Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 20

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 19 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 21 >
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 20

edit

03:02, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Geno Eric

edit

How many articles can i add to make it accepted Geno Eric (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number that's important, it's the quality and relevance. You may also want to review similar articles such as Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (New Zealand) to see what kinds of sources are used. I suggest you remove mentions of named living people unless there is an explicit source for them. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:27, 20 August 2025 review of submission by 216.9.20.62

edit

further explanantion pls 216.9.20.62 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained 4 times before it was rejected. Click the links in the decline messages to get a very in depth explanation of what is required to have an article on the English Wikipedia. None of the sources used are any good to show anyone why the company is notable as we define it. We need to see in depth coverage with personal reflection and insight from an unconnected subject, published in a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 20 August 2025 review of submission by 103.203.147.101

edit

why my submission is rejected 103.203.147.101 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected for lack of evidence that the subject is in any way notable. It could equally well have been rejected as inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, given that is purely promotional and written in first-person voice. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself, you need to find different outlets for that, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Arshad1717

edit

i have edited it and checked its sources, why are you still rejecting ? Arshad1717 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated slop and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Ciskyla

edit

Please approve 

Ciskyla (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected, zero indication of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 20 August 2025 review of submission by DigiSpaceProductions

edit

I could use some advice for how I can better cite my sources here and make it "qualify" for a article. I (personally) think I did a decent job citing the sources that I could, most of the things are directly by the subject (YonKaGor), and wouldnt make sense to cite elsewhere, if there are other (applicable) areas I can cite my sources, I am willing to fix it.

Also I do plan to flesh out the amount of information in general.

YonKaGor is a decently popular figure in the Furry Community, so (as said, in my opinion) it makes sense for a article.

Any extra guidance would be nice so I can make it comply. DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DigiSpaceProductions. X (Twitter), Twitch, his their Youtube channel are all inappropriate sources. We want to see mainstream media coverage in reliable, reputable sources. qcne (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there.
What "Mainstream Media Coverage" do you want specifically, eg. what would be a list of providers I could cite?
Also I don't get how citing their direct words isn't a "inappropriate source", as well as their channels for citing their Twitch and YouTube channels respectively.
It'd be nice to know where I can possibly get the "reliable sources", especially since as far as I'm aware, they have not really talked to any mainstream news companies or anything of the sort (eg. CNN, NBC, etc.)

As said, I can look for other sources, but i'd need a list of "reliable sources".

Also they go by they/them. DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a really useful list of common reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - though this is not exhaustive. What we're looking for is a publication with evidence of editorial standards/control, not just random blogs or forums or social media.
You can use primary sources (e.g. their own YT channel) to cite limited biographic information, but they should be used with caution. There's lots more information at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
If you can't find three solid reliable secondary sources (not connected to this person and not an interview or press release) then it's a good rule of thumb that this person does not yet meet our criteria for inclusion at this time. Remember: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means our articles only summarise what existing reliable secondary (and to a limited extent primary) sources state. qcne (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter posts are directly from the person in question, every single one of their other medias link towards it, they still operate it, and its only them posting to it.
"Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." made me feel that it would qualify, given the other sources I link (Their YouTube mostly) also link back to their Twitter, and they are still semi active on it.
I can try finding some third party sources though, though I do want to ask, what qualifies as a third person source? DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean third-party source, which means anything not connected to this person. For example it could be a magazine article where a journalist examines this person's career, not based off an interview. qcne (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look to see if any exist later down the line, I do think one exists now that I think about it, but I'm unsure if the source would be on the list, but I'll check in the near future.
I still want to possibly flesh out a BIT more detail in general since its mostly lacking (Mostly just going over the basics with a few sentences at the start, then listing their releases, then getting into a bit of their history)
I'll figure something out. DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that on Wikipedia we only have articles about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability (people) in this case), and that the way to prove this criteria for inclusion is through the use of multiple reliable, published, secondary independent sources that give significant coverage to the person. This page explains it in simpler terms: Wikipedia:42. So you want to establish that this person meets our criteria first. Only once that has been proven is it worth writing a full article. qcne (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just feel having a decent chunk of it as one list is a bit "eh", even for a draft.
I'm still going to spend time seeing if any reliable third-party sources are available, I have the time. DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck, and remember you can just incubate the draft for a while until stronger sources appear. qcne (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Ciskyla

edit

I have added more refference links please check Ciskyla (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciskyla I am afraid this has been rejected and won't be considered further without strong evidence of having met Wikipedia:Notability (people). qcne (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Ciskyla

