Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 30

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 29 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 31 >
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 30

edit

04:12, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Gemma1212

edit

Help on why it was declined Hi I am trying to create a page for Australian roundnet and would like some assistance as to why it has been declined so I can improve it Gemma1212 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gemma1212: One source, regardless of how good it is, is not enough to support an article. The draft is also promotional, and the only source it cites doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 30 July 2025 review of submission by KHAN MOSIN

edit

Hello,

My draft article (User:223.184.226.151/Sandbox) has been pending review for over a month. Could someone please take a look when possible? I’m open to feedback and happy to make revisions. Thank you! KHAN MOSIN (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 30 July 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75

edit

Which information should i provide to continue this article let me know whats the problem its well known artist in this article well known channel so whats the problem let me know so ill improve the things 

YAKSH75 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YAKSH75: this draft is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about a subject, and then those sources are cited as references so that the reader knows where the information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 30 July 2025 review of submission by JerryKB

edit
Dart PDC World Cup Sverige/Darts PDC World Cup Sweden

Om Sverige i World Cup of Darts från 2023 och framåt/ About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards Artikeln är inriktad för svenskt och norskt dartintresse Beskrivning av insatserna 2023. 24 och 25 (att fyllas på fortsättningsvis) Samt världsmästarna genom åren.

About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards The article is aimed at Swedish and Norwegian darts enthusiasts Description of the events in 2023. 24 and 25 (to be filled in for continuation in future years) As well as the world champions through the years.

Är detta en artikel som platsar på Wiki? Is this an article that fits on Wiki? JerryKB (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JerryKB: I assume you mean   Courtesy link: User:JerryKB/sandbox?
As the reviewer noted, this is the English-language Wikipedia, whereas your draft is på svenska. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Jimnee

edit

Why is my draft rejected? Although the content is self written Jimnee (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimnee: this draft has all the hallmarks of being AI-generated, including hallucinated sources. It could have additionally been declined for inadequate referencing and insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Prathima08

edit

my page is declined to submit but im not able to get the reason, where it is mentioned tell me Prathima08 (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prathima08: it hasn't been declined, you created it with a decline template already in it. (Did you use AI to generate the code, by any chance?) I'll go and remove the template.
That said, had you submitted this, it would have beendeclined, since it provides no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no wikipedia was told me to not remove that instruction so i didnt remove that code Prathima08 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i added all the PR notations about mcube before submitting it Prathima08 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prathima08 We only see that decline box when you have asked ChatGPT to create a draft, and it mistakenly adds some broken code that results in that decline box. Please do not use ChatGPT to generate draft articles. qcne (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ChatGPT made up a bunch of sources which you included without even bothering to check if the links work. The sources are fake. Do not use ChatGPT to create drafts. qcne (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Opige Toxic

edit

how to upload my biography Opige Toxic (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Opige Toxic. Your draft contained only the words "opige sunday toxic" which hopefully you can see isn't suitable content for a published article. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography which explains why we strongly discourage autobiographies on Wikipedia.
If you still want to have another go, feel free to edit your sandbox at User:Opige Toxic/sandbox but please read Help:Your first article first. qcne (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 30 July 2025 review of submission by RachelCollins25

edit

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I noticed your comment stating that the submission is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I’d really appreciate it if you could kindly clarify which specific aspects of the submission led to this conclusion.

Could you also recommend the necessary changes or improvements that would help align the article with Wikipedia’s guidelines and purpose? I’m happy to revise the content accordingly. RachelCollins25 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelCollins25: Do you have any connexion to a company offering this sort of service? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I work with one of the company offerning this sort of solution and service. RachelCollins25 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected after three declines: you have taken up an amount of your own time and of reviewers' time, and not managed to produce an acceptable draft.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to published about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ChatGPT and the like are not (currently at least) capable of doing this.
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) 20:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

edit

What references do I need to add and is there anything wrong with the references already there? BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrumWikipedian: the current sources are all primary (government) ones, they do not establish notability per WP:ORG. We would need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other.
I should probably add that very few primary schools are notable, they would need to be something quite exceptional to meet the ORG threshold which is set high for a reason. Even the vast majority of secondary schools are nowadays not considered notable (I say 'nowadays', because there was a time when simply existing was thought enough to make a school notable; alas, no more). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I keep the primary sources and add secondary, or should I replace them all into secondary BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BrumWikipedian: you can keep them, if they serve a purpose such as verifying information. Primary sources, especially when they can be considered reliable like these ones, can be used to support factual, non-contentious information. They just cannot be used to establish notability; for that you need secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Sarahkillian

edit

I respectfully disagree with the decision to decline the draft and would like to appeal. The article has been significantly revised to address earlier concerns:

