Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 24

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 23 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 25 >
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.


July 24

edit

01:39, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 9aija

edit

Leave it at the draft don’t move it, I’ll wait for it to be approved. SORRY I’m still new here.9aija (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

edit

I haven't Enough time and experience to Edit this All Text and References in my own width. Please help me to make it all good . Smucle (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alambre Púa (Song)
please help me to edit this Smucle (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

edit

I haven't enough time for edit, Too trouble for me! But with a good editor , it's My pleasure, please give me some help for me, THANK YOU! Smucle (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Szeremeta

edit

I'm honestly not quite sure what else to do. I feel that this company is important and will only become more relevant as time passes, but I repeatedly receive notice that it "[doesn't] meet notability guidelines". What can be done to get this article published, or perhaps edited by someone more knowledgeable than myself? Szeremeta (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A company being “important” is subjective - whether or not a subject is wikinotable depends only on how significantly covered they have been by secondary, reliable sources. As Wikipedia articles are based on such subjects, without them there can be no article.
If Anzu Robotics are indeed growing, this may just be a case of too soon and I advise you to try again when more strong sources become available. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Will only become more relevant as time passes"- this means it is too soon for an article about it- Wikipedia has articles when the topic has already arrived in terms of relevance, not because it may be relevant in the future. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Iamasqurl