edit

Please check and accept Ciskyla (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciskyla Answered above? qcne (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a priority to have the page please check what we can do in this Ciskyla (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a priority? Do you work for this person's media and PR team? qcne (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm his PR manager Ciskyla (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept the article. It'll be a big HELP Ciskyla (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciskyla It is mandatory that you disclose this. Please immediately declare this by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
In any case, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You are using Wikipedia to promote this person, which is prohibited. qcne (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thetalentedindian.com/varun-nair-tiktok-turn-instagram-genz-content-creator Ciskyla (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ciskyla We have little interest in helping your PR efforts. Our only interest is in if our guidelines are being followed. You are required by the Terms of Use to disclose as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciskyla Please be aware that promotion of any type is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Malik Imran 65498

edit

why my artical rejected 

Malik Imran 65498 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not meet our strict criteria for inclusion, @Malik Imran 65498. qcne (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Anna.apriilis

edit

Hello, I am working on improving my draft about the catamaran - Laniakea. It was declined for relying too much on primary sources i tried to correct these mistakes. Could someone please take a look and let me know if the draft now meets Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements, or what else I should improve before resubmitting? Thank you! Anna.apriilis (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.apriilis If you work for the company that produces this watercraft, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
If you want a review of your draft, you need to resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 20 August 2025 review of submission by ByChi

edit

Hello, I have created a draft (My draft for Lokafy) at User:ByChi/sandbox and i am unable to get the {{subst:submitforreview}} template to work. Could a volunteer please help submit this draft for me? Thank you. ByChi (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it- you needed "AFC draft" not "subimtforreview"(which is a nonexistent template).
If you were to submit your draft, however, it would be declined quickly. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it sees as its own history. You must instead summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about your company, showing how it is a notable company.
Please see WP:BOSS, and have your superiors/colleagues read it, too. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ByChi. 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. And that is even without the conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 20 August 2025 review of submission by 141.76.47.162

edit

Thanks for reviewing my draft. How can I prove that the person meets the academic standards? I cited and referenced and from that it should be clear that he has merits in academis (Wissenschaftsrat position, professorship, number of citations can be seen in dblp, ...) I am grateful for your advice. Thanks and regards 

141.76.47.162 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Indiravallam

edit

Respected sir, What went wrong with my AFC of Ayyappa P. Sharma Indiravallam (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After 10 reviews, it was finally rejected as not meeting our criteria for inclusion at this time. I recommend you write about something else? qcne (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Wikiguyamir

edit

Are youtube re-uploads of series (particularly credits sequences) not considered reliable sources? Wikiguyamir (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, YouTube is almost never a reliable source as anyone can post anything with little to no editorial oversight. Only news outlets or similar with verified channels are acceptable YouTube videos. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Playthebeat

edit

I worked hard and within the rules to create a well written and well referenced article on a notable subject. My article was rushed to the top of the 5 week waiting list in less than 12 hours of submission to be hurriedly destroyed by 'ＶＲＸＣＥＳ' and 'Helpful Raccoon'. 'Lucas the Game' was very well known and distributed during its time as an indie game. Further, Lucas the Game is the first published video game to ever use Gimp for all of its artwork. This is history and since 2015 this fact has been publicly known worldwide as referenced and never challenged once. 'ＶＲＸＣＥＳ' and 'Helpful Raccoon' have discriminated today and caused a piece of history to be maliciously left out of Wikipedia. Playthebeat (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "rushed to the top of the list" because there is no list, drafts are reviewed in no particular order.
No one disputes what you wrote, but that does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, "notability" on Wikipedia is defined in Wikipedia:Notability specifically. I suggest you review that. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 20 August 2025 review of submission by Nocoastjazz

edit

I get an error message: The Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). for references pertaining to reference #1. I put Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page). for references pertaining to reference # 2 and so on to # 12. I don't know how to correct. Nocoastjazz (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocoastjazz: please see the comment from 10 July which signposts you to a tutorial on referencing.
To take one example:
<ref name="6">Reference 6</ref> {{cite web |title=IJS Presents Yayoi Ikawa (AAPI Jazz Fest: Prelude Series) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHClhL_2Ou0 |publisher=YouTube |access-date=2025-08-18}}</ref>
...should instead be:
<ref name=":6">{{cite web |title=IJS Presents Yayoi Ikawa (AAPI Jazz Fest: Prelude Series) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHClhL_2Ou0 |publisher=YouTube |access-date=2025-08-18}}</ref>
So firstly, you only need one pair of ref tags <ref>...</ref> per citation, and secondly you need to place the citation template inside those ref tags.
And if you want to give references names (only needed if you use the same source more than once, see WP:REFNAME), the name cannot be just a number; so instead of "6", as in the example above, it should be eg. ":6" or "r6" or whatever.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_20&oldid=1307884144"