  • I have corrected tone and neutrality issues by removing promotional language and ensuring the draft adheres to Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards.
  • David Kent is red-linked on several existing Wikipedia pages, suggesting notability and editorial interest. This draft addresses that gap.
  • Because Kent was most active in the 1980s–1990s, many key sources are from the print era and lack a digital footprint. However, I have cited all available independent, reliable online sources. BMI, which recognizes revenue and songwriting milestones and hosts respected industry awards, is used as a source. If the current reviewer is unfamiliar with this context, I kindly ask for reassignment to someone with relevant music industry knowledge.
  • I’ve used his personal website only for basic, uncontroversial biographical facts in line with WP:SELFSOURCE.
  • I’ve removed unverifiable personal details and focused the article on his professional career and notability.

Why Kent meets notability standards:

  • He performed on Along the Red Ledge by Hall & Oates (certified gold, 15 of 20 credited musicians have pages).
  • He is red-linked on multiple Wikipedia articles.
  • He was part of a notable ensemble (Hall & Oates) and co-wrote “Austin,” Blake Shelton’s breakthrough hit.
  • He has contributed significantly to both rock and country music.

I believe the draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and neutrality guidelines, and I welcome further suggestions. What additional steps are needed to move this toward publication? 

Sarahkillian (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, he meets the music notability guideline as a member of an ensemble with independently notable musicians (Hall & Oates). Additionally, his contributions span both pop/rock and country music, indicating cross-genre notability. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: to start with your last point, individual members of an ensemble only warrant individual articles on Wikipedia if they demonstrate individual notability; in other words, they don't 'inherit' notability from the ensemble.
Being redlinked in other articles also in no way makes one notable.
This draft is mostly supported by primary sources, including many citations to Kent's own website, and this is somewhat problematic in terms of basic verifiability.
Sources don't have to be online; offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our reliability etc. requirements.
All that being said, it seems to me that the strongest claim for notability is as a co-writer of 'Austin', which would seem to satisfy WP:COMPOSER #1.   Courtesy ping: MediaKyle, any thoughts on this as the last declining reviewer? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification - I completely understand that ensemble members don’t inherently inherit notability. My intent was not to rely on association alone, but to highlight that he also demonstrates independent notability, particularly as a co-writer of "Austin", which aligns with WP:COMPOSER #1. That song played a key role in launching Blake Shelton’s career and has been recognized within the industry (including through BMI milestones).
I acknowledge the earlier overreliance on primary sources and have since revised the draft to reduce dependence on his website, using it only for uncontroversial facts where third-party verification wasn’t available. Let me know what else is needed. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the ping. As you correctly noted, notability is not defined by redlinks or associations, but rather by coverage. WP:COMPOSER does state that an individual may be notable if they were credited for co-writing a notable composition, but it appears this is the extent of his notability, and thus this detail is better covered at the article about the song. NBC notes: The song was penned by David Kent and Kirsti Manna, but rapper Post Malone's mother decided to give her first-grader credit for the inspiration. That's all. BMI, similarly, mentions the subject once. The Ithaca Times, again, mentioned only once. In my opinion, we would need more substantial coverage beyond passing mentions to assert notability here. Of course, the author is always welcome to resubmit and see if someone else disagrees. MediaKyle (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I’m just trying to understand the difference between the draft here and the article on, for example, Charlie DeChant, who, as far as I can tell, is primarily known for his association with Hall & Oates, is only briefly mentioned in many of the cited sources, and even cites his own website twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DeChant. It seems Kent meets even more of the notability criteria.
Would it help if I removed certain parts of the draft and left it very simple? Sarahkillian (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charles DeChant is VERY poorly sourced, unless and article is a featured article it should not be used to base another one on. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that strong sourcing is important. But that raises the question – how did the Charles DeChant article get approved with such poor sourcing, including YouTube videos on personal channels, while this one was rejected due to "only passing mentions" in multiple reliable sources ranging from NBC to music industry-specific awards lists? There are a few Hall & Oates personnel pages sourced like the Charles DeChant one (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Sharp or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Maelen for example). It seems inconsistent, so I think it’s fair to ask why one was accepted and the other wasn’t. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: the DeChant article was almost certainly never "approved"; it is almost 20 years old, and that means it predates pretty much all our current policies and practices. In any case, you cannot use the existence of a non-policy-compliant article to argue for the creation of more like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pointing to that page as a reason to create more like it — I understand that older articles may not reflect current standards. What I'm saying is that there are multiple Hall & Oates personnel with similar levels of accomplishment to David Kent who do have pages. In Kent's case, he not only shares those credentials, but also co-wrote a #1 song that launched a major country artist’s career. That seems to go beyond what some of the existing articles cover, and I'm trying to understand how that level of notability is being weighed. Mark Rivera has a disclaimer at the top that says his page requires additional verification. I'm trying to understand why all of those personnel either have (poorly sourced) pages or sources that say they need more verification when Kent's is simply being declined. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't want more poor quality articles? Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it’s being implied that I don’t care about quality — that’s a given. I wouldn’t have spent the time on this if that weren’t the case. So yes, maintaining standards is something we both want.
What I’m asking is: who can I speak with to better understand how this particular article fails where others — which are less detailed, less sourced, and in some cases more self-promotional — have been accepted? There must be some clearer reasoning behind that distinction. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making essentially the same argument, "there are even worse articles out there, so I should be allowed to create one also". I can understand why you would say that, given how you're paid to create this Kent article, but that's not how this works. Kent may yet prove to be notable enough, but it won't be because this draft is better than some existing article(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were saying he wasn't meeting the notability standards when other personnel with the same notability already did. So, I'm not trying to rely on poorly cited articles to support the approval of this one. If there are specific shortcomings in the draft itself, I’m asking for clarity on what those are. We can ignore the other pages going forward - let's focus on this one. Is it being rejected because he is not notable enough, or because there is something wrong with the draft itself? If the new version is still under review, I’m happy to wait and see what comments are made. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Eskanindia