edit

I would like to know how to add my mythos to Wikipedia, I have been advised I need reliable references but I am not sure what that entails, I am not trying to promote, monetize, or any of the like. I have been advised I need references such as a BBC article or the like but how anyone would get that is beyond me unless you are internationally known. I will be happy to remove any type of link that points back to anything I have done in regards to this as it may seem self serving or a conflict of interest but this is a legitimate project that has active fans. I have been advised that my article is both a hoax and vandalism which I am unable to fathom. I assumed incorrectly this was a place I could post my growing mythos as other fantasy mythos are listed. If this is not the place please let me know. Thank you for your time. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamasqurl: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free webhost for publishing your fiction writing; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why Tidus from final fantasy is listed, or Pennywise, or Captain White, or d'Artagnan are in fact in Wikipedia? Because they are not fictional characters? I included no stories, songs, comics, etc just the basis of the mythos Iamasqurl (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question was A: what is required to make it eligible for Wiki and B: if this is the place for it. You answered B but not A and your response is incorrect, every fictional character, world, time, place was just made up one day and the article you linked, informative seems some what gate keeping and condescending. I am not famous no, I do not have a huge following for my mythos, but it may be more appropriate and helpful to explain the requirements for getting your article or page approved for Wiki Iamasqurl (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamasqurl: yes, it is 'gatekeeping' – that's one of the reasons why we review drafts before they are allowed to be published.
Alright then, to answer 'A': notability is a key requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia; verifiability is another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting, there is no way to verify something that has never existed and has been created, please show me how you have verified Mickey Mouse. Notability I can understand which was what I was asking. The article needs to be about something that is well know like a viral tik tok and according to you needs to be verifiable as actual fact which invalidates every article Wiki has containing anything fictional Iamasqurl (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on fictional characters, Superman, Mario, James T. Kirk. They are notable because they have been extensively discussed and analyzed by independent reliable sources.
You wrote "Legacy Sir Squirrel Von Dawn has become a symbol of forest vengeance and nature’s resistance against human destruction in the mythos, inspiring ongoing music, art, and collaborative storytelling projects." but offer no sources to support this claim or for most of the content in your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so validity only means exposure? this I understand as I have very little exposure. Thank you. I have been a bit hampered by terminology I suppose as validity does not mean the same thing as article written about a fictional character. So If I understand correctly I need to have "people talking about it" to be able to post an article. Iamasqurl (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I understand that. I have no sources. Like any story it has to start somewhere. I have admitted this was not the correct forum. My issue is the reviewers and the hostile way of responding Iamasqurl (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iamasqurl, Verifiability is a core content policy and applies to every acceptable Wikipedia article, including those about fictional characters. You mention Mickey Mouse as if nothing about him can be verified. And yet the article about the fictional mouse who has been around for 97 years contains references to 187 reliable sources verifying various assertions about Mickey. Read even 10% of the references at the end of Mickey Mouse and you might develop a better understanding of verifiability. Compliance with that core content policy is mandatory. No, people talking about it is inadequate. What is required are recognized published reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the character. We do not talk about validity much. Notability is the standard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and that was more my point, at some point Disney said, lets make a Mouse, just one day made it. 97 years later there are numerous references. I am not disputing the my article should be rejected. According to the guidelines posted on Wiki, which I admit I did not read, it should have been rejected. I am concerned at the responses I have gotten. "You can't just make an article about something you made up one day", Well every fictional character, world, language, was just "made up one day". Or the fact when asking about what was needed to get my article accepted and what sources would be acceptable I was told "BBC" and then my article was flagged as Vandalism and a Hoax. I understand where I went wrong with my submission and agree with the rejection based on the requirements, but driving people away seems slightly counter productive. Iamasqurl (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I will again reiterate my point, I was just tagged by Doublegrazing as using double accounts, this is what I was referring too, the post was made 3 days ago I think but the moment I push back against his views and or comments he submits this. Just like my article that was flagged for vandalism the moment I confronted another reviewer. Reviewers need to be vetted and the choices they make need to be looked at. I have nothing against Double grazer except the way they respond to people but suddenly I am on notice, coincidentally after I disagreed with them, for having multiple accounts, which I do not. So a new user who may not know the requirements, may ask actual valid question, and may not like responses such as "you can't post an article you made up one day" without context are attacked? This is the review process you embrace in a forum that clearly states "to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet" Iamasqurl (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting", really? So, reductio ad absurdum, anyone can say anything they want about a fictional concept, and it all must be accepted because the concept is fictional? Alright, Mickey Mouse is a duck. Captain America is a gay icon created by Tom of Finland. Hamlet was actually murdered by Iago (the parrot, not the Shakespeare character). I have many more like these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note the obvious gaming on Draft talk:Sir Squirrel Von Dawn. qcne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not real sure what you mean. My article is a mythos I have have created and spent quite some time on. Yes it is currently not notable and may never be. And yes this was the wrong forum for it. But the simple fact you claimed my page was Vandalism, which by Wikipedias own terms it is not, and a Hoax, which unless you have an alternate definition of hoax it is not, because I confronted you on your replies to me tells me you did it out of spite. The fact your response to the question "you really took time to do that" was "it didn't take that long" emphatically shows the problem I am discussing Iamasqurl (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly positive Milne did not write a story about Winnie the Pooh and Piglet (SPOILERS) eating Eyore and slaughtering some teenagers. It depends on context. You can say whatever you want about a fictional character, Captain America was a treasonous Hydra member in one story. You can validate ownership, who created the character, what has previously been written about the character but as something of fiction it can be changed at any time. You are not discussing validation, you are talking history, you are talking published works with many years of history. And again my issue is not with the rejection, it's with the response that I have received from certain people that do the reviews . Possibly the terminology possibly not. My issue is that for someone who may be new to Wikipedia, with what they consider a valid article, the interaction with someone they may consider the face of Wikipedia and possibly the first interaction with Wikipedia may be discouraging. Instead of mentorship and guidance to assist in creating a valid article I have seen, well what we are seeing here from certain people. As a forum to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet, you would think contributions would be welcome. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are welcome. But that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. You certainly wouldn't be aware of the various policies that we have, and that's fine, but once you are told, you should try to listen to what you are being told. No one has been rude to you- which is hard to judge via text communication which is difficult to convey emotion with. I don't see where anyone said your writing was "vandalism"(maybe I missed it). It was tagged as a hoax, but that has been removed. That can happen for many reasons- mostly related to the fact that different people can see things differently and disagree in good faith. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SHLAKW

edit

Subject: Relevance of the Drakhan Conlang for Wikipedia

I respectfully disagree with the assessment that Drakhan “is not relevant” for inclusion. In fact, Drakhan meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for constructed languages for the following reasons:

Independent Coverage

Drakhan has been discussed in at least two independent, secondary sources (e.g. the Conlang Journal issue on objectivist languages, and the online linguistics magazine NeoLinguist).

It has appeared in at least one peer‑reviewed conference proceeding (the 2024 International Conference on Constructed Languages), which demonstrates scholarly interest.

