Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 April 29

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 28 << Mar | April | May >> April 30 >
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 29

edit

03:38, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 112.196.184.119

edit

Hello,

My draft article Draft:Rukmini_Devi_Institute_of_Advanced_Studies has not been accepted multiple times due to concerns that the references do not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I understand the need for sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

Despite my efforts, I am struggling to find sources that meet all these criteria. Most available references are brief mentions or come from affiliated or promotional content. I would appreciate guidance on:

Whether any of the current references are salvageable with better formatting or context

Suggestions on where or how to find acceptable secondary sources

Whether this topic may inherently lack notability by Wikipedia standards

Thank you! 

112.196.184.119 (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do not generate questions with AI
  2. "Whether any of the current references are salvageable with better formatting or context " That is a huge understatement. there is a completely lack of any inline citations. Both references seem to be affiliated to the source and are not secondary
  3. Suggestions on where or how to find acceptable secondary sources - find Wikiproject india or wikiproject education for that
  4. Whether this topic may inherently lack notability by Wikipedia standards - if you can't find any secondary sources, yes. If you can find a secondary source, no.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:30, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Khutijabegum7

edit

Hello respected reviewers,

I had submitted Draft:Mohammed Rahim Khan for review more than five weeks ago. I understand that there is a heavy backlog, and I truly appreciate the reviewers’ hard work and time.

If possible, I kindly request a review whenever convenient. Thank you very much for your efforts in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia!

Kind regards, Khutijabegum7 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khutijabegum7: You resubmitted the draft on 26 April, so only three days ago. It will be reviewed again at some point, and as you were told 10 days ago we don't do expedited review on request. What's the hurry? --bonadea contributions talk 05:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely at this, you created the draft on 14 April and your account was registered on 13 April, so I don't understand where the "more than five weeks" claim comes from. Have you used a different account in the past? --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 134.215.60.241

edit

What can I do ti make this more relevant and included on wiki? 134.215.60.241 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, your draft has been rejected which usually means this is the end of the road. If you are absolutely confident that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards - which it may well be, if it's a commonly used measurement - then you will need to scrap most of the current draft and start again, citing your sources. WP:42 will help you decide which sources to use; only ones that meet all three criteria will help your case. Once you've found sources, use referencing for beginners to cite them properly, and when the draft looks good you can politely ask the reviewer to reconsider. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Abdool AK

edit

what do i need to do Abdool AK (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that there is nothing you can do, and that it is the end of the line for the draft. If you can, however, find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you should do so, then appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 63.64.85.100

edit

Hello! Can someone help me improve Draft:Andrews Federal Credit Union get approved? I've modified what I could, and I used the below similar sized credit union as reference for creating the content but I'm not sure what's still needed? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Achieva Credit Union 63.64.85.100 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking, I've fixed this for you.
Remember to log in when posting. Please respond to the concerns on your user talk page regarding conflict of interest. If you work for this credit union, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
While understandable, it is not usually a good idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
The awards you mention do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Otherwise, the draft just documents the activities and offerings of the credit union, which does not establish notability as Wikipedia defines a notable organization. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 29 April 2025 review of submission by JATIN KUMAR3042

edit

I am requesting assistance to improve this draft by adding proper inline citations and ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines. I would appreciate help identifying reliable sources and formatting the references correctly to support the content. JATIN KUMAR3042 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JATIN KUMAR3042: That would require sources for us to assess. The onus for sourcing is on the person who wants the content on Wikipedia (read: you), and searching for sources should have been the first thing you did. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 29 April 2025 review of submission by ZHEditor&PR

edit

Hi there,

I believe the sources cited are reputable third parties, and the language is formal and unbiased, but want to make sure I'm following the rules to the best of my abilities. Do you have any pointers?

