission by 2601:204:EF00:EA00:1DEA:2124:8DAC:AA06

edit

I need help finding sources for my draft. Where do you suggest I go? Can someone help by finding and giving me a real example? This is the most recent feedback I got:

"While the subject is notable and the draft is written in a neutral tone, unfortunately the issue of citations still persists. There are several paragraphs with no citations, so I can't verify the information. Over half of the available citations come from the subject himself, which are primary sources with no independence. More references are needed from reliable, independent and secondary sources. I added several tags to guide future improvement on the draft, don't be discouraged! The draft has promise."

2601:204:EF00:EA00:1DEA:2124:8DAC:AA06 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, we can't help you find sources but what you need are secondary reliable sources that written about him, not his own publications or based on what he says. For a topic like this, likely the best sources will be scholarly publications which will require access to a library. A quick search suggests there may be sources available on JSTOR and maybe Google Books. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 16 April 2025 review of submission by TunisianBeret

edit

I have no idea why i'm being declined permission to upload the article. I do know though that my account is brand new which can be a reason. TunisianBeret (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TunisianBeret. New users cannot create articles directly, but should use the AFC process, as you are doing.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources - see WP:42 for more information about that.
Your draft does not have a single satisfactory source. I'm unable to open the government listing, but it is almost certainly neither independent (the information will come from the school itself) nor significant coverage of it. The other two citations are to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR), and anyway are not about the school.
Creating an article - which is a very challenging task for new editors - begins with finding enough sources which meet the triple criteria in WP:42. If you cannot find several such sources, you will know that the school does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there is no point in spending any more time on it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New accounts cannot directly create articles, but that is not why it was declined. Sources need to be provided in-line next to the text they support, see Referencing for beginners. You need to establish that the school is a notable organization.
Links to other Wikipedia articles are not done via the whole url, but by placing the title of the target article in double brackets(like [[Tunisia]]). 331dot (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 16 April 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

edit

Does the draft I have submitted sound promotional? I am not quite sure what that means but I have tried my best to make sure the article is suitable for Wikipedia Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 16 April 2025 review of submission by NotoriousH

edit

I'm wondering If this article meets the notability standards for a short film. Thanks in advance. NotoriousH (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotoriousH: since you have already submitted the draft, you will get an answer to that question when the draft is reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_April_16&oldid=1286800516"