Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 12

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 11 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 13 >
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.


August 12

edit

01:23, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

edit

The reviewer said that my references were not up to standard. I would like to know if this refers to all the references or just some of them. Are the following two references acceptable？ "DSIM - World's Fastest Simulation for Power Electronics". caeexperts.com. Retrieved on 2025-08-11. Zhao, Zhengming; Tan, Don; Shi, Bochen; Zhu, Yicheng; Jin, Hua (September 2020). "A Breakthrough in Design Verification of Megawatt Power Electronic Systems". IEEE Power Electronics Magazine. 7 (3): 36-43. doi:10.1109/MPEL.2020.3011775. ISSN 2329-9215. CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieAnn Song: Every dsimtechnology.com source needs to go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is this acceptable? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most information should be sourced to independent sources, but a small amount of information sourced to primary and non-independent sources is acceptable if you have established the product's notability. However, almost all of the draft's information is sourced to the product's official website and its official reseller caeexperts.com, which are not independent sources. The academic paper is also non-independent, having been written by the developers of DSIM.
Do you have a connection to DSIM Technology or CAEEXPERTS? Any connection must be disclosed, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply! I would like to know if it's possible to use some independent Chinese websites as reference materials? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be in English, but to demonstrate notability they should satisfy all three criteria in WP:42. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how can I prove that we have connection? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
State your connection on your userpage, User:CookieAnn Song, by following the instructions in WP:PAID. This is assuming you work for the company or otherwise have a financial connection to them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

edit

Hi editors I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is that also acceptable for the term DSIM? CookieAnn Song (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. That one article has similar content is not relevant to this draft- it could be that the content is inappropriate for the other article as well and just has not yet been addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thank you for your reply CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 12 August 2025 review of submission by BihariEditor

edit

@User:DoubleGrazing is right, it's looking like spam. And incorrect information. BihariEditor (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling us that you agree with the rejection of this draft- why? 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514

edit

Hello this is the 3rd time I have added this request for help. The last 2 have expired without resolution. I would like to nominate this article for community approval since it was permanently blocked by a previous reviewer which I believe was erroneous. Thank you. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't gotten a resolution because there is nothing to resolve. You have given no reason why the determination of the reviewer should be overturned other than that you disagree with it, which is understandable as most people want to see their work in the encyclopedia. You got several replies on the first discussion you started and were told why the rejection was not erroneous- and a commenter said that the version you claimed to have changed did not appear to be any different from the rejected one. The second discussion only told you why the first was archived.
Is there a particular reason you have such a strong personal investment in this draft? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thanks for replying. I was told to improve the draft, which I did. However it cannot be re-submitted as it has been permanently rejected. At minimum, I request this ban to be lifted. There are millions of travelers every day landing on scam websites and getting wrong information about the SG Arrival Card. I have already submitted the Malaysia Arrival Card article too using a similar format which was immediately approved, I'm not sure why @Thetechie feels this is not appropriate for Wikipedia as they haven't engaged very much in this discussion so far, it surely seems notable and important. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:40, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Turkiyelegend1

edit

The last time Verdis was mentioned was in 2022. It has since been on Fox News, Firstpost, and other major news companies. It should be considered notable Turkiyelegend1 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mere appearance in media does not make a topic notable. You need to show that this micronation is a notable organization. That you haven't is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can later fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the rejecting reviewer, the first step is to appeal to them directly. I would suggest you look at some articles on micronations that do merit articles, like Republic of Molossia or Principality of Sealand. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75

edit

What can i do now let me know the proper info.I apology if is there any miss behave from my side. YAKSH75 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you can do is wait for this TV show to be notable. Once it is, and there are sufficient independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 146.200.138.208

edit

My submission was rejected with the following comment: "With the possible exception of the SDUT piece, none of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP."