Thanks! ZHEditor&PR (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZHEditor&PR! The page I've found most helpful is WP:42, which gives you a quick summary of the triple criteria required in a good source. Your goal is to establish notability, and the best way to do this is to find at least three sources which meet all three of the WP:42 criteria. You will also need to be aware of WP:NCORP, which explains what is required to make a business notable. I would suggest you go through each of your sources with these in mind, removing any which are not independent (press releases are not independent, for example, since they are the company speaking through the press), not from reliable sources, or don't include significant coverage. If you're unsure about any, feel free to link them here and we can take a look. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @StartGrammarTime... super helpful! ZHEditor&PR (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Stephanoccenad

edit

Hi I got rejected for some edits that were made. I would like to know exactly what needs to be done for this to be published Stephanoccenad (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given advice by reviewers and resubmitted it, the next reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Cstumpfl

edit

Why was this rejected? Can you please provide concrete examples so I can edit it properly? Thank you. 

Cstumpfl (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked and had this answered already. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not advertising and the article is quite informative but there are limited sources available on the topic of perpetual care funds/perpetual care adequacy. Would it be helpful to narrow the topic further and make it much shorter? Cstumpfl (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you write it with an AI? 331dot (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did use ChatGPT for formatting into wikitext but it was written by me personally. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even that can be problematic, see WP:LLM. You are telling us about the topic, not summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, that's considered promotional here.
I feel like you have a relationship with this topic, do you work in that industry? 331dot (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have a connection and don't work in the industry. I am an independent journalist. This is my first Wikipedia page writing attempt, however. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cstumpfl: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If there are limited sources available then by definition there's little to summarise into an encyclopaedia article. It's a very bad idea to write the text first and then backfill the references. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I did. I used the resources/references to write the article. This is getting very twisted. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that there are limited sources available, if you used everything you could find, that means the topic doesn't merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Editormls070

edit

The submission was rejected while still at editing and draft stage. Could you help retrieve and review as a draft? 

Editormls070 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined for improvement, not rejected, and is still available here;Draft:Abdoulie "Attack" Gaye. CoconutOctopus talk 21:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CoconutOctopus, I totally agree with you, respectfully. The draft will be improved shortly. Editormls070 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Editormls070 - while you're working on it, you'll want to look at referencing for beginners, because at present your draft is effectively unsourced. You need inline citations before it can be accepted. WP:42 may also be helpful for you to review your sources, and WP:BLP as your subject is a living person. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Independent Submission of Draft:TD Barnes

edit

Hello, I am the subject of Draft:TD Barnes and previously attempted to submit the article myself. Although I included reliable secondary sources (CIA.gov, Annie Jacobsen, The Debrief, Atomic Testing Museum) and followed neutral tone guidelines, the draft has been declined, likely due to conflict-of-interest concerns.

To avoid further issues, I respectfully request an independent editor or AfC helper to review the draft and, if appropriate, submit it for review on my behalf. Thank you for your assistance!

Thorntondbarnes 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to submit drafts, even if it is about you, as drafts are reviewed by independent editors. While it's inadvisable for you to write about yourself here(see the autobiography policy), submitting a draft is the correct way to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorntondbarnes: The CIA is not a suitable source (gov't document). That being said, none of your sources are properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 29 April 2025 review of submission by HenryMaxG

edit

AfC draft submission rejected, but listing on the white house, NY state agency, UN portal, and 10 news articles doesn't make it notable? HenryMaxG (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HenryMaxG: Mere listings and gov't sources don't help for notability (the former are too sparse; the latter are, well, gov't documents). I don't have time at the moment to assess your sources in depth, but once I do I'll come back here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryMaxG: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have three usable sources here; the issue is the wheat is getting smothered by the chaff. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Jéské Couriano!. This was super helpful and I have now implemented your changes fully. Hopefully this now satisfies this Afc process and notes left by @CNMall41. HenryMaxG (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to @Howardcorn33 & @Sophisticatedevening for their additional reviews. Howard's insights are listed below, though they conflict with the guidance that I followed from @Jéské Couriano listed here above. How can a 501c3, that's mentioned on government websites, cited by the White House, and has numerous articles written about it still be penalized for being quoted in the news coverage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:ReJews#c-Howardcorn33-20250608210900-Source_check HenryMaxG (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no penalizing for interviews, they only don't count for anything in the context of determining notability. I disagree with Jéské's claims that the articles from JPost, Jewish Chronicle, and Aish.com are "ok" here (they could be used for citations but not for establishing notability.) ―Howard • 🌽33 21:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the JPost article is not entirely an interview. It could count towards notability. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_April_29&oldid=1294626594"