Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 21 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 23 >
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 22

edit

01:58, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Prefernothing

edit

No idea why this page is not meeting requirements for references when the subject is referenced via third party sources and not just mentions as have included two interview references Prefernothing (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't establish notability; they're not independent. Amazon listings and IMDB pages are not reliable sources. Wikipedia article can't be sourced with other Wikipedia articles. I don't see a single usable source here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Ysarmy

edit

Hello, I created a draft page at https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/सदस्य:Ysarmy/खेल_का_मैदान but I don’t have the “Move” option. Please help me move it to Draft namespace with the title: Draft:Ramadhar Singh Yadav so that I can submit it for review. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysarmy (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hindi Wikipedia. We cannot create the draft for you on Hindi Wikipedia, and there's no point in us having a foreign language draft on English Wikipedia. You need to write it in English. Meters (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:45, 22 August 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:DF:B96E:F555:369E:6B4C:9E22

edit

i want to show who is lootytfy and his detail. the boy behind lootytfy he want to famous 2001:D08:DF:B96E:F555:369E:6B4C:9E22 (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The draft has been rejected. qcne (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't cite YouTube or TikTok, and you cite nothing else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. A Wikiedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. Without such sources no article is possible.
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) 10:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Ankersmit

edit

Please I need help for the publication of this article: Draft:Aposcience] Many thanks in advance; Ankersmit (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ankersmit I fixed your header- using the whole url breaks the formatting that provides a link to the draft. Generally, the whole url is not needed when linking. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankersmit: could you be more specific, what help do you need?
The draft was declined because it is written in a promotional manner. It could additionally have been declined because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What help is it that you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be done so that the article can be accepted by the Wikipedia-community? In fact we need help because somehow it can always be interpreted as promotional if you want (same with other personalities or companies). Ankersmit (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
An article that reads as what the subject wants people to know about them will almost always appear promotional. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ankersmit Do you have a connection to this company? (you say "we"; also know accounts may not be shared) 331dot (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Aniray2016

edit

How to make content acceptable?

Should we remove goodreads link? Would that fix the issue? Aniray2016 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please disclose your connection with this man(as you took a picture of him), see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as teh COI issue (which is absolutely the most important and urgent, as 331dot says) the text is promotional. If you write what the subject would want people to know, that's almost always promotional. 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.
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) 16:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Ngochandao

edit

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article about Catenda, a European BIM software company, which was declined due to concerns that it “is not adequately supported by reliable sources.” I would greatly appreciate guidance from experienced editors on how to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

In particular, I would be grateful for advice on: - Which parts of the article require additional reliable, independent sources. - Recommendations for trustworthy sources that would support the content. - Best practices for referencing, including how to cite web pages, reports, and press coverage in a way that aligns with Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time and help, any guidance or examples would be extremely valuable as I work to improve the article.

Regards, Ngochandao Ngochandao (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed. Please see WP:PAID.
You have just told of the company and its activities and offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 22 August 2025 review of submission by 2400:ADC5:120:3200:B996:4628:5089:AF40

edit

can you suggest me for the improvement of that page. 2400:ADC5:120:3200:B996:4628:5089:AF40 (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
We already have an article about paper, one that was not written with AI. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 22 August 2025 review of submission by 131231311O3322

edit

I do not understand why my article keeps on getting denied 131231311O3322 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the prior reviews(which should not be removed). What specifically do you not understand? 331dot (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 22 August 2025 review of submission by 75.118.15.205

edit

My wikipedia page went up in March 2023. Apparently, it was deleted by H.R. Shami and then saved as a draft on May 7, 2025. I don't know the reason why this was done. The draft was edited by Colin Fine yesterday August 21, 2025. Today I clicked a button to submit the current version of the draft. I would like either the original article or the current version of the draft to be restored as soon as possible. Also, there is some new information from the last two years, which I would like to include as edits. Although I have no experience in editing, I will try make these edits in the near future. 75.118.15.205 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. We don't operate based on outside deadlines, see WP:DEADLINE. As noted on the draft, hundreds of drafts are awaiting review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reviewed it, and declined it. Nearly all citations are to primary sources, and no evidence of WP:PROF criteria as far as I can tell. At least the article or its citations didn't demonstrate notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which is the result I predicted yesterday at the help desk if it was submitted as it stands, @Michaelwdavis: (please remember to log in).
@HRShami: replied there that they would edit the draft and submit it, but you have jumped the gun.
Please note that Wikipedia articles belong to Wikipedia, and the subject has no special rights to dictate what should be in the article. If it turns out that there are not sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then the article will not be accepted. HRShami has not so far cited any suitable sources.
While the article is in draft, you may contribute to it (but should make your conflict of interest clear, so please login in order to do so), but once it is accepted as an article, you and your agent should not edit it directly, but should confine yourself to making edit requests on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 22 August 2025 review of submission by DBeck87