Would it be better to submit the content without sources then? Our parent company has a page and many of the statements about the organization do not have sources such as the opening statements: Idera, Inc. (/aɪˈdɪərə/) is the parent company of a portfolio of brands that offer B2B software including database tools, application development tools, test management tools, and DevOps tools. It is headquartered in Houston, Texas and has offices in Australia, Austria, and the United Kingdom. It is owned by the private equity firms HGGC, Partners Group and TA Associates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idera,_Inc. They also cite businesswire ten times. It seems our own Businesswire source and comparable sources (geekwire, venturebeat) are not considered permissible in our case, but are in Idera's. Our parent company's page also uses a source from organizations that it has acquired, when speaking to the acquisition of said organization. I.e. "Froala is now part of Idera". Froala. 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2020-03-11. In our case, we have referenced Idera, Perspectium's parent company and information they have published about their acquisition of Perspectium as a source. Why is our version of this not permissible but Idera's is? Trying to understand how we can get this over the line as we've failed a few times now and feedback is inconsistent with other wiki pages. 146.200.138.208 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Zak.cole, remember to log in when posting. The content of the encyclopedia is generally referred to as articles, not the broader "pages". This is not just semantics, but an important distinction. Your parent company does not "have a page" here that it owns and controls; Wikipedia has an article about your parent company, no different than if the New York Times wrote about your company.
That another article exists or has certain content does not necessarily mean that such content is permissible or was "approved" by anyone. Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more. This is also the reason for the appearance of inconsistency- we'd love for everything to be consistent, but the nature of a volunteer project means that we are only as consistent as the time people have to invest in making Wikipedia so.
Most of your sources merely document the routine activities of your company, this does not establish that your company is notable. It could be that your parent company isn't notable either(I don't know, I haven't looked yet), or that its child companies aren't even if it is itself.
I fear that you are too close to your company to be able to write about is as Wikipedia requires. You need to be able to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, limiting yourself to summarizing what independent sources choose on their own to say about a topic. Most people have great difficulty doing that. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors and colleagues read it, too. Also know that an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC

edit

Hello Wikipedia Community! 😊 I’ve recently made some updates to the "Andi Krush" Wikipedia page.

I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and consider accepting the page.

Thank you so much for your time and support! 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, it will eventually be looked at. Asking for a review will not speed the process, as everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly. Please be patient.
I would be very surprised if he created and personally owns the copyright to the professionally taken image of him that was used in the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Theeshamarketing

edit

Please advise us how to post this articles Theeshamarketing (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promo piece deleted, user (soft-)blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne

edit

Can anyone help me on this draft? I thought I did a good job on my latest submission and yes, I've been using AI as assistance on formatting and translating but all contents are coming from reliable sources and have been written by myself. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: what help do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvia Dalle Montagne Rather hilariously, your use of ChatGPT included a broken bit of code that automatically declined the draft. It was never submitted for review, and a reviewer has never reviewed it, but because you used ChatGPT and it included some broken code it declined the draft immediately.
I've removed the broken code so you can actually submit it for review. qcne (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for your help, very kind from you, and very helpful to help me understand how to make my contributions useful and smooth!
Will submit the draft now. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Dhe4computer

edit

Requesting feedback on moved draft

Hi editors,

My draft User:Dhe4computer/DheReckahsTeam Web Security Investigation was declined at AfC due to notability concerns. I’ve since revised it with independent, reliable sources (Forbes, ZDNet, SlashNext) that analyze the project’s MFA bypass techniques and contest recognition.

I’d appreciate any feedback on whether it now meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards.

Thanks! — Dhe4computer Dhe4computer (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhe4computer Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks Dhe4computer (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do pre-review reviews. The best way to get feedback is to resubmit. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dhe4computer Oh- the draft was rejected. If you believe that you have fixed the problems that led to the rejection, the first thing you need to do is ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Alex.Veliaon

edit

I am creating an article about the Kocha Rabha community but need help improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Specifically, I want to ensure the article uses reliable sources, has a neutral tone, and follows proper citation and formatting standards. I would appreciate guidance on how to address reviewer feedback and improve the draft for successful publication.

Thank you 

Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.Veliaon: don't use AI to generate your drafts. And make sure that the sources you're citing are actual sources, not just editing comments like "Reliable source needed here", or URLs that return 'page not found' errors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.Veliaon. Writing an article without first finding the absolutely essential reliable independent sources (see WP:42) is like building a house without bothering to survey the land or build foundations: it will probably fall down, and will be mostly wasted effort.
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) 19:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Maethegreat

edit

My draft was declined. I have addressed the concerns mentioned but do not know how to resubmit my article. Maethegreat (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maethegreat You just need to click the blue "resubmit" button, at the bottom of the last review.
What is your connection to this person? You took a picture of her where she posed for you. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tintin007b

edit

If I correct the reference to Tseytlin, it was actually a paper by Medvedev and Tseytlin, do I need to do anything else to validate this page? Tintin007b (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 12 August 2025 review of submission by JASCbd25

