Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 15

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 14 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 16 >
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 15

edit

04:43, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Fivelidz5lidz

edit

I'm not sure how to go ahead with editing this page. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible. I made edits to alleviate concerns of "borderline notability". These in turn resulted in issues raised as the formatting in the talk discussion was like that of an LLM. For the article itself everything is properly sourced and verified.

I am very happy to go through and make more edits to the article further if this helps? I just don't know how to pass this test going forward.

Thank you in advance for your time reviewing this. 

Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“as the formatting in the talk discussion was like that of an LLM” do you mean you used an LLM to generate it? If so, please just say that. Clear communication is much more effective when you are asking for help.
Some of the language is still promotional (see WP:YESPROMO) things like “This partnership expanded Sahha's reach into the international fitness technology market, demonstrating adoption beyond regional boundaries” are completely inappropriate.
Regarding sources, can you give three of them that pass all the criteria of in-depth, independent, and reliable? -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean purely the formatting.
I had segmented the points with indents like;
this so they were in what looked like coding blocks or something.

text editor issue
Admittedly it looked janky. I am an AI engineer and I do use AI models to understand topic or navigate issues but I am also a writer. I used AI to help with my links in the article and some formatting but not the writing.
That edit you mentioned was trying to solve the notability issue raised by the first reviewer. Thank you for raising that issue. I will fix that soon.
As far as sources go that pass all those tests;
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/mental-health-improving-startup-gains-funding
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/mental-health-tracking-app-gets-backing
https://www.nbr.co.nz/deals/sahha-bounces-onto-health-and-wellbeing-trend-with-1-3m-raise/
additionally I think these sites would also pass the test?;
https://athletechnews.com/sahha-ai-raises-1-2m-to-support-wearable-brands-more/
https://insider.fitt.co/press-release/sahha-launches-insights-api-for-health/
Thank you so much for the feedback. I'll look through the article later more closely. Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Sanar Mammadov

edit

Wikpedia existing page in English Hi, I have recenently received the rejection about my new page article in Wikipedia. May I know the reason for the rejection. I would like to inform you that the page in wikipedia https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabir_G%C9%99nc%C9%99li was created by me 5 years ago. Sabir Ganajli is the famous writer and journalist of Azerbaijan. He is my deceised father. He left us a month ago. To spread his legasy for a wide auditoria I decided to creat his page in English as well. Could you please help me in this. Or should I proceed other way to complete the same page in Azerbaijani as well as in English. Thak you in advance! Sanar Mammadov (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanar Mammadov I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(it's not for a header title).
You draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I am very sorry for the loss of your father. The draft is written more like an essay and less like an encyclopedia article. Please know that the English Wikipedia is a separate project from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, with different policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. If Azerbaijani is your primary language, you may just wish to edit the article there. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply and your condolences. As I undarstand I need to edit some some text and add some more evidences, links. Could you please guide me in edition? Sanar Mammadov (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanar Mammadov: my condolences.
  Courtesy link: Draft:Sabir Ganjali
This draft is written in quite a promotional tone. In addition, it is insufficiently referenced, and probably also does not provide enough evidence of notability.
Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements. Just because an article exists in one version does not automatically mean that it will be accepted into another.
Lastly, you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) in this subject on account of your relationship. This needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 15 August 2025 review of submission by 41.83.33.244

edit

The ingenious maestro BJ Sam has achieved the extraordinary, assembling a stellar ensemble of vocalists and instrumentalists from across the globe in a resplendent ode to unity, serenity, and sonic purity. In a landmark achievement, the GRAMMY Awards extended an official invitation to BJ Sam to submit this cross-cultural jewel for GRAMMY® consideration, a testament to its profound global resonance and artistic excellence. 41.83.33.244 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for questions regarding the drafting and review process, not for spamming with your promo blurb. If you have a question, feel free to ask. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice to hear- once he is officially nominated for, or awarded a Grammy, he would likely meet the notability criteria, but he doesn't right now. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Kanilasilambam

