Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 5

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 4 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 6 >
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 5

edit

03:31, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Xixixi321

edit

Hello, could somebody tell me the possible reason why my article submission was declined? The content was collected by myself and not generated by ChatGPT. Xixixi321 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xixixi321, the reviewer JesusisGreat7 might have suspected a chatbot's involvement because the tone of your draft is highly promotional and puffs up Prof. Lu's achievements.[a] This kind of language is common to chatbots, but whether it's written by a human or a bot, it's not a suitable tone for an encyclopaedia.
From a scan of your draft, it looks like Prof. Lu might meet the notability requirements for academics, but in order to be accepted, the draft would need cite independent, secondary sources (not the websites of universities where he has worked or journals he has edited) and be rewritten extensively to remove the promotional language and not just walk through a timeline of his achievements. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ A few examples: With a thirst for further knowledge; he elevated his role to Professorial Fellow and Professor; in recognition of his valued contribution to the advancement of the engineering profession.

03:45, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Jean-Louis Pinault

edit

But the neologism "gyral" appears in the title of the article. I'd like to replace it with "Long-period Rossby waves." How can I do this? Thank you for your help. Jean-Louis Pinault (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Louis Pinault: page name changes are effected by moving the page. There's no point in moving it now, though, because if/when the draft is accepted it will have to be moved anyway. I've noted your preferred title in a comment for the accepting (assuming) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Storybysource

edit

Hi! I’ve created an article draft at User:Storybysource/sandbox and would like it to be moved to mainspace under the title “Elvin Daniel Rodriguez.” Can someone assist with this move? Thanks! 

Storybysource (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Storybysource: Not in its present state. See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Biographies of living persons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 5 August 2025 review of submission by 122.163.126.203

edit

I am Subham Kumar Das, and I’ve created a draft biography about myself. It was previously declined due to missing references. I’ve now improved the content and would like help reviewing the draft again or advice on how to add acceptable references.

I would also appreciate suggestions to improve the chances of acceptance. Thank you! 122.163.126.203 (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. Please do not create further such content. Also see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 5 August 2025 review of submission by DataNest

edit

Hello, I submitted an article for publication on Wikipedia, but it was declined with the reason "insufficient notability." I disagree with this assessment, as I believe the topic is of public interest and has clear encyclopedic value. I would greatly appreciate your assistance and consultation on the following:

Which specific notability criteria, in your opinion, were not met in my article?№ I am willing to make any necessary edits and improvements — please let me know what needs to be revised for the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you in advance DataNest (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DataNest: this draft was rejected for lack of evidence of notability. Whether the subject is "of public interest and has clear encyclopedic value" is not at stake here. We would need to see multiple sources which meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 5 August 2025 review of submission by YenteG

edit

Hi, my page draft was declined and I could use some help to improve it as I'm new to Wikipedia. I would want to create a page called Manuport Logistics, which is a global freight forwarder. I have added a few third-party sources to verify my story about the company (e.g., Project Cargo Journal). Do I have to leave out the company website and/or blog posts from the company? YenteG (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was ur page Tarpat2 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YenteG I fixed your link for proper display, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see your user talk page for instructions.
Your draft just tells about the company and its offerings. That's the wrong approach(also see WP:SOLUTIONS). Instead, you 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) 11:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird

edit

How is Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie allowed on Wikipedia but Wonderoos has more references (by one) and still got declined?!? Tarpat2 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft 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. That another article exists does not mean that it is "allowed" or approved. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that first link is also a draft and was also declined for having unacceptable sources (we don't cite Xitter, IMDb, PMs, or the subject themselves). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how many references at least do I need to add? The Wonderoos draft has 6 references now, Tarpat2 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarpat2: to establish notability per WP:GNG, we typically require 3+ sources meeting the GNG standard. You currently have at best two, and that's me being pretty generous as to the quality of your sources.
As for referencing, you need as many sources and citations as is required to properly support the information. Currently vast swathes of it is unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But at least how many references are required? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a minimum of three strong sources. qcne (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you cite PluggedIn? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that is. I can't see it having been discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s this website:
https://www.pluggedin.com/ Tarpat2 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the YouTube and IMDb references were removed from the Wonderoos draft. Tarpat2 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is rarely a suitable source, and IMDb cannot be used as a source. PluggedIn looks like a review site but doesn't seem very mainstream, I would exercise caution. qcne (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by “mainstream”? I think it’s trustworthy. Its Wonderoos article has only said accurate information about the show. Tarpat2 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources generally have to be from reliable, mainstream publications: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That seems to be a niche Christian-focused website. qcne (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may or may not go to a Christian church myself… Tarpat2 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is relevant? qcne (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
u just called PluggedIn a “Christian-focused website” (oh also I don’t see any related mentions to Christianity on PluggedIn) Tarpat2 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is owned by Focus on Family, a very specific Christian organisation. It may mean the content they produce is not reliable. qcne (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.pluggedin.com/about/ literally states they produce Christian reviews, complete with a Bible quote. qcne (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 5 August 2025 review of submission by LeRoboticien

