Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 14

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 13 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 15 >
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 14

edit

00:41, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Butcan

edit

The text for my article "Leon & Malia" is ready to submit, except that it does not have the photos intended to be used. All the photos have been uploaded in Commons. However, I cannot find instructions for how to import these photos into the article. Please, some help/ Butcan 00:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butcan: Adding images from Commons isn't too difficult, this is detailed at Help:Pictures. But I must ask you a few questions.
First, the copyright of the pictures you uploaded. You claimed that the works you uploaded were authored by "Leon & Malia Productions Inc.", and that the business has released the works under public ___domain. Copyright of a photograph typically belongs to the photographer; did the original photographers of these pictures explicitly transfer the copyright to the corporation? If so, has Leon & Malia Productions Inc. agreed to relinquish their copyright? It seems unlikely that the corporation would do that.
Finally, do you have a connection to Leon & Malia? If you do, this must be disclosed, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Helpful Raccoon for your reply. All the photos submitted, as I understand, were "works for hire," the photographers being hired and paid by Leon & Malia Productions Inc. for their work. In the U.S. that makes Leon & Malia Productions Inc. the copyright holder. Since there have been many photos taken over the years no single one is of particular value, as I understand. Malia did not seem to hesitate in doing the License Agreement for Wikipedia a few days ago.
Now, my relationship with Leon Siu and Malia Elliott: I have been a fan of theirs over many decades starting in 1970. While living in San Francisco I took in their show at The Purple Onion. I bought their records and was especially impressed with the Varese Sarabande "...Goldfish" recording. It awakened my life's interest in the small but growing repertory of classical (Art) music on Hawaiian/Polynesian subjects which progress I have followed ardently since then. I have spoken with Malia and Leon from time to time at their performances. I approached Malia this past March to propose to her doing this article for Wikipedia, and she agreed to cooperate with me. We've met from time to time since then when I've had questions or needed more detailed material, more over the last few weeks. I am not being paid for this article, nor would I say the Duo are exactly friends. I just respect them greatly for their many accomplishments.
Butcan 19:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Butcan Thanks for clarifying! Can you have Malia contact commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team to confirm to Commons that the company has released the photographs into the public ___domain? I note that the copyright of this letter likely belongs to Dr. Stockham. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Butcan. As well as the issues Helpful Raccoon raised, I would point out that images will not affect whether your draft is accepted or not: this depends on the sourcing and text only. You can worry about images later. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:26, 14 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

edit

Hello, editors, the reason why my entry was not approved is that it "reads like an advertisement". Could you please specify which part of the content contains an advertising tendency? The editor also said, "It is not merely about the materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." In fact, none of the cited references were created by the DSIM creator. Could you tell me more details about that? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:46, 14 August 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F

edit

This is my first attempt at creating a page on Wikipedia. I received the following decline submission (listed below) but am not sure how to proceed and have no experience creating references. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you!

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are User:Sgraci? Remember to log in when posting. You have not shown that the company meets Wikipedia's special notability criteria for corporations. There need to be sources that satisfy all the criteria in WP:42, which your current sources do not; a Wikipedia article should summarize what these sources say about Loaded Pixel. What Loaded Pixel has to say about itself is almost completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
Please disclose your connection to the company Loaded Pixel, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Are you the same person as User:LoadedPixel? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Cacodemonwiki

edit

The references I have taken are all either government or public news items which can be very well reliable. The institute is liable to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 of government of India and hence there is no change of wrong information to be included.