Unique Linguistic Features

Its complete elimination of subjective markers and introspective vocabulary is a novel typological innovation.

The strictly male‑perspective lexicon and “two‑root, seven‑letter” compounding rule set Drakhan apart from all other documented conlangs.

Cultural and Technical Impact

A small but active Drakhan community uses the language for technical documentation and online role‑play, generating measurable traffic on GitHub and Discord.

The Drakjal symbol system has been implemented in an open‑source font (Drakjal.ttf), now downloaded over 1,000 times.

Verifiability and Sources

All claims can be backed by reliable sources. I can supply direct citations to the Conlang Journal (Vol. 8, 2023) and the 2024 ICCL proceedings (pp. 45–52).

Because Drakhan satisfies both WP:NATLANG (as a naturally inspired constructed language) and WP:CONLANG (as a language with clear independent coverage and usage), I believe it merits its own article. I will gladly expand the entry to include properly formatted citations and secondary‑source quotations.

Please let me know if you need further source details or draft improvements. SHLAKW (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SHLAKW: you say sources exist, so why aren't they cited in the draft? It's not our job as reviewers to go searching for them, nor is it enough for you to assert that they exist, you need to produce them as evidence.
And even if the subject proves to be notable, this draft would require a major rewrite, because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Priya Sharma0

edit

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Draft:Md_Sakib_Raza" about a youth political leader from Bihar, currently serving as the President of the Student RJD unit at RKK College, Purnia.

I have added multiple reliable sources from major Indian news outlets (e.g., Dainik Bhaskar, Hindustan) that cover his appointment, expansion of student leadership, and his work for student welfare. These are **independent, third-party, and non-promotional** references.

Please let me know if the article now meets the general notability guidelines, and what more is required if not.

Thank you. Priya Sharma0 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Priya Sharma0 Actually, there was something wrong with the way you submitted it- you can try again by clicking the blue "resubmit" button at the bottom of the last review- but you haven't really fundamentally changed the draft to address prior concerns. You only have a few sources that just detail this young man's appointment to his position, no sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just documenting his activities and goes into detail about how he is notable as a person(he does not meet the narrower notable politician definition as he does not hold public office) 331dot (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Krisshkarthick DN

edit

Need to know why article got declined. What will be the solution Krisshkarthick DN (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krisshkarthick DN You had the words "article got declined" where a link to your draft should have gone(thus you linked to a nonexistent page with the title "article got declined". I fixed this for you.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, see the autobiography policy. You have no citations in the draft, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are a notable creative professional or notable actor. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Msmraqeeb

edit

Please make me clear which section I've fault and also tell me what are needed to add in my article. Thanks Msmraqeeb (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Msmraqeeb. No indication this person meets our criteria. I have rejected it on that basis. qcne (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

edit

all this is true why you don’t post it i am famous person Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sofia kavtaradze13. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about ths subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
If you are trying to write about yourself (which is strongly discouraged, as it is almost never successful - see autobiography) then you need to find several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. Then you need to effectively forget everything that you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
Do you see why it is difficult to succeed? ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

edit

why Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sofia kavtaradze13 No indication you meet our criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Notability (people). qcne (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Littleclown27

edit

I’ve made edits and added reliable sources and inline citations to address previous concerns. However, when I click “Resubmit,” the system immediately declines them without a new review. I believe it may be related to the AFC code or timestamp issue. Littleclown27 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have resubmitted. @Littleclown27.
I have restored the Decline notice that you removed after the last review. Please do not remove such notices. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Apologies. Littleclown27 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 75.158.193.110

edit

I'm struggling with the current feedback. I believe the language being used is very neutral and hasn't been written by AI. Please let me know if there is a certain section that is not neutral in your perspective, or should be reworked. As well, all of the sources are third-party (Government, third-party watchdogs like Charity Intelligence, or news agencies). I removed one source (Hospital News), since I thought the language in those articles might be seen as too promotional. Thanks. 75.158.193.110 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
If you are associated with this charity, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization, its offerings, and what it sees as its own history. A Wikipedia article about an organization 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) 14:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a draft is declined as "promotional" or "like an advert", it is usually because it reads as what the subject wants the world to know about themselves. But 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) 22:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 217.163.101.38

edit

While short, the entry appears we refenced to me including a number of respect sites in the music world. What more would I need to do to get this article approved? 217.163.101.38 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Discogs or Last.fm. We can't use interviews to establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Lucas Henrique Noll

edit

translate the page from Portuguese to English, as it is important content that has not yet been translated Lucas Henrique Noll (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Henrique Noll You need to translate the text, as draft author. qcne (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sashwattanay

edit

Dear Sir/Madam,

I need help with publishing the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C3%89ric_Gourgoulhon

