Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 August 7

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 6 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 8 >
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 7

edit

09:10, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Ch4m1ll1on2025

edit

Hello I was wondering why my page was denied Ch4m1ll1on2025 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ch4m1ll1on2025. Articles on living people require in-line citations to reliable, published sources. Please see the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and our criteria for sportspeople at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). qcne (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Sliyanage1967

edit

I am quite surprised with a number of comments and suggestions on this article on one of the most prominent journanalist and an activist from Sri Lanka. I have made numerous edits to comply and latest comments says sources are not reliable. The sources I have listed are publicly available and credible sources. I am now a bit worried whether there is an objective assessment of this article by wikipedia editors or someone is trying to deliberately block it. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sliyanage1967 Please assume good faith absent direct evidence of malicious motives by specific users. We want to accept articles, not deny them, but certain criteria must be met.
That something is publicly available does not mean that it is a reliable source, please click on and read WP:RS to learn more about what is considered to be a reliable source- but in short, the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.
You have summarized the journalists' work, but not summarized what independent sources say it is about his work that makes him notable. Writing about journalists can be tough, as they don't often write about each other, so finding sources is challenging. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. You are correct, that writing about journalists is not easy. I will give another try for another round of edits to comply. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 7 August 2025 review of submission by KnoxChefEditor

edit

Hi editors,

I would really appreciate any feedback on my draft article for Joseph Lenn, a James Beard Award-winning chef and owner of J.C. Holdway in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The draft is located here: User:KnoxChefEditor/sandbox

This is my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia article. I’m a university professor, and I’m trying to ensure this biography meets Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards. The draft is supported by reliable, independent sources including The New York Times, Forbes, Esquire, Eater, and Garden & Gun.

I would be grateful for any suggestions on whether this draft is ready to move forward through Articles for Creation, or what improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and guidance! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KnoxChefEditor. Your basically asking for a pre-review before going through the review process. We don't really do that since the point of the review is to get feedback. It might be helpful for reviewers if you make a note at the top of the draft which three (and only three) are your best sources, each of which should meet WP:42? qcne (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @qcne, thank you for the quick response and for the helpful clarification. That makes complete sense—I now understand that the Articles for Creation review is the appropriate place for feedback.
Per your suggestion, I’ve added a hidden comment at the top of the draft highlighting the three strongest sources I believe meet WP:42, including The New York Times, Esquire, and Forbes Travel Guide (all independent and substantial coverage).
I’ll go ahead and submit the draft through AfC and appreciate your guidance in helping me prepare it appropriately. KnoxChefEditor (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I've also moved it to Draft:Joseph Lenn for you. qcne (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KnoxChefEditor: Let's test that theory.
Of the sources you suggest, only one of them is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jéské_Couriano! Thank you for taking the time to review and offer such detailed guidance. I really appreciate the feedback.
I understand that recipes alone may not satisfy notability requirements, especially when not paired with substantial editorial commentary. That said, I wanted to ask a clarifying question:
In cases where a chef is consistently published in print editions of major national outlets like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal—even if it's in the form of bylined or editorially assigned recipes—does that help support their notability as a recognized professional in their field, particularly when combined with a James Beard Award?
Also, could I ask your view on whether multiple print articles in the Knoxville News Sentinel (a Gannett/USA Today affiliate) that profile the chef, cover his restaurant opening, and report on national awards (such as Wine Spectator recognition) might carry notability weight as part of the broader picture?
Thanks again for your help and for pushing us toward Wikipedia’s standards. I’m learning a lot through this process! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The opening of his restaurant is meaningless in terms of his personal notability, unless there is something significant about such an event(and that would still probably only mean that the restaurant would merit an article, and not him personally).
A profile would depend on what it says and who wrote it- often they are written by the person themselves or their employer. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as how much is in it. A content-free profile that only lists vital statistics and a CV isn't going to be acceptable no matter its authorship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jéské_Couriano and @331dot ... thank you both sincerely for your time and input! I appreciate your willingness to offer guidance, and I am learning a great deal from this process.
To clarify one point: the chef in question is a recipient of the James Beard Award, which is often described as “the Oscars of cooking” and is widely regarded as the highest culinary honor a chef can receive in the United States. (There is a Wikipedia page on the James Beard Foundation Award that helps explain its prominence.)
Regarding your comments on profiles and authorship, I had a quick follow-up question for my own understanding. When you reference “a profile,” are you referring to the profile of the chef (i.e., whether it was self-authored or written by a neutral journalist), or to the profile of the writer (e.g., someone like Jane Black, who authored the New York Times cover story, or Jeff Gordinier, a noted food journalist)? I hope I am not misunderstanding, but I want to ensure I am interpreting your point correctly.
Also, as the person working on this draft, do I personally need to meet certain publication or academic qualifications—such as being a culinary historian, journalist, or otherwise—to contribute such a biography in alignment with best practices? If so, I am happy to revise my approach accordingly.
I apologize for any naivety, but I am truly trying to read and apply all the applicable guidelines as carefully as possible. If there is another route I should be pursuing (e.g., submitting this type of entry via a different pathway), I would be grateful for your direction.
Thank you again for helping me better understand Wikipedia’s standards! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KnoxChefEditor: When we say "profile" assume we mean a profile for the subject of the article (in this case, the chef; people commonly try to use profiles as sources for any person or film). And no need to apologise for asking questions; that's what this page is here for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jéské, for clarifying that by “profile,” you are referring to a profile of the subject (the chef) rather than of the writer. That makes perfect sense and helps me better understand your earlier point!
I also appreciate the reassurance about asking questions.. that is kind, and it has been very helpful to learn from this process. I will continue to review the relevant guidelines carefully and work to ensure that all sources align with Wikipedia’s standards.
Thanks again for your time and guidance! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request review for draft on Eshan Chattopadhyay