But article is still rejected. How do I deal with this? Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cacodemonwiki: I'm sure gov't sources are reliable (well, within reason), but that's not the point. The point is, they are primary sources, and as such cannot establish notability per WP:ORG.
And on a different point, you must stop tendentiously resubmitting your draft without any real attempt at improving it, or it will eventually be rejected outright without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingI have used a mix of primary and secondary. I had resubmitted after removing Vision and Mission which was flagged to be removed by @331dot It was not submitted without any change. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cacodemonwiki: as I already said in my decline notice, the 'vision and mission' was just an additional comment, the actual decline was for insufficient evidence of notability, and you did nothing to address that, you only removed the 'vision and mission' (Special:diff/1305827146) before resubmitting. And shortly afterwards, you resubmitted again, with no changes (Special:diff/1305828768). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingdoes that imply by default wikipedia consider government/public institutions as not notable. This is my first article, i assumed that adding profile of a government institutions would be a good contribution. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cacodemonwiki: I didn't say, or imply, that "government/public institutions [are] not notable". I said they are primary sources, and thus do not contribute towards notability per the relevant guideline WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cacodemonwiki Government institutions are not inherently notable- they are treated like any other organization. You must show that it meets WP:ORG. It doesn't merit an article just because it exists. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingOkay. So being government doesn't mean it is relevant. I had been hunting for other sources also but there it is mostly passing remarks. So should I withdraw this article? Yes, articles terminology error being a newbie. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only passing remarks, then it doesn't yet merit an article. That doesn't mean you need to abandon the draft permanently; drafts remain active as long as they are edited at least once every six months(and even if deleted can be recovered). You are welcome to sit on the draft until you see more significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/msme/ministry-of-msme-acknowledges-aiia-to-launch-incubation-centre-for-entrepreneurship - is this a relevant reference? Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a press release(no author is identified that I see) so it's not independent, and it just reports a routine activity(its establishment). 331dot (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was trying to understand what is reliable and not reliable. All sources which I had given was from government itself. So this being a government organisation, I cannot quote anything from government source (as it become primary reference) but will have to get from any other sources, i thought press would be fine. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you employed by this organization? 331dot (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not employed by this organisation. At present I came to visit this organisation and I thought I would write about this as my first wikiarticle. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 14 August 2025 review of submission by AlaNuseibah

edit

I do not see the issues that I am supposed to resolve. The page is getting automatically declined. AlaNuseibah (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlaNuseibah: nothing has been declined, automatically or otherwise. You've created your draft, presumably using AI, with a faulty ('declined') AfC template in it. I'll go remove that for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I received a page saying "submission decline" the moment I submitted. And yes, you are right, there were some additional citations which were suggested by the AI tool I used. Got it now fixed and the article is in review. Thanks a lot for your response. 83.109.122.42 (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AlaNuseibah (Please remember to log in). You have not submitted your draft for review. The "page that said submission declined" was the very first version of the draft that you created. But because you used an LLM, which are notorious for making things up, it made up that your draft had been declined - even though you had never submitted it. That is an indication how very very very unhelpful LLMs are in creating Wikipedia articles.
Since you have used one, it is your responsibility to check that all the references are valid, and every word of the text is backed up by the references. (If you had written the draft yourself, you should already have done this anyway).
DoubleGrazing has now removed the bogus decline message, so you can submit it for review when it is ready - when you have meticulously checked that everything that your LLM put into it is valid. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Mkellyecocem

edit

Hi there,

I'm looking to publish a page on behalf of my company, and the first draft has been rejected due to needing more of a neutral tone.

I'm wondering if I could get help please to review and highlight what parts might be causing an issue.

Appreciate any help that can be provided,

Mark Mkellyecocem (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkellyecocem: you need to fundamentally rethink this. What you've created is a company presentation or online brochure. We have no interest in that; you can put that on your own website, plus use whatever other channels you wish – bar Wikipedia – to tell the world about your business. What we want to see is what third parties have said about your business and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. And by 'third parties', I mean secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of you; independent in terms of ownership and control, independent in terms of content, and independent in terms of freedom of any financial or other inducements or rewards. Your job is then merely to summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that you should read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors/colleagues read it, too- what you are attempting is unwise for several reasons, and while success is possible, it's rare and not likely. Most people in your position have great difficulty in doing what you are trying. Are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Catty Nik