It was recently declined by RangersRus‬ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RangersRus), stating that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

However I would like to disagree. I mention this two published academic books (by Springer) with citation of the publisher's webpage. These two widely read books alone would make Eric (subject of the Wikipedia article) a notable figure. Plus, toward the end of the article, I also cite links to his appearances in popular media (his podcast series on RadioFrance and his interview by the notable journalist Alain Cirou).

I request a reconsideration of my article. Thank you.

Regards, Sashwat Tanay Sashwattanay (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion in #wikipedia-en-help. Potentially this person might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion #2 as a holder of the CNRS Silver Medal. @Sashwattanay will see if they can gather any evidence of book reviews etc to satisfy criterion #1. I don't think he meets #7.
Some general advice for @Sashwattanay: your draft still has lots and lots of primary sources, and it would be better if you could show notability through three really strong secondary sources that are specifically not interviews.
Pinging @RangersRus, @Caleb Stanford, @Ldm1954. qcne (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am dubious about WP:NPROF#C2. The silver medal is a mid-career award from his employer, and as such I would not consider it as prestigious as one from a major national or international society. The books alone also do not necessarily lead to a pass, many academics publish books. The books would need to have major reviews and lead to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Giving lectures is also not something major, WP:MILL for academics, and many have blogs.
Looking back at when I reviewed the page on July 14, while some sources have been added there were 7 duplicates, and one of the major ones is his own web page (self-published). The page is still of very low quality, with far, far too many sources of his and/or his employer, and not enough independent. He might pass WP:NPROF#C1 based upon a quick hand count in Google Scholar; I estimate his h-factor to be 40-50 which is decent although care is needed about team papers. It would be good if he had a Scopus h-factor included in the page.
Back on July 14 I did suggest reading WP:NPROF carefully. From what I see the editor has not done this. The page still fails to be specific about where and how he is notable (without bragging). As one example, the SageManifolds is mentioned, with a source to his employers web page, that does not prove any notability. A highly cited (> 100) review would provide weight. If I was to re-review this now (or review it at WP:NPP) it would not pass for general quality control. The editor really has to read WP:NPROF and also WP:GNG. I cleaned up the duplicates, but I am not going to write this.
N.B., WP:NPROF does not have the same WP:SIGCOV requirements etc as WP:GNG of course. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SamEzek

edit

Hi all, I work alongside Professor Adrian Wilson who has numerous patents to his name and is the most famous knee surgeon in the world (just Google "number one knee surgeon") yet I can't seem to create the right layout for a Wikipedia page.

Could anyone advise me or provide tangible help.

Thanks SamEzek (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SamEzek: DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you have created is mostly just a list of his achievements and reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedia article. Most of it is also unsourced, which is super problematic in a blp. It looks like you have written the article backwards.
It is very hard to write a Wikipedia article without first spending a while editing and learning how Wikipedia works, and it is especially hard when you have a conflict of interest. My suggestion at this point would be, once you have disclosed your COI on your userpage, to delete most of what you have written and rewrite the article forwards. -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Zom00000

edit

The alst reviewer mentioned that I have "attitude of IDHT and I am doing advertising in my article". First I have changed the WHOLE article tone to NEUTRAL (confirmed by ChatGPT) and I only listed stuff that they told me to include...

I have added Beign Elected and becing Chair at many jobs and I have added many awards includeing 5 back to back ASRM star awards.

I am trying to address the reviewer's concerns but not sure what to do at this point.

I have article on NY times with my main photo in it. I have TV interviews (non paid for) ,.. if i list them, they say it is adversiting, If I don't the reviewers say "I dont have enough" ...

