Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 29

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 28 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 30 >
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 29

edit

01:16, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

edit

i edited this article as a human cant you know that i added {{db-author}} beacuse you hurt my feelings i was inspired to the other articles Lavaprod (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod: None of us have mentioned anything about whether or not the article was written by a human; the issue is (and always has been) the draft is redundant with multiple articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Nelson0628

edit

Hello, respected editors,

I am writing to request a review of a draft Wikipedia article about myself, Nelson Agricola Bautista, a Filipino nurse and clinical educator. I am fully disclosing that I am the subject of the article and the person who has written the draft. I understand this represents a conflict of interest (COI), and I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies by seeking input from neutral editors before proceeding.

The draft is currently in my sandbox: 🔗 User:Nelson0628/sandbox

The article includes: - A summary of my nursing career and advocacy work - A verifiable awards table with references from credible news sources and official award sites - A neutral tone, with no promotional language

I would sincerely appreciate it if a neutral editor could: - Review the draft for notability, tone, and compliance with Wikipedia standards - Provide feedback on citation formatting or other improvements - Advise on whether it is appropriate for article space

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Nelson Bautista Nelson0628 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information needed to submit it for a review. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill-advised and not likely to be successful, see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you in independent reliable sources, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069

edit

My Wikipedia page submission keeps being declined due to a reported lack of significant coverage of the film. I’m hoping to get more clarity on how I can improve the page and strengthen the references.

In my most recent submission, I included 10 references to reliable, secondary sources. I’ve seen other film articles with fewer citations that have been approved, so I’m unsure what might be missing in my case.

Any further context would be really appreciated. One potential issue I’ve considered is that the film was originally titled Overture during production, and was later changed to The Travellers for release. I wonder if this name change is affecting how the sources are being evaluated or picked up.

Thanks in advance for your guidance. 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, usually films meet the criteria with reviews by reputable nationally known critics/publications and given this film will not release until October no such reviews exist and the production itself does not meet WP:NFF. S0091 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

edit

My contribution has been deleted this information was not already listed on Wikipedia and was unreliable sources Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

edit

It has been declined Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Krypto the Runt is a quite blatant hoax. I can't find anything on the show in an online search other than copy-pasted articles across Fandom wikis (string: "krypto the runt"); contrast The Brothers Flub (an obscure late-90's cartoon that ran on Nickelodeon for about half-a-season before being mothballed). I'd expect something other than Fandom for a cartoon that ran on Nick or its sister station MTV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

edit

New version draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Central_Counterparty_%28CCP%29 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: that's not a question; did you have something in mind you wanted to ask?
While waiting, let me ask you a question: why have you copypasted the rejected draft into the main article space? This was rejected because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. By creating another copy in the main space, all you've done is generate extra work for AfD, which is perpetually congested anyway.
And for future reference, if you do decide to bypass the AfC process and unilaterally move content into the main encyclopaedia, please do exactly that, move it, don't copypaste it, because the latter loses the draft's edit history.
One other thing: having done all that, why are you still developing the rejected draft further, given that you already have a published version in the main space? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query on your talk page. And please be aware that you are not allowed to publish directly articles in the subject of which you have a conflict of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I add this to my wikipedia page: "Andra Tobosaru, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Bursa Română de Mărfuri on behalf of BRM for their contributions to Wikipedia."
I would like to continue improving the draft based on reliable, independent sources, and I will propose any substantial changes via the Talk page if needed, after adding this. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru: this has created a bit of a mess. There is arguably not much point in developing the draft any further, because of the mainspace article having been already taken to an AfD deletion discussion. If that discussion results in a 'delete' verdict, then that will make it unlikely for the draft to be accepted. And if it results in 'keep' (unlikely as that may be), then again the draft cannot be accepted, since there is already a published article on the same subject.
It would make more sense to develop the published article further, which might also help avoid it being deleted, only you're now unable to do that since it has been published in the main encyclopaedia, given your paid-editing conflict of interest. (That's yet another reason why it would have much better to keep it in the draft space only.)
But thanks for disclosing your paid editing, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I Bastard-Helper-From-Hell'd the sources in the draft and put my conclusions on the AfD debate. Whether the sourcing exists is an open question, but what we've been shown ain't it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and what's also not helping proceedings is that there is the draft and the published article, and there are (at least) two threads on this help desk, so we seem to be all talking past each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 202.134.11.225