edit

I am receiving Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, but all sources are ok. Catty Nik (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Catty Nik: this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, so no one has declined it on that or any other basis. You created this with a decline template already in it (I'm guessing some AI tool told you to do that?); I'll go and remove that. As for whether the sources are okay or not, let's leave that for a reviewer to determine in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, is it possible to move it back to draft? Catty Nik (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catty Nik: it is in drafts, both in the sense that it is a draft (ie. not yet published in the main encyclopaedia), and it is now in the draft name space (which is the preferred ___location for pending drafts). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Catty Nik (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've also moved this into the draft namespace, at Draft:Valeria Docampo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one last thing, is it possible to remove the article (delete)? Catty Nik (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catty Nik: may I ask why?
But yes, since you are the sole author of this draft, you may request that it be deleted. Please confirm if this is really what you want? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Akhara2025

edit

Hello, I am not sure if this was accepted, I did not ger any notification or email/ Thank you Akhara2025 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhara2025: it was not accepted. The reason you didn't get any notification is that the draft was submitted by someone (presumably you?) from an IP address, and therefore the notification went to that IP user's talk page at User talk:2606:9400:B7A0:36:41F5:4E65:8229:5AE7. (If that was you, please remember to log into your account whenever editing, to avoid this and many other potential issues.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Gpnewman

edit

I was wondering what sources are incorrectly added. Thaks Gpnewman (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpnewman: I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly added"? This draft was declined because of insufficient evidence of notability. See WP:NCORP for the relevant guideline which you need to meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Adilya A

edit

Hello, Wikipedia community! I have prepared a draft article about the Kazakh Film Festival in France, but unfortunately it was declined. I would like to get some advice on how to make it more neutral in tone. I am interested in cinema and Kazakh culture, and I would like more people to learn about the festival. It is a valuable opportunity to discover Kazakh cinema in Europe, and since English is an international language, I thought it would be useful to have an article about it in English in addition to French. Regarding the references, I have added sources from both the French and Kazakh press. Thank you for any comments and suggestions! Kind regards, Adilya A (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adilya A You need to provide the full, exact title when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I noticed it only after I had published the request and didn't know how to fix it myself. Adilya A (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft reads like the Festival website, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the festival, showing how it is a notable event. The sources you provided just document the festival and its activities.
If you are associated with this event, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adilya A. "I would like more people to learn about the festival" is a very very bad reason to write a Wikipedia article, because (in Wikipedia terms) what you are doing is promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. (It doesn't matter whether or not you have a commercial intent: "telling the world about" is pretty well what we mean by "promotion").
Only once the festival has been written about by several people completely unconnected with it, at length, in reliable sources, will Wikipedia consider having an article on it.
Any such article should be essentially a summary of what those independent sources say: Wikipedia has pretty well no interest in what the festival says or wants to say.
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. (I know you created your account five years ago, but you have made almost no edits, so you are still a "new editor"). ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot and ColinFine, for your feedback and guidance. I understand that the sources I provided mainly document the festival’s activities and do not establish notability according to Wikipedia standards, but unfortunately, the articles I added are the only mentions of the festival so far.
I am not associated with the festival, but I appreciate the reminder to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. I also understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and I regret that my draft came across that way.
I will take your advice and spend more time contributing to existing articles to better understand Wikipedia’s core policies before attempting to create a new article (or to edit this draft). Thank you again for your guidance! Adilya A (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good intention, @Adilya A. If you decide to come back to this subject, start by looking for sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you can't find any, you'll know not to spend any more time on the festival. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Nouri Navid

edit

Hello,

I’m a first-time contributor, and I recently attempted to write a neutral article about someone I found online. I’d appreciate any tips you can offer.

Could you clarify what counts as a reliable source? I tried using government documents and sources not affiliated with the person, but I’m not sure if that was sufficient.