edit

Why this page is declined Kanilasilambam (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanilasilambam Using the whole url breaks the header formatting that provides a link to your draft, I fixed this. Usually it is unnecessary to use the whole url.
The reviewer provided an explanation, do you have a more specific question? 331dot (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think you ever submitted the draft. I provided you with the information to.
How did you obtain the image of Dr. Ravichandran? 331dot (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got that Image from Dr. Rajan. Now I have submitted the draft. Kanilasilambam (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kanilasilambam.
The image File:Dr.Rajan Ravichandran.jpg will shortly be deleted as a copyright violation, unless evidence is provided that it has been released under a suitable licence.
Your upload message says it is from https://www.miotinternational.com/centers-of-excellence/miot-institute-of-nephrology/kidney-transplant/meet-the-doctors/dr-rajan-ravichandran/ (though I can't find it there); but the message also says the author is "MIOT international website" (which is nonsense: a website cannot be a photographer or a copyright holder), and that site says "all rights reserved".
Where is the evidence that it has been "dedicated to the public ___domain" as you claim?
Copyright in images is a complicated legal matter, and Wikipedia's application of the law is conservative. If you take a picture yourself, you normally hold the copyright, and you have the legal power to release it under a licence that Commons will accept; but if anybody else holds the copyright (including the case where it is unknown who holds it), it cannot be uploaded to Commons unless clear evidence is provided that it has been released under a suitable licence. See Image use policy. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 15 August 2025 review of submission by James410JP

edit

I'm looking for reliable references and external links. Please give me a few days. 

James410JP (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review – Draft:2FABypass (2)Two Factor Authentication Bypass

edit

Hi there,

I’m reaching out as the editor behind User:Letscontributes. I’ve been working on my draft article titled Draft:2FABypass (2)Two Factor Authentication Bypass for several days now, and I’m really hoping to get it approved. I understand it was recently declined with concerns about AI-generated content, and I want to assure you that I’ve gone back through the article carefully and rewritten key sections in my own words using reliable sources.

I’ve added citations from FBI alerts, cybersecurity news outlets, and industry reports to support the notability and relevance of the topic. I’ve also removed vague or speculative language and focused on verifiable facts.

If you have time to take another look, I’d be grateful for any feedback or suggestions. I’m committed to improving the draft and making sure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration, User:Letscontributes Letscontributes (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft; the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, 331dot.
I understand the draft is in the queue, but I wanted to follow up because I’ve spent a lot of time revising it based on previous feedback. I’ve made sure all content is written in my own words and backed by reliable sources like FBI reports and major cybersecurity publications.
If you or another reviewer could take a moment to look at it again, I’d really appreciate it. I’m happy to make any further changes needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards I just want to make sure the effort I’ve put in gets a fair review.
Thanks again for your time,
User:Letscontributes Letscontributes (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is in the pile (which is not a queue). Please be patient.
(Almost) everybody who tries to write an article without first spending a lot of time learning about how Wikipedia works, ends up spending a lot of time revising and reviewing their drafts, and probably feeling frustrated. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i feel frustrated please assist me if you can Letscontributes (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice (which is probably not what you want to hear) is to leave your draft aside for a few weeks or months and stop worrying about it, while you get practice in editing Wikipedia and learn about the practical meaning of fundamental principles like verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources, notability.
Then read your first article carefully. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you very much Letscontributes (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Ghazalehgh

edit

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I’m seeking guidance on improving the draft for Daryoush Gharibzadeh to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. He is a famous director and writer in Iran. Could you clarify:

Specific sourcing issues: Are the current references insufficient, unreliable, or lacking independent coverage?

Required changes: Should I focus on adding more secondary sources (e.g., reputable news outlets, News ) or reorganize content to better reflect notability?

Other gaps: Does the draft fail to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject’s work/affiliations?

I’d appreciate actionable advice to address these concerns. Thank you for your time!

Best regards, Ghazaleh. Ghazalehgh (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners, references need to be in line next to the text that they support.
Note that "famous" is not the same as notable. You need to show he is a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:48, 15 August 2025 review of submission by SR75385

edit

Hi there, this article draft was declined, and the reason given was that its references are not all 4 of these things: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.

Please could someone advise how I appeal the decision, or why exactly the references don't meet the criteria? The article was written in a neutral tone about Heidi, one of the largest ski holiday operators in the UK, which bought the heidi.com ___domain name after a previous Swiss fashion brand - called heidi.com - went into liquidation in 2021.

The confusing thing is there is still a heidi.com Wiki page for the defunct brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi.com). Why is that page allowed to remain, but a Wiki page about the currently trading company that now owns the heidi.com ___domain name has been declined? The references on the current heidi.com Wiki page don't seem to be any more fulfilling of the Wiki criteria in nature.

Likewise, on this Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Health - the references don't look any more in-depth either.

Please could someone advise why the references below are not acceptable? They are all in-depth about the company (rather than just a mention) and the articles are written by reputable UK news sites.