edit

Subject: Help with Draft:M. Enamul Hossain – Feedback and Suggestions

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled Draft:M. Enamul Hossain and would appreciate feedback from experienced editors to improve it for submission into mainspace.

Professor M. Enamul Hossain is a Canadian academic, researcher, and entrepreneur with over 200 published papers and 10 books (some published by Wiley). He is the founder, CEO, and President of NSRIC Inc., a global educational and research organization headquartered in Canada. He has received several international awards and is known for his contributions to petroleum engineering and sustainable energy research.

Could someone kindly:

Review the current draft and provide suggestions for improvement?

Advise whether it meets the notability criteria for academics?

Recommend specific sources or structural improvements if necessary?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. 202.134.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "current draft" was rejected on 30 May and has not been edited since then. Unless there have been new developments in the last two months to justify Prof. Hossain's inclusion here, the draft will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

edit

i want to know why my article isnt being published LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not currently been submitted, however the content is blatant advertising so would be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Hala Aldarwish

edit

This draft is intended as a neutral, encyclopedic overview of fleet management systems as a technology category, not a promotion of any specific company, product, or service. It includes references from academic and governmental sources, and does not contain brand names or sales language. I am happy to revise the draft further to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards and to remove any sentences that may appear promotional. Hala Aldarwish (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as promotional. Only administrators can view the deleted content. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've recreated the draft, which is a bit sneaky. If it's the same as the deleted version, it will most likely be deleted for the same reason. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LiberumVerba

edit

Hello everyone, my article draft was declined due to the references. I used the same criteria adopted for the publication of the article on the Italian wiki. In any case, I would like to know if the references must necessarily be in English or if references in other languages (not only Italian) are also acceptable. Thanks for your help. LiberumVerba (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiberumVerba You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking. I fixed this.
References do not need to be in English. You do, however, need to make sure that your company meets our notability criteria for companies, which may be different from the Italian Wikipedia's requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any notability the draft is just blatant promotion, the company telling us everything they want us to know about them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:32, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Luv2learn87

edit

Hello my article submission was denied because of sources. However the source of the main 2 articles are from an actual publication, The North Dallas Gazette. Please help me understand why this newspaper is not valid. Thanks Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luv2learn87 You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I have fixed this for you.
The draft does little more than state that the documentary exists. Nothing is said about why it is a notable film. Independent, professional reviews usually do that. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luv2learn87: both the citations are to the same source (which is a hyper-local one), and both cover the film only in passing. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected in multiple film festivals globally isn't significant coverage? Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might, if those festivals themselves have articles about them(I haven't checked). Ideally even if that's the case, there should be more information than "it was in the festival". 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ptothehyphen

edit

Hi team! I’ve already responded to my talk page but wanted to ask her also. My article was declined since I used ChatGPT to compose and edit it. I’ve read through the LLM but I’m still unsure what to edit/omit. Should I do a brand new write up? The truth is, ChatGPT was incredibly helpful for formatting and spellcheck. I can only imagine the number of articles created by AI nowadays, so I understand the challenges in verification. Any advice is appreciated, thanks. Ptothehyphen (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptothehyphen I fixed your link for proper display, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You should rewrite the draft in your own words, yes. You may do this on the existing draft, you don't need to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the help! Ptothehyphen (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ptothehyphen. I responded on your User Talk Page too. qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made this very difficult for yourself as you've been snagged in a common pitfall when writing an article, writing it WP:BACKWARDS. As you say in your talk page, you started off by feeding all the information known to you into ChatGPT, and are now trying to find sources to support that material. The natural result has been a very poorly sourced article. This is why it's very hard to write articles on subjects one has a conflict with, because there's a natural tendency to write what you know about the subject., not what reliable sources say about the subject.
The best way to approach this article would be to start over, using only reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this band. And then write an article based only on that information, not anything you personally know. If there's enough there to support this band being a notable subject, it will become clear quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. I've never really considered the importance of outside sources. But the way you explained it makes perfect sense. I appreciate all the help...gonna do some more research before I resubmit. Ptothehyphen (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Fedor music

