Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 20 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 22 >
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 21

edit

07:03, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Sandes.Kumar

edit

What s the reason to reject page. Sandes.Kumar (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandes.Kumar: you should not be writing about yourself in the first place. If you do, you are not allowed to promote yourself (or any other subject). Anything you say must be based on reliable published sources, which must be cited. Your draft failed on each of these counts; hence, why it was rejected, and deleted.
If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your software engineering skills etc., you should try social media such as LinkedIn. Wikipedia, in contrast, is an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 21 August 2025 review of submission by CMonc1234

edit

Hello, I'd like to ask for help in editing an article I submitted 'Draft:Onclusive'. The article was declined with the comment "press releases are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)". I have checked all the sources and there is no direct link to a press release. Please could someone advise further so I can ensure I am meeting Wikipedia's guidelines? Many thanks CMonc1234 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMonc1234 Two of your sources are to "PR week". All of your sources just report the routine business activities of Onclusive; even if not written as a stock press release, they're just reporting activities, not describing what makes the organization a notable organization.
If you work for this organization in any capacity, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response. PR Week is a global trade magazine and news website for the Public Relations and Communications Sector. They report on notable news relating to the industry, with heavy presence in the UK and US. It's part of the wider Haymarket Group which also has publications such as Campaign and Third Sector - all highly reputable publications and news sources for their industries. Removing PR Week mentions would be detrimental to ensuring the information on the Wiki page is independently verified by journalists within the sector. The notability of the organization is that it has come of the merger of key former companies within the industry - namely Kantar Reputation and Digimind whose Wikipedia pages are linked to in the copy. Is there anything else you'd suggest? CMonc1234 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Companies merging with or acquiring each other is not an indicator that the company is notable- as that is a common business practice. If that's the only claim to notability, the company does not merit an article at this time. Please see WP:BOSS, and have your superiors/colleagues read it, too.
I see that you disclosed on the draft that you are an employee; please also do this on your user page(User:CMonc1234) for better visibility. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the feedback. I'll take a closer look at the guidelines to understand what true notability is. Regardless, I hope I managed to provide some clarification on the source 'PR Week'. It's one of the most widely-read publications in the PR, communications and marketing space - particularly in the UK and US - and I note is used as a source for other companies operating in the same space CMonc1234 (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think the problem is PR Week itself. There has been at least some light discussion about using PR Week as a source, so long as it's not sponsored content [1].
The larger problem is that the PR Week articles aren't significant coverage. Everything in a PR Week source is pretty clearly WP:CORPTRIV. Going through the rest of the sources, the first mrweb isn't about the company, only documenting a routine CEO hire, while the second is again WP:CORPTRIV. The Business Wire source is explicitly a press release, so that's an easy no. The PE Hub is just the acquisition. The Marketing Interactive link explicitly sources the company statement, so it's functionally a press release.
That leaves no sources as of now. And the problem is, all Wikipedia articles are written from the sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Girish Narain Pandey

edit

Tell me why this page in rejected Girish Narain Pandey (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the information left by reviewers. The draft was very poorly sourced. Articles about living and recently deceased people(deceased for a year or two) must have a source for every substantive fact about them, see WP:BLP. If you can provide that, then do so and ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. This man does seem to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as a member of a legislature, but the sourcing must be improved.
I might suggest that you change your username so that people do not think that you are a deceased person, or think that the deceased person is actually alive. See Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to change your username. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Prokofiev0

