Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 28

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 27 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 29 >
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 28

edit

07:19, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Peshwa Acharya

edit

Can you give me more brief on what was the reason the page was not submitted? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peshwa Acharya: your draft was deleted as promotional. It was basically a CV/resume, and we don't publish such content. Also, you should not be writing about yourself in the first place, per WP:AUTOBIO. As the rejecting reviewer suggested, you should try LinkedIn instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me some reference on how I should write the content for my wiki page? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 28 July 2025 review of submission by RavenFox94

edit

Could you please help me with my draft? I tried to include all relevant information in neutral tone and added references to external sources for the information. This man is a founder of a beach soccer team that has been number one in world rankings, currently number two and published a few books. I believe this is notable enough to have a wikipedia page or am I wrong? RavenFox94 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Jcopperwaite

edit

I have two main points that I'm trying to clarify when looking to get my page approved:

1) The draft was criticised for lack of reliable source material

2) The being sections that are unsourced

To both points, the article was based on an in-depth biography by the Victoria Bar, and I was struggling to balance out interesting details, along with trying to avoid outright plagerism of their writing.

As their piece often covered specific time periods or experiences in a paragraph, I tried to replicate some of this, assuming that I could then cite a footnote to that paragraph, to cover all of the proceeding.

Is that incorrect, or can someone point me in a better stylistic approach? (E.g. citing each 'event' that may entice curiosity) Jcopperwaite (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jcopperwaite.
If he was a member of the Victorian Bar, then a biography published by the Bar is not an independent source. This means that it may only be used for uncontroversial factual information, and does not contribute towards establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Ditto Arthur's Creek and Abound Community. The ADB piece about Ahkanasy does not mention Hulme, and so does not provide verification for the information where it is cited. The AFR article might meet the criteria (it's paywalled, so I've only looked at the opening) but a single solid source is rarely enough.
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.
You therefore have almost no sources which are capable of establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and so almost no sources on which to base an article. You need to find several sources which all meet the criteria in WP:42, and then write the article based on those sources - this will probably mean starting again.
Oh. and Wikipedia should almost never be cited, as it is not a reliable source, being user-generated. I would say "cite the relevant source on which the Wikipedia article is based, but Queen's College, Melbourne gives no source for the information in question. (In fact, it is almost devoid of useful sources, and I shall tag it accordingly.)
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) 17:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine
Thank you for the feedback, and I appreciate the depth at which you went into, including linking out to other support articles.
Upon reviewing sources and comparing them to the others linked in my draft, I can see a limited number of independent sources (e.g., books, newspaper articles) about the subject.
Being interviewed by the Victorian Bar, I understand that he was a member.
Abound Commnunities named a building after him, which I thought would be "uncontroversial factual information", but I concede he was also on the board.
Arthur's Creek Wine was a statement from a notable Wine Reviewer, but would also be "uncontroversial factual information"
Do you think that a shorter page would be accepted, or would the better option in this case be the inclusion of Hulme in the various lists of achievement, as those awards appear notable (Order of Australia, Rhodes Scholarship, etc)? Jcopperwaite (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Jcopperwaite.
If you have enough quality sources to establish notability (usually reckoned as a minimum of three) then an article summarising what those sources say is probably acceptable however short it is; and once it has passed that hurdle, you can add uncontroversial factual data from non-independent sources - but independent ones are preferred.
In my opinion, saying that he bought the estate and made wine is OK, but saying that the wine was award-winning would require an independent source. Others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lad71

edit

I would like to ask you for specific editing tips for succesfull publishing a draft. Thank you much Lad71 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lad71. You don't have any sources. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability and then read our criteria for businesses at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 28 July 2025 review of submission by TeenX808

edit

Can someone help me to improve this article and can anyone elaborate on the reason why this article got declined when I have followed the WP:AFC guidelines and others. Thanks - TeenX808 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808: I would be incredibly cautious here as this is in a contentious topic (South Asia). What I will tell you is that your book cites all appear to be incomplete:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So when I used auto cite option to paste a url from internet archive I thought it would give the cited page number and others. Thanks for the help@Jéské Couriano TeenX808 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenX808: I would also find somewhere else to edit; an admin has extended-confirmed-protected the draft as Arbitration enforcement (WP:ARBIMH#Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yeah so I will countinue to work on a different article TeenX808 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

edit

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Romanian Commodities Exchange" (Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange) and submitted it for review. However, it has not yet been moved to the main Wikipedia space.

I would appreciate guidance on how to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements. The draft includes a detailed description of the exchange’s structure, market roles, and regional impact, supported by a self-published article hosted on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16533704).

Could you please advise on additional reliable and independent sources that would strengthen the article’s chances for approval? Any recommendations for improving the article’s style or content are also welcome.

Thank you very much for your help! 

Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Andra Tobosaru. This draft was rejected as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is simply no evidence the organisation meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As such, the draft won't be considered further and I suggest you write about something else.
The only way forward is for you to substantially change the draft with concrete evidence of notability, and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. qcne (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the new version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru Why did you create a new version in mainspace which is substantially worse than the draft? I will mark it for deletion. qcne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New version draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Retail_Market Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kovcszaln6 since the new version of the draft is substantially different to the one you rejected, would you un-reject the draft to allow a new review? qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: Considering that (1) the AfD is currently an unopposed delete, (2) the sources in the draft are either passing mentions of the organization or unrelated, and (3) the draft seems AI-generated with few sources and unrelated stuff (etymology of the word retail?), I don't see a chance that it would be accepted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. @Andra Tobosaru I highly suggest you write about something else and abandon this draft for now. qcne (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Gkvirtualmedia

edit

Kindly check my content and recorrect the content to live my page Gkvirtualmedia (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed qcne (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

edit

This is the new version:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: Today you learn what "Publish and be damned" means. The draft was rejected and will not be considered further. The mainspace version is being debated at Articles for Deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Migupe

edit

Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing my draft regarding Nestlé Professional. I read the feedback given by the editors, and I am happy to change the draft accordingly. I'd appreciate if you could share a little bit more on where does the article sound promotional or if there is an issue with the added sources on the second draft so I can change them. Additionally, if there is something that seems to be created by an AI tool I can change it as well. I will definitely change anything that is not compliant with Wikipedia's requirements Migupe (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising WP:TNT is required. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Migupe. Usually "reads like an advertisement" means that it reads as what the subject wants people to know about itself.
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) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Courtney Dunne

edit

I resubmitted my article with the references tag because it said I was using inline citations incorrectly. Are they now correct? Courtney Dunne (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be, but the reviewer will look at it.
You must cite or remove the information about his family. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Courtney Dunne. However in a biography every statement requires an in-line citation, and you have quite a few unsourced statements. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. qcne (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
could you give me an example of one that needs citing? Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Early Life and Education and Personal Life sections? qcne (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the issue of undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this issue? I am not being paid to edit. Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are editing using the name of an employee of Olympus, this would make you a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Courtney Dunne: if you're writing about your employer and/or colleagues you are automatically considered a paid editor, even if you're not explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are also editing the company page here Olympus Partners. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 28 July 2025 review of submission by B.Hawkins.Cornwall

edit

Will my links be sufficient enough to get my page verified please !!

Regards Ben B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @B.Hawkins.Cornwall. I removed the ChatGPT malformed decline notice. You can now submit your draft for review properly. However I note all your citations are formatted incorrectly, please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and do not use ChatGPT to try and format them for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 28 July 2025 review of submission by SpainMMAfan123

edit

Hello, my draft Mansur abdul malik has been declined, it was by the same person 3 times in a row and they also deleted one of my articles and I think that they have a bias against me and I think it meets WP:GNG and I would like a different person to review it SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the declines was because you made no changes to the draft.
That you didn't get the results you want does not mean that the reviewer is "biased against" you. You both have too many references(one line has 15 references) and parts that are unsourced. This isn't due to bias of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what part is unsourced also how does he not meet GNG and all of the references are not to verify but to show that many news sources have discussed him SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Amateur Mixed Martial Arts" section has no sources.
Instead of putting 15 citations for one line you should be summarizing what those 15 sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/236993-mansur-abdul-malik#:~:text=add_circle-,AMATEUR%20BOUTS,-W SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply?SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to what? You just posted a link. I don't need the link, the draft does. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the draft has the link in the sherdog record SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You still need to do as I've suggested, in my opinion at least. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it already has the link and how could I get somebody else to review it? SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reviewer that's the problem, but if you resubmit it, another one should look at it. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 I have resubmitted it on your behalf and marked it under review by me. I will start a discussion on the talk page so look there. I may not be able to get it today though. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Literally half of your sources focus on the Brundage/Abdul-Malik match. This is a massive issue. I strongly suggest finding other sources about him that are somewhat divorced from that particular bout and heavily cutting down the sources around that fight, since right now it looks like the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

edit

i was just knowing why did you do that like its just my draft called missile attacks in syria like can you tell me why? Lavaprod (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod see April 2018 missile strikes against Syria, Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present), March 2025 Western Syria clashes, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so do i have to delete the references? Lavaprod (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod: That wouldn't do anything. The draft is being declined because it's redundant to existing articles, as S0091 says above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok :( Lavaprod (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod drafts are deleted automatically if they have not been edited by a human in 6 months. If you would like it be deleted earlier, you can place {{db-author}} at the top and an admin will delete, usually within hours, but it does no harm to leave it so that's up to you. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was actually inspired Lavaprod (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also it was edited by a human which was me Lavaprod (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
y'know what im adding {{db-author}} now Lavaprod (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean its beacuse i was inspired by these Lavaprod (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 28 July 2025 review of submission by BeakerTheBee

edit

Hello, I received feedback that I need more citations for this drafted page of our new president, but much of the content would be citing the institution, instead of third party sources. Do you have any recommendations about how to go about this? We are trying to get this page launched because the Wikipedia page of our former president continues to be a top search item and we would like to get the current president up there. Thank you for your help. BeakerTheBee (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
If you have no independent sources with significant coverage, this person would not merit an article at this time. One president meriting an article, if they do, doesn't necessarily mean others do. We aren't concerned with search results. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_28&oldid=1303954663"