edit

I have a photo I would like to use in the Wikipedia article for Al Siniscal. It is a photo of him appearing with the singer Paul Anka at an awards ceremony in 2010. The photo copyright owner, Front of House Magazine, has given me written permission to use the photo in the Wikipedia article provided they are attributed as the copyright owner. They do not want to grant a Wikimedia Commons open license for use by anyone anywhere. How can I use this photo in the article with this limited usage right? JASCbd25 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASCbd25: You can't, full-stop. Also, you having permission means nothing as you are not the one hosting the image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0

edit

Kanutfilms is an Indian film production and distribution company based in Odisha, India. It was founded in 2025 and produces films in multiple languages. The company 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced and has no indication the organization is a notable organization. This is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ArynahParis

edit

Someone indicated that a big portion of my article lacks reliable sources. How am I supposed to know the exact portion that lacks sources ? Secondly, why is it that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are so brief (with less than 200 words) but, they are already published on Wikipedia? Check this article Hannz Tactiq and this too DJ Shiru ArynahParis (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArynahParis. In a biographic article, every single statement must be sourced to a reliable, published source. You have several unsourced sections which read more like promotion than a neutral article.
Each draft must stand on it's own merits, and we don't compare them to existing articles. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. We don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. Did you not notice the big This article has multiple issues on DJ Shiru? I would not have accepted that had it came through the Articles for Creation process. qcne (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I actually gutted that article in responce to this user asking for help on -en-help yesterday, and I explained literally everything you just brought up to them in as much detail as I could. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Moodytoo

edit

thank you request Moodytoo (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moodytoo: Find somewhere else to host this, maybe Wikitubia? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by FernCurator

edit

The submission was rejected because "There is already a redirect from Neobladder to Urinary diversion. Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself.". While it is accurate that the redirect exists, it is important to note that the Neobladder is the only Type of Urinary Diversion listed that does not have a corresponding page. Futhermore, there is no information on the Urinary Diversion page describing what a Neobladder is. The existence of the page not only serves to provide such a description and citations, but could also be used to note advantages and disadvantages. and well known people with such a diversion (e.g., Deion Sanders). Thanks for your help and guidance. FernCurator (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @FernCurator. Your draft has two citations, both of papers authored or co-authored by Hautmann. Two sources from the same person are rarely enough to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
I further suspect that Hautmann was involved in originating the technique. If this is the case, the papers are both primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Wikipedia articles should be almost entirely based upon secondary sources.
Unless you can find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 (including the more stringent criteria in MEDRS), this subject will not merit an article. I too suggest you add to Urinary diversion. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'll work on making improvements. I had assumed (incorrectly) that primary sources were preferred. FernCurator (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ

edit

Hello, i need help. My article got rejected again. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ: Not to be rude, but if this is unique to the Blackfoot language wouldn't it be better to just put something about it in that article? This may very well be too narrow for a standalone article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tony Holkham

edit

I am autopatrolled and I have helped the creator develop this draft article (elsewhere) to the point where it can be put into mainspace. Do I do that by pasting the new text over the draft text and submitting it, or can I just publish the article as if it was my own creation? I don't want to compromise the draft article or upset any process. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham: Replace the text of the draft, then either submit the draft or (if you think it'd stand up to NPP scrutiny) move it to mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 12 August 2025 review of submission by EvanBlumenfield

edit

hey,

How many more articles and sources do I need to make Hyim Shafner qualify for a Wikipedia article? I added many different sources. Let me know if you have any advice. EvanBlumenfield (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvanBlumenfield: I'll go down your prose in order:
  • Shafner was born in New London, Connecticut. - Source?
  • [Shafner] received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University and holds graduate degrees in social work and Jewish philosophy. - Source?
  • Shafner began his rabbinic career in St. Louis, Missouri, where he served for over a decade as the rabbi of Bais Abraham Congregation. - Source?
  • The appointment was covered by several media outlets... - Irrelevant; you'd be citing those media outlets in the first place.
  • Shafner has been a visible voice in media coverage of Jewish communal issues, Israel, and antisemitism. - Says who?
  • Following an antisemitic incident outside Kesher Israel... - This doesn't contribute to eligibility a whit. As a rule, an interview in The New York Times is every bit as useless as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev, especially where living and recently-departed people are concerned.
Note that every claim a reasonable person could challenge has to get sourced or get out. This is a hard requirement and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look now! I believe I updated it all specifically the sources EvanBlumenfield (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability there, and it was suggested that this was AI-produced? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_12&oldid=1306484773"