edit

Hello! Can you review my page point out potential flaws so that it can be officially published? Thank you in advance! Fedor Vrtacnik Fedor music (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fedor music we do not do pre-reviews so if you want it reviewed you need to resubmit it (click the blue "Resubmit" button). S0091 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fedor music ...although one thing I can tell you already now, you need to place the citations next to (immediately after) the information which they support, not all piled together at the end. That way the reviewer can see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

edit

Specificly which sources does not qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Elvar Granheim (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was moved into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Jmaxon3883

edit

I am trying to understand why my page was rejected. I've read many artists' pages, and my writing was mostly facts. The feedback was that my writing was more like an essay, which doesn't make sense to me, given it was one paragraph and the majority of it was stated facts about the artist's career. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 draft is absolutely overloaded with references.
It reads like an essay because it is telling, and not summarizing- summarizing what the sources say about him and how he is a notable creative professional. It just documents his work. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I appreciate it. How is what I wrote any different than say the opening paragraph on this page: Peter van Agtmael. I planed to add more information to the page once I get the opening paragraph approved. How would you suggest I change it? Should I only have one source per reference? How is what I wrote opinions or original research? The sources are all reputable. How is what I wrote not from a neutral point of view?
This is the feedback the editor wrote: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmaxon3883: If a draft is reviewed, it is reviewed in the state it is in at the time of the review. Doing drafts piecemeal by submitting every single part individually doesn't work. Beyond that, mu. (Post-1992 politics of the United States) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