edit

Hi! I’ve submitted a draft article at User:TCSResearcher25/sandbox on theoretical computer scientist Eshan Chattopadhyay, known for his Gödel Prize–winning work on two-source extractors and other contributions in pseudorandomness, complexity theory, and cryptography.

The draft includes reliable sources such as the Annals of Mathematics, STOC, SIAM J. Computing, and coverage in media like Times of India, Hindustan Times, and BBC.

Would appreciate feedback or review. Thanks so much! TCSResearcher25 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TCSResearcher25. You haven't submitted this for review. I have added a button to allow you to do so. qcne (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Mitch-sd

edit

Hello,

I've been working on a draft for "Alcatraz City Cruises," the official and exclusive ferry operator to Alcatraz Island, but it has been repeatedly declined for not meeting notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). I'm trying to understand the best path forward and would appreciate some guidance.

I understand that notability requires significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. My argument for notability was based on:

Its status as the exclusive U.S. National Park Service concessionaire since 2006.

Its role in pioneering hybrid ferry technology in the U.S. with the Hornblower Hybrid.

The fact that it is the sole means of transport for the 1.5 million+ annual visitors to a major world landmark.

However, I suspect the reviewers see "Alcatraz City Cruises" as a brand name for a service, rather than a notable organization in its own right, with most in-depth coverage focusing on its parent, Hornblower Group, or the destination, Alcatraz Island.

My question is: What is the correct approach here?

Is there a path to establishing notability for a standalone article that I am missing?

Or, would it be more appropriate to create a detailed section about the ferry service within the existing Alcatraz Island article?

I want to ensure this important information is on Wikipedia in the correct way. Thank you for any advice you can offer. Mitch-sd (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch-sd: notability does not arise from any of the factors you mention, it arises from being covered at significant breadth and depth in multiple secondary sources. Routine business reporting, which is what your draft cites, does not count. Unless your company is doing some pretty remarkable things which have caught the attention of multiple authors, journalists or other commentators, it's very possible that you are simply not notable enough. That is pretty much the norm, as the vast majority of the world's companies are not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reply here. Understood and thank you for the details 2600:8801:C80D:4000:50B1:8040:9316:F31C (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 7 August 2025 review of submission by 102.97.188.132

edit

i gave my sources tho it still got declined i don't know what i have to do 102.97.188.132 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cited one source, once. That is neither enough to establish notability or to adequately support the contents.
Also, that source is cited with insufficient bibliographic detail, meaning it would be difficult if not impossible to verify. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Duckmooseduck

edit

I am hoping to understand as to why this is rejected. Would you have rejected the Halifax Jazz Festival then? How is that allowed on Wikipedia but Area 506 Festival isn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Jazz_Festival

Or what about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_Beach_Music_Festival

Honestly, I have way more detailed and up-to-date information about Area 506 than what’s written on the Halifax Jazz Festival or the Canvedish page. And I've not even finished the older years yet.

Also, kind of wild that the Area 506 Waterfront Container Village, where the festival is located, has its own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_506_Waterfront_Container_Village But the actual festival, which updates annually with new artists and has significant regional impact, gets rejected?