Also, during review, I was told my draft “reads like a résumé.” In response, I removed many news items to reduce bias—but now I’m wondering if I went too far. How can I keep neutrality without stripping out too much context?

Thank you very much for your help! Nouri Navid (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nouri Navid: the concept of reliable sources is explained at WP:RS, and you can find some information on specific media outlets at WP:RSP.
You say you "found online" this person... yet you managed to take a photo of him at close quarters? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fast reply
sorry about that image info, trying to change it since i found it ia google image search and is available at instagram. trying to change it when the filter problem ticket is resolved.
are the sources about the subject in Reuters and UK official webiste and the book i referenced not enough as resources? Nouri Navid (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nouri Navid: okay, for future reference, do not upload someone else's image as your 'own work', if they aren't your own work. You're violating someone's legal rights as the owner of that image, and this can get you into trouble (including but not only on Wikipedia).
The Reuters piece is just routine business reporting, and only quotes Salemi commenting on the deal.
If by "UK official website" you mean the Companies House record, then all that does is confirm that this person is a director of JTA International Investment Holding Ltd. This doesn't contribute anything towards notability, and barely even verifies any information in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nouri Navid. It looks to me as if most of the sources you cite in Draft:Amir Ali Salemi are routine business announcements about the company, not even about him. The government document will be primary, and probably doesn't contain significant coverage of him. The book (which I don't have access to) might be satisfactory, but my guess is that it contains a potted biography which is both short, and derives from Salemi or his associates, and so is not independent.
Writing an article begins with finding several sources which are a) reliably published, b) secondary (not primary), c) wholly independent of the subject, and d) contain significant coverage of the subject specifically (not of a company etc if the article is about a person). See WP:42 for details of the criteria the sources must meet.
If you cannot find several such sources, you will know that there is no point in spending any more time on this, because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find some, then you need to put aside anything else you know or may have heard about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
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) 15:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 14 August 2025 review of submission by TDM Writer

edit

The submission has been declined twice and after the first decline a new version was submitted with the link to a UK Registered and incorporated company. I have been enlisted to help the business form the initial entry. I have been reading and using Wikipedia since it started and have hefty experience in the luxury, fashion and music sector and have seen similiar small entries on the site which begin with a starting text. The entry is the first phase of the unravelling of the business and will be updated progressively to include the company weblinks, website and the logo created by one of the most famous fashion designers in the world on behalf of the business. This is their first attempt at using the platform and the business is a verifiable UK Business Entity and information related to it should not be interfered with. We kindly ask you to reconsider the submission and post it online at your earliest convenience. The organisation is experienced and will reveal more information as the launch plans commence. The submission was also edited by a notable luxury writer. Thanks, TDM Writer. TDM Writer (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TDM Writer: firstly, you must disclose your paid editing status without delay. I've posted instructions on your talk page.
This draft, such as it is, consists of a single sentence, with no referencing, and therefore no evidence of notability. This does not add up to a viable encyclopaedia article draft.
The link that you mention leads nowhere, it is only a 'link' in name. And even if it did point to the website of the company (presumably?), that would contribute nothing in terms of notability, either.
The notability guideline you need to satisfy is WP:NCORP, and WP:GOLDENRULE explains the process you need to follow. Meanwhile WP:YFA gives you pretty everything you need to draft an article. All that, after you've disclosed your paid editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh, and if this business is only launching next year, then it clearly has no chance whatsoever of being notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I realise you have been blocked, @TDM Writer, but it's worth making this point in case you,or your principals, come here looking). I'm not sure who you are trying to impress with your "hefty experience", but you are showing us clearly that you have zero experience of how Wikipedia works.
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) 16:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 14 August 2025 review of submission by AAHW