1) This is a news site and the article is solely about Heidi: https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/bristol-ski-holiday-operator-heidi-29436570

2) This is in-depth about Heidi and The Times is a UK national news site so that should make it reliable, secondary and strictly independent? https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/entrepreneurs/article/setting-up-a-ski-company-is-all-downhill-if-you-do-your-research-enterprise-network-fptww5zz9

3) Is this one not acceptable because it's not purely about Heidi? https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/nov/27/how-to-save-on-winter-sports-holidays-ski-deals

4) I don't understand why this one wouldn't be acceptable - The Sunday Times Fastest Growing Companies List is very well recognised and independently decided, so this is not promotional by Heidi itself:https://www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-100-fast-growth/company-profile/article/heidi-fastest-growing-sunday-times-100-fmt0kmm78

5) I also don't understand why this one isn't acceptable as it's entirely about the company (rather than a brief mention in a wider piece): https://planetski.eu/2024/06/29/ski-operator-heidi-secures-5-6m-in-funding/

8) Again, this one is entirely about the company (rather than a brief mention in a wider piece): https://www.snowmagazine.com/news/get-to-know-heidi-ski-from-spreadsheet-to-ski-slope-success

9) Trustpilot is a completely independent customer review site that Heidi has no control over: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/heidi.com

I'd really appreciate further advice on the above.

Many thanks! SR75385 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, sources should in general meet all three criteria: independent, in-depth, and reliable. Your defence of most of these sources seem to be that they fit at least one of the criteria. Do any of them fit all three? -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first sources is basically just reporting on a funding round. That's explicitly WP:CORPTRIV.
  2. Not the worst source ever, but can't really use the huge chunk that is interview material.
  3. There's only a single passing reference to Heidi outside of quoting the co-founder.
  4. We don't use these spammy Top X listicles, again, see WP:CORPTRIV
  5. Again, it's a funding round. WP:CORPTRIV
  6. (8.) There's a crucial phrase at the start of this article. "Sponsored content."
  7. (9.) TrustPilot uses WP:USERGEN content and the only coverage here about Heidi is a "review summary" that is "created with AI."
There's maybe one-half of one usable article here. That's extremely thin, and I'm not finding much else that's usable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Ricktheelectric

edit

Hello,

I can see that this submission for Andy Gates was rejected. I was wondering if I could request some assistance with the draft. Can you please give me another chance to submit it in some way? I think I might have some better sources this time. Ricktheelectric (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited the draft since the last rejection. If you genuinely think you have proof of notability, it would be best to edit the article to show that before requesting this, as people are unlikely to re-open the submission only to have to reject it again. -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Cogito, Ergo Sam

edit

I feel that this is a topic worthy of Wikipedia, an English Youtuber with over 100,000 subscribers and consistently popular uploads, with media coverage in relation to his work. How can it specifically be made to meet Wikipedia standards? Cogito, Ergo Sam (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a subject to be wikinotable, views and subscribers do not really matter. The primary thing is independent, reliable, in-depth sources. It can be very frustrating when you know something is well known, I have met the same challenge before as well. But if the sources do not exist, there can not be an article. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cogito, Ergo Sam Subscriber numbers can be gamed; is it one person woth 100,000 accounts, 2 with 50,000 each, 100 with 1,000 accounts each, etc. That's partly why they don't contribute to notability- only significant coverage in independent reliable sources can do that. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Cman81

edit

I made some edits. Is this how I resubmit for review? Cman81 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cman81. I rejected this draft a few months ago but I see it has substantially changed since then, so I will undo my rejection and it will allow you to re-submit. However: please remove all the IMdb citations - they are not used. See WP:IMDB. qcne (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just resubmitted this with all IMdb citation removed Cman81 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 15 August 2025 review of submission by UnforgivingDolos

edit

What does this notification mean: Topic Prem Poddar was archived or removed from Wikipedia: Requests for Undeletion. You might no longer receive notifications about this topic.

Changes were made as per suggestions. Why is still being removed? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @UnforgivingDolos. I don't know what messages you are talking about. I see nothing on your user talk page, and I see nothing on the draft saying it will be removed. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Thank you for the assurance! UnforgivingDolos (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Indiansocialwork

edit

I would like to edit and improve this article Indiansocialwork (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Indiansocialwork. A rejection usually means the draft is fundamentally not compatible with Wikipedia. If you think sources have now come to light that prove this person meets our criteria for inclusion, I would recommend re-writing it from scratch. Make sure to keep the history of the decline and reject notices. Then when you're ready ping the rejecting reviewer @TheBirdsShedTears or post here. qcne (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 15 August 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:C2:C500:DC8F:6686:47D5:62C7

edit

you do not have this posted as the first recorded championships for men when it was held in Calgary against a BC college 2607:FEA8:C2:C500:DC8F:6686:47D5:62C7 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question related to a draft, or an article? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 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_15&oldid=1308539784"