Not sure I understand the thought process here, especially as I have included sources from Billboard.com, CTV & Global which is a Canadian National News organization. If Wikipedia wouldn't block CBC citations, I'd have more national citations from CBC.

Again please help me understand how other festivals of the same size are allowed pages, but this festival isn't allowed, but it's ___location/grounds is allowed. Duckmooseduck (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duckmooseduck That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it is "allowed" or has been approved by anyone. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, that cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it takes time to address probelmatic content. You can help us by identifying it so action can be taken.
It is entirely possible for a ___location to be notable, but not an event that occurs there, just as it's possible for a book to be notable but not its author personally. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot,
I added more citations and sources that I believe fall in live with what you're looking for. Articles from The Globe and Mail, Business Magazine etc.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain the process and I can see why it's set that way. However, it can be a little frustrating understanding the "other stuff exists" rule. As you mentioned, it's all volunteers who help keep Wikipedia the way it is, and that in itself might allow for users to get "lucky" timing for when their draft is being reviewed.
Again not to beat the drum about other stuff existing but this new hockey team that was formed in a village of 900 people in the same province as Area 506 Festival was approved for a page. They only provided 2 sources and one of them was directly from the website of the league they are playing in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Charlotte_Kingfishers. Duckmooseduck (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmooseduck again, the existence of other articles has not bearing on whether the draft is accepted or not so let that go as it is not a helpful argument. There was a time here where no sources were required or simply existing was enough and there are different guidelines for different topics. Focusing on this draft, I will start on a discussion with you on the draft's talk page but I do have a question which I will post on your talk page first. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome thank you, I appreciate it! Duckmooseduck (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Duckmooseduck. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.
If there are few sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, then the subject is not notable, irrespective of what they may have done or how they are held.
Your use of the word "allowed" suggests that, like many people, you have the idea that a Wikipedia article is somehow for the benefit of the subject. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is absolutely not the case: apart from a few special cases regarding criminal allegations or privacy, benefit (or detriment) to the subject is simply not a matter that arises in any way in considering the suitablility of a draft. (Of course many subjects do draw benefit from a Wikipedia article about them; but others definitely do not, and sometimes try aggressively to get something removed from an article.) ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 7 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:449:4881:83D0:7063:BA44:93E9:7847

edit

This keeps getting rejected by editors who don't engage with the text. I want them to read it, examine the claims, check the sources, and make specific, useful suggestions on how to improve it. I'm getting the runaround. Please don't just say "this looks like an LLM and therefore I'm not going to actually examine what is here." It's my writing, revised, and structured to be readable for non-specialists. If there is anything incorrect, I'll be happy to revise it. If there are better sources, I can add them. The reviewers say that it 'feels' LLM and it 'feels' like a source dump (those sources were put there in response to a previous reviewer who said there weren't *enough* sources). Lots of talk about feelings, but it's not very actionable. Can someone please read this and assume good faith (true) and that a subject matter expert wrote this (also true)? 2601:449:4881:83D0:7063:BA44:93E9:7847 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you are off to a good start with this draft. I agree with the previous reviewer that the text is too focused on specific examples of games where the provided sources do not explicitly describe them as persuasive games, including several examples that do not cite any independent sources at all. It is original research to describe these games as persuasive games when the provided sources do not explicitly make this connection. Ideally, an example should only be included if you can cite secondary, independent sources that have significant coverage about the game, and these sources have placed the game in this subgenre.
You possibly implied in a comment at Draft:Persuasive Games that the article includes some of your own published research. While this is allowed, per Wikipedia:SELFCITE, it is best to be transparent and disclose your conflict of interest (assuming you are citing your own research). You may also want to read Wikipedia:Expert editors and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics; being a subject-matter expert does not confer any extra authority on Wikipedia. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedia has a lot of problematic articles, many of which need to be improved or deleted, but all articles are judged on their own merits. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember to log in when editing Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Helpful Raccoon! These are good, actionable suggestions. I've removed most examples of games and will let other contributors add those they think are relevant and well-covered in secondary sources. I have also removed any primary sources or original research. When I mentioned my research, I meant that I'm one of the people researching this generally. Not promoting/citing my own work here. Gunderson555 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 7 August 2025 review of submission by IslamZahurul

edit

Why my article is decline? If any mistake please tell me the solution.

Thank you. IslamZahurul (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um....the draft just contains your name. If you thought you put more content, you didn't.
Also know writing about yourself is ill advised, please see WP:AUTO 331dot (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_7&oldid=1305605024"