I am not using Wikipedia for advertising... I already advertise on social media and MANY other platforms.

Thank you for your help Zom00000 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zom00000. Please don't use ChatGPT to review what you've written- ChatGPT simply is not very good. How does this person meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? qcne (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I only used it to confirm the "NEUTRALITY" of the tone of the article.
I appreciate your help and I will look (again) on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Zom00000 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zom00000. Given that new users usually have difficulty understanding just what Wikipedia means by "neutral", it is very unlikely that ChatGPT will be able to check this reliably, since it works only with surface patterns, and has no "understanding".
"Neutral" is about the sources as well as the content. If a draft fairly summarises what a source says, but the source is based on the words of the subject or their associates (an interview or a press release), then the draft will not be "neutral". 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) 15:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP! Zom00000 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sbandyopa

edit

There are some flags on this page asking for more complete citations for verification. I checked all the sources and they are complete. All the references are clickable and go to the right pages. Please advise what to do to remove this flag. I cannot fix something if I do not know what to fix and how to fix it.

Also for the sake of full disclosure, I edited this page and I am the subject, but I am not the original creator/editor of this article. The original creator was a stranger who I did not know. My edits corrected some inaccuracies and provided missing references. Sbandyopa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbandyopa This help desk is for drafts but this is an article. Even so, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 24 July 2025 review of submission by MTBEditor2007

edit

Hi, I’m reaching out because I’m a bit confused about what I’m supposed to do with sourcing. From the beginning, I’ve made sure to include citations from reliable, independent sources. While not every source goes into extreme depth, mainly because this is a relatively niche topic, they do directly support the statements made in the article. These sources come from some of the most reputable voices in the cycling industry and are neutral in tone; they are not promotional toward Pivot Cycles.

However, after having my draft repeatedly declined with the same generic feedback, I decided to strip it down to just the introduction paragraph in hopes of avoiding further issues. At this point, I’m unsure how to improve the sourcing, given that I’m already using some of the most credible information available within this niche industry. I’d really appreciate clarification on what exactly is lacking or what types of sources would be considered acceptable in this context.

Also, I’ve noticed many existing Wikipedia pages with little to no sourcing at all, so I’m struggling to understand why the standards seem so much stricter for this article.

Thanks for your time and help. MTBEditor2007 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MTBEditor2007 as far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are tons of poor articles that do not meet today's standards because standards have changes over time and things get by when they should not. If you are looking for an article to get a baseline, Good articles are better to place to look. At far as Draft:Pivot Cycles, the Forbes articles are not reliable sources because they were written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON) so not useful and should be removed. Interviews, press releases, what those involved state, etc. are primary sources and not independent so not helpful for notability and should only be used very sparingly. I suggest reading WP:NCORP from top to bottom. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Henrique960

edit

Why was my page rejected? Henrique960 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" portion)
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.
The reason was left by the reviewer- you have not shown that this musician is a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You had two drafts on the same topic, I assume you mean this one. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Dabs 313

edit

how can i improve the article so it is published Dabs 313 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dabs 313 see Your first article and WP:PROMO. What you wrote serves no other purpose than to promote Attila Paladi which is not allowed as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not LinkedIn or the like. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what edits can i make so it doesn't look like promo, since he is somewhat of a public figure, that's why we decided to create the article Dabs 313 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dabs 313 Who is "we"? S0091 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an attempt at a paid disclosure on their user page, we is probably them and Mr. Paladi. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BOSS and WP:PROUD, and have Mr. Paladi read them, too. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i did do the paid disclosure did i do it incorrect Dabs 313 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so the article was rejected, ive disclosed that ive been paid what else do i need to do to get the article published,
he has to be notable Dabs 313 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does not seem to be notable, as you have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. Did you read WP:BOSS? As it says, "your company or boss is likely not notable". If you just want to tell the world about Mr. Paladi, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Aaron Craven

edit

This draft has a COI and while it very likely qualifies as a notable person, another editor has to edit and submit it. Is there an editor who can do this? Aaron Craven (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Craven The draft process is the correct way for someone to submit a draft about a subject where one has a COI- including someone editing about themselves(as inadvisable as that is). 331dot (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_24&oldid=1303277889"