edit

My submission was declined for the reason posted below. I have quite a few citations / sources on the page and would like to try to understand which ones are likely to be considered not reliable enough so I can try and replace them or edit the content of the page to remove them. Thank you in advance for any help and guidance :)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. DBeck87 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polina_Goudieva — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBeck87 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DBeck87: You're writing a biography of a living person. Why is this relevant? Because literally everything a reasonable person could challenge MUST be referenced to a third party source that explicitly corroborates it.
  • born January 6, 1988, Moscow, Russia - Source?
  • Her mother is prominent 1990s Russian pop singer ANKA - Source? https://pop-culturalist.com/exclusive-interview-pop-culturalist-chats-with-polina/ won't cut it here (connexion to subject).
  • Polina was classically trained in piano... - Source? AllMusic's biographical details are iffy at best.
  • [Polina] moved to the United States at age sixteen after receiving a scholarship to Berklee College of Music based on self-produced demos. - Source? AllMusic's biographical details are iffy at best.
  • Her mother’s family name... - Irrelevant. 86 this.
  • Polina began her music career in New York City, writing for other artists. - Source?
  • [Polina] signed a publishing deal with Ultra Music Publishing. - Source? We don't cite Spotify or any other streaming website (Connexion to subject).
  • ["Book of Love"] received a gold certification in Germany. - Source?
  • The track has also accumulated over 86 million streams on Spotify and topped the German radio airplay charts, staying at No. 1 for four weeks. - Source for the latter claim? We don't cite or care about Spotify charts (or any vendor-specific chart in general) and you'd need to cite Nielsen or Radio Monitor for German radio airplay charts (see WP:CHARTS).
  • The track has over 159 million streams on Spotify as of July 2025. - Irrelevant. 86 this.
  • She has worked with electronic music producers... - Irrelevant. 86 this. We do not do notability-by-osmosis.
  • Polina has performed at festivals such as Ultra, Tomorrowland, and Electric Zoo, and has toured as part of Felix Jaehn’s "Bonfire" tour and Steve Aoki’s "Wonderland" tour. We need a source for each and every one of those festivals/tours; AllMusic is not going to cut it here.
  • As CONTESSA, her side project, Polina explores a different musical direction. - Says who?
  • The project has drawn comparisons in press coverage to artists such as Kate Bush, Florence & The Machine, and Annie Lennox. - The source says nothing of the sort, and is unusable to boot (connexion to subject).
  • CONTESSA’s music has been featured in various multimedia campaigns, including advertisements for Bose, episodes of the CW’s Nancy Drew, and the video game Arknights. - The sources say nothing of the sort.
  • The video for the single "Running" received media attention for its visual style. - Not only would I expect to see more than one source here, I would not expect a website named Promonews to be cited full stop.
  • In 2021, she released a cover of t.A.T.u.’s "All The Things She Said" as part of a tribute marking the duo’s 25th anniversary. - We don't cite YouTube videos unless they're from reputable news/review outlets and uploaded to those outlets' verified channels.
  • Her single "FAENA," released through Warner Records... was included as part of the in-room guest experience at Faena Hotel South Beach. - Source? We can't cite FAENA itself (connexion to subject).
  • A Spanish-language version featuring Colombian singer Llane was released shortly after. - Source? Same issue as above since it's the same source.
  • Polina has collaborated with brands... - Irrelevant. 86 this.
Your sourcing is unacceptable for a biography of a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Kdamghani

edit

Hi there, I'm new here and hoping you can help me! My article was declined because it said it looked like it was from a LLM. I have cited everything properly and reviewed the article again and do not see where the issue may lie. Could someone help point me in the right direction? Thank you! Kdamghani (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 22 August 2025 review of submission by 174.225.17.61

edit

This draft meets the acedemic requirement of #2 and #7 and should be immediately approved. 174.225.17.61 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to your draft, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft is very poorly sources and has been correctly rejected after several declines. Articles about living people have strict sourcing requirements; every substantive fact about a living person needs a source, see the Biographies of living persons policy. If you can now improve the sourcing, you may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not convinced that WP:NACADEMIC is met, either. The two awards listed that I see are not national or international awards, but ones given by the university. The substantial impact in #7 is not, well, substantiated.
There also are very serious problems with the article itself. The last section is very clearly AI. The rest of the article, while not as obviously AI to me, has one of the classic hallmarks of AI/LLM/chatbot creation: I believe all the URLs are actually broken, even though you can find the existence of at least most of the sources elsewhere. It would be unlikely that all of these very different sites suddenly orphaned this many articles, many a decade old, over the last month. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 22 August 2025 review of submission by Spencer Matorin

edit

My article keeps being rejected. I fixed the sources, but it's already been third time. Can someone show me how to number and insert citations? Spencer Matorin (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 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.
You've been advised to see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_22&oldid=1308191615"