Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 3

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 2 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 4 >
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 3

edit

06:27, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Murtazanizam

edit

Hi, I created this draft for Humraaz (2025 TV series), a Pakistani drama featuring Feroze Khan and Ayeza Khan. It was rejected earlier, and I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions to improve it, especially about sources and notability. Thank you! Murtazanizam (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that resubmission is not possible. If something has changed about the draft, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly.
If you are associated with this program, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 94.231.243.33

edit

Dear editor, I have been struggling with this draft page for some while now, I feel that the sources do qualify and that I have quite a lot of them, and a few really good ones (i.e. the one from the European Parliament). What is still missing before it gets accepted? And are there any sources now that are really problematic? Thank you very much! ~ Leon 94.231.243.33 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You are telling us what the organization wants us to know about itself and its activities- this is the wrong approach. Instead, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review for Draft:One Global Capital

edit

Hi, I would like to request a review for Draft:One Global Capital. I have disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft's talk page and rewritten the article to be neutral and factual. Feedback from independent editors is welcome to help ensure it meets Wikipedia's notability and neutrality standards. Thank you! SydneyEditor01 (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SydneyEditor01: you need to submit it for review. I've added a template which has a blue button on it, just click on that when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thank you. Can you review it please? Thank you very much, appreciate it SydneyEditor01 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Quest and questions

edit

hello dear people, I want to submit a page in sandbox but I get some errors which I don't understand Quest and questions (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quest and questions You declined your draft yourself by asking a chatbot to help you submit it, and pasting in whatever nonsense the bot hallucinated for you. @Theroadislong has moved the draft to Draft:Kris Belaen and I have fixed the template. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quest and questions: did you by any chance use AI to create your draft? You shouldn't. It doesn't know what it's doing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Self-trout Apologies for introducing a different error when I tried to clean up @Quest and questions's error earlier. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Quest and questions (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Kellyfromgoi

edit

I am seeking guidance to improve my draft article so that it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements. I would appreciate help with finding reliable, independent sources and advice on how to better structure the content for acceptance. Kellyfromgoi (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellyfromgoi: This reads like an advertizing lullaby, and four of your five sources are 404-compliant. Unsurprisingly, GPTZero is highly confident the draft is the product of a chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellyfromgoi: And as for the one source that doesn't 404 out, it's a non-sequitur, having jack to do with advertizing (it's about an employee recognition programme). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Jnknpl

edit

recent updates established subject notability. need revise review to inclusion Jnknpl (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging rejecting reviewer @Bonadea. qcne (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:A447:4E23:0:44FC:6CC4:C90:D1B9

edit

I see that my article got rejected because of the references that i used. For the references i mainly used cointelegraph articles about brickken that contained anouncements about the project, these were rather detailed articles that, beside the anouncement, also contained information about brickken in general and the real world asset market. Besides that, i don't see why cointelegraph cannot be considered a reliable source, since it is a very well known media outlet in the crypto space, second of all not a single article where i referenced too has any sponsored content. I also referenced to brickken's own website, but this was only for information i couldn't find anywhere else, such as the date of the whitepaper release. I also believe that Brickken is notable enough for a wikipedia page. For example, the company has around 10.000 followers on linkedin. Another company with the same amount of followers (Nuro,Inc.) does also have a detailed wikipedia page. 2A02:A447:4E23:0:44FC:6CC4:C90:D1B9 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about LinkedIn (or social media in general) followers. We only care that the sources are acceptable. I will also point to WP:GS/CRYPTO, encourage you to read it, and strongly advise you to find a much less contentious area to work in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether Cointelegraph is regarded as a reliable source (and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 242#Cointelegraph source, for example, seemed to come down on the side of "no"), those citations I have looked at are not independent of Brickken.
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) 18:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 3 August 2025 review of submission by AddInfinty

edit

This list keeps getting rejected for not having secondary sources for a Wikipedia article that is a list article and given the fact that most other list articles do not have a ton of secondary sources that seems out of character. The other things that it is dinged for about not being in the depth don't make sense for a list article. AddInfinty (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A list article about a topic requires that their first be an article about the overall topic. There is an article about the championship for Division III wrestling, but there doesn't seem to be an article NCAA Division III wrestling. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:380:8400:2E50:88E:965C:7EC2:4637

edit

As the leading expert with a PhD in special education and disability studies, I am the most published researcher on this topic. It might appear that this is self-promotion but it's not. I am genuinely interested in finding a way to make this more findable on Wikipedia...in much the same way that you allowed MagicAid to do the same. I wrote this entry...and am pretty insulted that you would suggest it's an AI entry. So what do I need to do to get Magic Therapy equal treatment as MagicAid? 2601:380:8400:2E50:88E:965C:7EC2:4637 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do; Wikipedia does not host original research.
Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. Wikipedia does not provide equal time where independent reliable sources do not, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: Find reliable published sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_3&oldid=1305094708"