edit

Hi, what else can I do to improve the draft to ensure it is accepted this time? Do I need to make it shorter by removing any sentences? I really want to ensure my first article is on Wikipedia as I've worked really hard on it after receiving a lot of valuable feedback! Any pointers would be greatly appreciated 😊 Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have (with the consent of the rejecting reviewer) resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223!   Declined with rationale. I think this has reached the end of the road. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback. I’d like to offer a more complete clarification that may help strengthen the notability of the subject and demonstrate my commitment to improving the draft.
Mr. Bhattacharjee is the first Approved Driving Instructor from London, and possibly the first in the UK to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. This recognition is especially significant given the scale of the profession — with over 39,195 registered ADIs nationwide — and the countless road safety educators and organisations operating across Britain. The honour was awarded specifically for his contributions to road safety, community welfare, and public engagement.
His story has received significant coverage in national and international newspapers, and he was invited by the Cabinet Office to attend His Majesty The King’s Honours Press Conference at the Tower of London, where he shared his journey and ongoing commitment to community empowerment through road safety education. This level of recognition and visibility underscores the public interest and noteworthiness of his achievements.
To better understand Wikipedia’s notability criteria, I’ve reviewed several existing entries for individuals from Assam, where Mr. Bhattacharjee originally belongs. These include (and I haven't included them all):
- Pritam Das – Cricketer whose article is based primarily on match statistics and brief mentions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritam_Das (note the references given, none of which are reliable, including a Facebook post)
- Radheshyam Biswas – Politician with limited national coverage, included based on electoral participation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radheshyam_Biswas#:~:text=Radheshyam%20Biswas%20is%20a%20Bengali,election%20to%20a%20BJP%20candidate.)
- Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha – Regional politician retained due to public office, despite sparse sourcing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamalakhya_Dey_Purkayastha)
- Jugal Kalita – Computer scientist and professor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugal_Kalita, the sources are just Google links?)
While I understand that each article is judged on its own merits, these examples suggest that regional impact, public service, and verifiable recognition are considered valid grounds for inclusion, even when sourcing is limited or focused on niche contributions. I’ve also noted that some accepted articles rely on Facebook, LinkedIn, or unnamed sources, which are generally discouraged under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines. In contrast, Mr. Bhattacharjee’s recognition is not only unique within his profession, but also documented across multiple independent, reliable sources, and acknowledged by the UK government at the highest level.
I remain committed to revising the draft, particularly the political section, to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. My goal is not to compare this submission with others, but to ensure it stands on its own merit, supported by independent coverage and a clear demonstration of public impact.
I welcome further guidance and will continue improving the draft in good faith. Flyhigh223! (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Biswas are members of a legislature, so they meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Mr. Das seems to be notable as a cricketer. If you feel the sourcing on those articles is inadequate, please address that with those articles, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. I agree that this draft has reached the end of the line, at least for now.
Mr. Bhattacharjee does not meet NPOLITICIAN as he has not won election to, or served in, an elected office. Being given an honor does not get him past WP:BLP1E. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback on the draft article. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the subject’s notability and respond constructively to the concerns raised.
The individual in question is the first Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) from London — and possibly the first in the UK — to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. With nearly 40,000 registered ADIs and thousands of road safety educators and campaigners across the UK, this recognition is very hard to get.
I would also like to respectfully ask: does Wikipedia consider Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) a professional role? According to the Wikipedia article on ADIs, they are certified professionals regulated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), and UK law requires instructors to be qualified before they can charge for their services. This suggests that ADIs are part of a regulated profession with legal and public responsibilities, especially in the context of road safety — a matter of national concern. I am asking this because if one can be a notable cricketer - like you mentioned Pritam Das seems to be notable by Wikipedia standards (despite only being a local cricket player) - then why can one not be a notable driving instructor trainer/ADI?
While he has not held elected national office, his repeated candidacies and locally elected party leadership position (Constituency Chairman) support a reasonable interpretation of political activism, which may meet notability criteria under WP:NPOLITICIAN when considered alongside his other public contributions.
To ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s standards, I am happy to revise the draft to describe the subject as a community leader, rather than a local political leader, if that is more appropriate and acceptable to the reviewing editors.
I would also like to mention the example of Leanne Mohamad, who I know,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanne_Mohamad), who stood as an independent candidate in the 2024 general election in Ilford North — the same constituency where Mr Bhattacharjee served as Chairman of the local Labour Party. Although she was not elected, her article is accepted. This comparison is not meant to diminish her achievements, but to highlight how notability is sometimes interpreted more broadly in similar cases. Mr Bhattacharjee is also an activist and campaigner who stood in elections.
I understand that this draft may not meet current thresholds for acceptance, but I hope this clarification helps frame the subject’s notability more clearly. I remain committed to improving the article in good faith and contributing constructively to Wikipedia.
Thanks again. Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My jurisdiction licenses plumbers; a plumber getting an award for being a really good plumber would not make him notable if that's the only claim to notability. That's what WP:BLP1E is getting at, and why Mr. Bhattacharjee isn't notable at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223! No amount of editing will conjure notability from nowhere, neither will any amount of argument. A subject, any subject, is either notable or it is not. This subject has not been proven by dint of referencing to be notable. Nor does what is present suggest inherent notability.
Repeated resubmissions with no proven notability are likely to result in rejection in short order. Indeed, it can be considered to be disruptive editing, since you are appearing to seek to ask anyone and everyine until someone might, just, look favourably upon this subject. If so, I predict its appearance at WP:AFD very soon afterwards and that it will not survive.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. However, we also say with clarity when the end of the road has been reached. I have said so and others agree. 331dot has said so, using different words.
I really ought to have rejected it again. I was trying to let you down gently. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for your feedback. I accept that the draft does not meet notability under current guidelines.
I appreciate the time and guidance you've offered, and I remain committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Flyhigh223! (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_29&oldid=1304099383"