edit

Can you guys expand this article and add reliable sources please AAHW (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AAHW. The answer is almost certainly No - unless your draft happens to engage the interest of one of the people who give their time voluntarily to working on Wikipedia.
If you think this is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, it is up to you to find the sources, and write the article.
You have stated that something happened on 13th August. Which reliable independent sources have written at length about this? Unless the answer is "several", you are wasting your time trying to create an article in Wikipedia.
I strongly suspect that you are doing this to try and tell more people about the project: if so, please note that "telling the world" is the very definition of promotion that we use in Wikipedia, and that is forbidden. Only after the world has already noticed, in the form of substantial reliable independent reporting, will Wikipedia take any notice.
Please use another outlet for your campaign. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't divine independent reliable sources for you, you should have them in hand before you begin writing, see WP:BACKWARDS. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Theedecemberblues

edit

My Monica Hernández draft was denied a bit ago, but I believe she is notable in her own right for a standalone article. Not only as a painter, but primarily as a content creator online. She has had several reliable, independent articles report on her, her work, and social media presence. If you are interested in taking a look, please do not hesitate to weigh in with your opinions, suggestions or concerns. Thanks! Theedecemberblues (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 14 August 2025 review of submission by GozlerScruz

edit

hello everyone. how to i get apply from wikipedia for uncoverit.org page i need help what can i add to apply GozlerScruz (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where have people wholly unconnected with the website written at length about it and been published in reliable publications? If the answer is "nowhere", then there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it, and you are wasting your time.
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) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Rehmanta

edit

The above stated articles have been submitted many times, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Wikipedia review committee. The above stated legendary person was a great historic person for the renaissance of muslim community in Kerala, India. In several texts and journals clearly mentioned his contribution for the upliftment of the dipressed muslim community in Kerala, i have one request to the review committee, kindly check "the muslim mirror' for getting more details about Parappur Abdu Rahman Moulavi. Kindly accept this article and give permission to the public read the same content. Regards Rehmanta (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rehmanta. There is no "review committee". There are only individual reviewers. Six of them, independently, have looked at your draft, and @Thilsebatti has decided that your inability to improve the draft to an acceptable state indicates that it is not worth spending any more time on.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Your draft reads like your thoughts on the subject, not a summary of what the sources have said.
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) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about my great grandfather Parappur Abdurehman Moulavi who has played an unnegotiable role in the renaissance movement of Islam especially in the Malabar region. To prove the legitimacy of the given article of this person, references from Muslim Mirror, "History of Religious Organisations and Ideological Conflicts Among The Muslims of Malabar from 1921-1989" a thesis by Sharafudheen K.V, "Colonialism And Community Formation in Malabar: A Study of Muslims of Malabar" thesis by P.P Abdul Razak, "The History of Kerala Muslims" a history book by Dr. N A Kareem could be checked. I humbly request you to approve this article after further checking and not let the lifestory of such an emminent person go unknown. Rehmanta (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehmanta, I suggest you get more experience editing other parts of Wikipedia, then return (much) later and have another look at your draft. At present it really isn't very much like a Wikipedia article, so it's very unlikely that any reviewer would ever accept it. If you can't see why yet, that's fine - you will eventually, once you've had more practice editing articles that already exist. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 14 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:152:203:CD60:CCCA:A786:CE74:193

edit

According to the comments "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." However, we have so many sources that highlight that Brianna Wiest shows significant coverage. What are we missing here and how does this international best-selling author not qualify for a Wikipedia article? 2601:152:203:CD60:CCCA:A786:CE74:193 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
Most of your sources are interviews with her, or serve to document her work. Interviews are not an independent source. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she is a notable creative professional. For writers that usually is independent reviews of her writing style by professional critics(not just her books themselves, which might merit the books articles but not her personally). 331dot (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Jrdemers