edit

I contest the rejection of my article about a professional footballer on disrespectful grounds. An article about this player already exists in the Russian Wikipedia (Roman Sergeyevich Rostokin) and meets all the notability criteria for footballers for publication. 1.1.1 Footballers – A footballer is considered notable if they have played in a fully professional league (top-tier or second-tier professional leagues) or have represented their country at senior international level. Prokofiev0 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing notability criteria no longer in effect. As it says above your quote The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with..
WP:NSPORT is what is used to determine notability these days. And as such, WP:SPORTSIGCOV requires at least one source that provides significant coverage about the subject, and cannot be a database. You've provided no such source.
That an article is on a different edition of Wikipedia isn't relevant. These are separate projects with different policies and guidelines. English Wikipedia articles must meet our policies and guidelines, and many, many articles from other Wikipedia versions do not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Rostokin meets the criteria for notability under WP:NFOOTY. He has played in the Armenian Premier League, the highest tier of football in Armenia and a fully professional top division recognized by FIFA. In addition, he was the top goalscorer of the Moldovan Cup, a major national competition organized by the Football Association of Moldova. Reliable sources such as Transfermarkt also provide independent coverage: Roman Rostokin - Титулы и победы | Transfermarkt Prokofiev0 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prokofiev0: As CoffeeCrubs said above, playing in the highest-tier league is no longer a valid notability claim as of 2022. We also do not consider Transfermarkt a usable source for ass'n football. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moldovan cup 2021/2022 Top Goal scorers please check the information, it even shows on English Wikipedia that he is the best goal score of the year 2021/2022, if you don't believe transfermarkt, you can check your own resources. Prokofiev0 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2024-2025 Armenian Cup also he is in the list of goal scorers of the Armenian Cup 2024-2025 Prokofiev0 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FC Gandzasar Kapan how is it possible that he is in the team squad, got more value then other players who got the Wikipedia page in his team, but he still didn't? Prokofiev0 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I’m not arguing, I’m just trying to understand everything. All the necessary links already exist on English Wikipedia itself, so I don’t know what could be more reliable than that information. If you don’t consider Transfermarkt as a valid source of authenticity, then it turns out that you would also disregard other links that confirm the player’s identity. Please don’t take me wrong, I just don’t know what else to cite if all the information about Roman Rostokin is already present on English Wikipedia — it only needs to be activated. Thank you for your understanding. Prokofiev0 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Prokofiev0. An article on English Wikipedia should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
Unless you cite (see WP:REFB) several sources which meet WP:42, you cannot write an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. You are writing an article about a WP:BLP. Every fact about this subject out to be sourced. Not to Wikipedia, not to a database, but to significant coverage in reliable sources, that is about the subject. Unless you have sources that discuss Rostokin in a manner that you can write a biography from those sources, there's not really a next step here.
Having a Wikipedia article is not a measure of "value" nor is it an award based on merit. If nobody reliable is talking about Rostokin, then we don't have anything to base an article on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Divizia-A here we can see more than 20 links about Rostokin in Moldova for example.
Football Federation of Armenia the same is here if you put his surname Ростокин (on the search link) you also can see a lot of information about the player.
Moldovan News Gagauzinfo Prokofiev0 (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Top goal scorer of the team News Gagauzinfo
Moldovan News Moldova news , GagauzNews Gagauzia news Prokofiev0 (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soccerworld academy, Barcelona interview Prokofiev0 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian News Tribuna
Russian News Sports.ru Prokofiev0 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fanday Ukrainian News Prokofiev0 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prokofiev0:
Nothing you have proffered since CoffeeCrumbs' last post is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Jonkeren1

edit

Page was declined by by user @Lijil, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lijil, based on _"it's possible she is notable per the a Dutch Wikipedia but not the English one. For the English one she would need to have significant coverage of her as a person in reliable independent sources, mot just confirmation that she is a journalist."_ I could not find more suitable references in English -- how can I best make sure this page is relevant for Wikipedia in English as well? Thanks for any help. Jonkeren1 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonkeren1. The English-language Wikipedia does not require English-language sources. Dutch sources are totally fine. Our only requirements for sources are that they are published and reliable. qcne (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll also accept offline sources, regardless of the language they were originally published in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Thepageholder

edit

It's been so long when will i get this article accepted or rejected? Let me know Thepageholder (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted on 11 August 2025. Reviewers are all volunteers and we get 300~ submissions per day. It may take several months for a reviewer to review your draft. Please be patient. qcne (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Carol Travel

edit

I'm a new editor and would like to learn about editing. can i speak to an editor who can help me and go through the process step by step? Carol Travel (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Carol Travel. You are free to ask questions here. I rejected your draft as it was an essay, and Wikipedia does not host essays. Our articles are simply summarises of what reliable, published, sources state about a topic. We don't host how-to guides or comparisons of services. Your draft was basically a blog post. qcne (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dear
thanks for your clarification.
i will give it a try again and write a new article.
is there a place where i can send it to you before publishing it to get your notes and learn from your experience? Carol Travel (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for creation process is how you can get experienced editors to look at drafts and review them. But you can also leave a message on my talk page and I can take a look. qcne (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 21 August 2025 review of submission by Nepaliguy.np

edit

Why this is getting rejected? Is the new draft worthy for approval? Nepaliguy.np (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nepaliguy.np: it hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you need to work on it further, and may resubmit it). The decline reason both times was insufficient evidence of notability, which basically boils down to the quality of the sources. Your aim should be to show that the subject satisfies the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to that source I have tried to mention all verified sources and resubmitted. Can you check and suggest what should I do? Nepaliguy.np (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by that.
I'm not commenting on whether or not the sources cited meet the GNG criteria, I'm merely saying that's why this draft was declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 21 August 2025 review of submission by 198.109.173.50

edit

Hello! I would like some direction as to what else needs to be edited on this page to make it qualify as an acceptable Wiki article. Currently, it references several notable museums and cultural institutions in the list of work by the artist, provides highlights of his career, and lists references ranging from museums and libraries to newspaper articles. There is further a list of books and a list of newspaper mentions to substantiate the biographical facts about the artist. What other information is required to make this a publishable page? 198.109.173.50 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I haven't looked at the draft, but it sounds from what you say above that you have few or no sources that are adequate to establish notability.
A Wikipedia article should be a sumamry of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
Anything published by him or his associates (including museums that have exhibited him) are not independent. Newspaper mentions (unless they are considerably more than "mentions") are not the significant coverage required to base an article on. Please see WP:42 for the criteria for kinds of sources required. ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 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_21&oldid=1308013144"