edit

Greetings, We are trying to add an article on M. Eshwariah a reputed artist from Hyderabad, India of his time. We tried adding the scanned images of the news paper of that time as a proof of his works and achievements. From the bottm of the heart we feel that the information about him and his works will be a valued asset for art arena. Please guide us. Thank you. Eskanindia (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eskanindia who is "we" and "us"? Also, the reason for the decline is it does not cite any sources not to mention it is written like a fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eskanindia. "Proof of his works and achievements" will not help. We require independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, in order to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - see WP:42 for more about those sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

edit

Can someone help me fix this and bring it upto Wikipedian Standards. Any advice would great. Thank you BrumWikipedian (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BrumWikipedian We don't do co-editing here at this help desk. I will say that most elementary schools are not notable unless the school is in a historic structure. Even Sandy Hook Elementary School, the site of a mass shooting, redirects to the school district(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) while the shooting itself has an article. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Escola Cola

edit

I am having difficulty understanding why the article has been declined again, even after I have added reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. The draft article is similar to the page of Stephen E. Sachs, another prominent law professor and Supreme Court scholar. Any help is appreciated, thank you! Escola Cola (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Escola Cola Quotes and interviews from Epps are not independent coverage. To demonstrate notability, you need at least some sources that satisfy all three criteria in WP:42; there needs to be significant coverage about Epps written by someone who is completely unaffiliated with him. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could show that Epps meets one of the criteria in Wikipedia's special notability guidelines for academics. I note that Stephen E. Sachs meets one of these criteria since he holds a named chair as Harvard's Antonin Scalia Professor of Law. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Wouldn't Epps qualify under 7(a)? He has often been cited by national news publications, including the New York Times, as a Supreme Court expert. Escola Cola (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, although I'm not very familiar with how this criterion is applied. @RangersRus, since you declined the draft, what do you think of this argument? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no it doesn't. We are looking for significant coverage on the subject and his achievements (prestigious notable awards or works that made significant impact) in secondary "independent" reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, @RangersRus. I'm still a bit confused as to why his status as a frequently consulted expert in the national media doesn't satisfy Criteria 7a for academic notability, when the articles are not written by him, but by journalists like Adam Liptak? His status in legal academia compares well to Kate A. Shaw, who has a page on Wikipedia. Both have served as legal experts for the media, have published in major law reviews, and host popular legal podcasts. And as the Epps draft reflects, his academic work on Supreme Court reform gained widespread media attention after Pete Buttigieg endorsed it. Thank you for your consideration. Escola Cola (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_30&oldid=1304301946"