edit

I can not find a solution to this error in the Faqs nor anywhere. I can not upload an image that I took and am being told that "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikipedia Commons." I tried several different ways. Is this because of the newness of the account? If so the error description needs to change. Jrdemers (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrdemers: if you're trying to upload something to the Commons, be advised that it is a separate project from us (the English Wikipedia), therefore you should probably ask them for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I am writing an article and trying to upload an image related to the article by clicking the image icon in the editor. I am not sure how this goes to the Commons? Can you please point me to the instructions on how to upload an image for an article if clicking on the editor icon isn't the correct way to do it? Thank you. Jrdemers (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrdemers: This is likely because of an automated filter on Commons that is designed to detect copyright violations when a new user uploads a small picture. If you photographed the image yourself, and didn't copy/screenshot it from the internet, this error is a false positive. You can avoid this by using commons:Special:UploadWizard instead, and the image can be inserted into a Wikipedia page by following the instructions at Help:Images. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! I will give it a try. Jrdemers (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That worked. Thanks again! Jrdemers (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jrdemers. Note that images will not make any difference at all in getting a draft approved. If you are talking about Draft:CoolShims, then the only thing you should be concentrating on at this stage is finding better sources.
In order to establish notability, you need several sources which are wholly independent of the company, reliably published, and have significant coverage of the company (not just its products): see WP:42 for more.
At present you have a patent, which is a primary source, the company's own website, which is not independent, and one article about the products, which may be OK (I'm not clear whether Autopian is what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source or not; and the article is mostly about the products, not the company) - but even if it is, one source is rarely enough to establish notability.
If you can find such sources, then you need to make sure that almost everything in the draft comes from what one of those sources say, not from what CoolShims say.
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. (I recognise that your account has been around for fifteen years; but with an edit-count of 16, I think you're still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Currently I am not working on Coolshims, but on Bakman Technologies. I will return to Coolshims once I have Bakman Technologies working. Jrdemers (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar points apply. The first three sources are all authored or co-authored by J R Demers (you?) and so are not independent, and will contribute nothing to establishing notability.
I don't know whether the other sources are independent or not (I haven't looked at them) but it seems unlikely that any of them contains very much information about the company (as opposed to its products): if not, they will also contribute nothing towards establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so it isn't if it is about the products but if the company itself is notable. What about acquisition announcements? Or government grant announcements? Are those acceptable? Jrdemers (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are regarded as run-of-the-mill announcements, and anyway usually originate with the subject or associated companies, so they are not independent. See CORPDEPTH. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 14 August 2025 review of submission by K8t B

edit

Request move from sandbox to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera for AfC review Hi, I have drafted an article at User:K8t_B/Madushin Amarasekera.

I have a declared conflict of interest (employed by Construkt Architects), so I will not move it myself. The draft has been written with references from reliable, independent sources and is intended to meet Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and verifiability standards.

Could an uninvolved editor please move it to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera and submit it to Articles for Creation for review? Thank you! 

K8t B (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@K8t B You are a paid editor. You do not have a simple conflict of interest. Please read and abide by WP:PAID.
The draft can stay in your sandbox and be submitted for a review. The material declaring your conflict is not to appear on the draft, but on the draft's talk page. The template you require is {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. You have used a similar template for declaring a simple WP:COI. Even so, the parameters needed to be filled out
Another editor has moved it for you. IT is at Draft:Madushin Amarasekera now. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
K8t B (edit conflict) I edited your header so that you don't create a link to a nonexistent page entitled "Request move from sandbox to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera for AfC review". I edited it to include the new ___location of your draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it is little more than his resume. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and how he is a notable person as Wikipedia uses the term. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@K8t B   Declined although it has been edited down it is still a resume. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are employed by his company, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited again with a reliable secondary source with significant coverage (Sunday Times Sri Lanka) K8t B (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is going on here or who Madushin Amarasekera is. Jrdemers (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a New Zealand Architect as written in the text K8t B (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrdemers You appear by accident, to be participating in the wrong thread. Your thread is above. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah,now I see it. No wonder I was confused! Jrdemers (talk) 16:00, 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_14&oldid=1306858192"