edit

I am trying to improve the draft or an article on a person but some references are rejected because written by the same person, and therefore considered as not independent. BUT these references are articles from very serious journals like "Nature machine intelligence" and "Science Robotics", both extremely serious journals with very hard peer review. Therefore I consider that such a source and the statements included in it should be reliable, as they have been checked by experts in the field, and this even if the article is written by the person who is taking credits from such statements. My question is simple: is this reasoning not aligned with the principles of wikipedia? This is what I am told, but I am very surprised by this principle applied to such journals. LeRoboticien (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeRoboticien It may be published in a reliable source, but a person speaking about themselves or their work is by definition not an independent source. As noted by the reviewer, it is very rare for an associate professor to meet WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have an issue with all our scientific literature, which has created a system of peer reviewing to ensure that what one is writing is objective. We are not speaking about journalism here, we are speaking about (serious) scientific literature.
The question of an associate professor to meet these criteria is a clear issue, I fully agree, but if we cannot argue based on objective facts and papers, then we get into the religion that "an associate professor cannot be good enough" without basing this on evidence. LeRoboticien (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science". Why is this not applied here? Especially for magazines related to Science and Nature, which are the most serious peer-reviewed journal we have on earth? LeRoboticien (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeRoboticien: we may be talking at cross purposes here. If the draft says that Hughes has authored a paper, you can cite that paper as evidence of that. But if you say that Hughes is one of the foremost experts on X, you can't cite something written by Hughes as evidence of that. Even if that something is peer-reviewed, it's still Hughes saying that about Hughes, and that clearly isn't an independent source.
In any case, I think this self-authored sources issue is a bit of a red herring. The draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You have two ways of demonstrating notability, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC route. The former requires significant coverage of Hughes in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other; however, the sources cited here are primary (including but not only works authored by Hughes). The latter requires substantial career achievements, and I for one didn't see anything in the draft which would meet NACADEMIC in any obvious way, but if you believe otherwise, then tell us which of the eight criteria in it is/are met, and what evidence supports this. The point about assistant profs was that experience tells us they don't normally clear that hurdle, but if you have evidence that says otherwise, please do share. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I disagree that if somebody says in a Nature paper that the approach is innovative, this is not objective: experts have checked that and if this has gone through 3-4 independent experts, this is objective. I agree with you that despite this Professor is incredible and has plenty of achievements at a very young age, it is hard to push her to the notability level you require to be in wikipedia. Thank you for the clear and balanced answer, I think I will abandon the article. LeRoboticien (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LeRoboticien All of your edits seem to be related to the EFPL in Switzerland. Are you associated with it or Professor Hughes? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated at all with Professor Hughes but I am an old alumni from EPFL and learned robotics there. The recent death of Prof Clavel is the reason I have started to contribute in the most objective way about some of the work he did, and some of the colleagues that took the role there. Is this an issue? I hope the quality and transparence of my work and edit is sufficiently objective. LeRoboticien (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may continue your work but I would disclose a conflict of interest with the EFPL. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the guidance. I have posted a similar statement on my talk page to another similar question, is this sufficient? Or should I edit my talk page to put this more visible? LeRoboticien (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might post it on your user page(click your username in red above. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, thank you. Or should I do it? LeRoboticien (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have published the text on my user page, feel free to comment if this is sufficient or not. Thank you again. LeRoboticien (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Yoellem

edit

Dear reviewing team I took the lead in writing this entry and hope I added enough references to support all claims evidence of past employments (dates etc) are hard to find though as employers update their sites. Did my best Thanks 

Yoellem (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoellem: okay, well you seem to have resubmitted the draft, so I guess we'll find out once a reviewer gets around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Marcoderi

edit

When does a topic become relevant if it's a new field? New advances in artificial intelligence are made every day; a topic proposed today may already be obsolete after a few months.

I ask you to reconsider this content. There is no profit motive behind it.

An example is the term AEO, widely used worldwide but not present on Wikipedia.

Thank you Marcoderi (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, it is 99% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Assafalon

edit

I am only trying to create a redirect. I was led to believe that I need to create a new page with the redirect code to the existing page. I tried to communicate this to the reviewers, w/o success. Please delete this draft so that I can create the redirect. Thanks! Assafalon (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete it, though that's not germaine to creating a redirect. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Assafalon: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects was the right place for this, and your requested redirect has been created. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 5 August 2025 review of submission by 207.151.52.57

edit

Need some pointers on how to get this wikipedia page approved 207.151.52.57 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're one of the accounts that has edited the draft, please log in when posting. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Routine business activities like the raising of capital does not establish notability, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards don't contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 5 August 2025 review of submission by AlbertoCuevasHU

edit

Hello, I would like to request assistance with a review of my article. Any feedback is more than welcomed, and much appreciated. AlbertoCuevasHU (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_5&oldid=1305432747"