Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 27 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 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.


March 28

edit

01:39, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Alexnewmon2623

edit

Hello, Thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of questions regarding your comment. Firstly, when you refer to “notable,” are you using a subjective definition? Similarly, do you consider the term "small town" to be subjective? Hollywood, FL, where Josh Levy serves as mayor, is a significant city in Broward County. It would be helpful to clarify the basis for these assessments. Additionally, your comment about "formatting problems" is noted, but it would be more constructive if you could provide specific examples of the formatting issues so I can address them more effectively. As for the concern about the article being promotional, I’m not sure how to reduce that aspect without digging to find negative content or controversies on this individual. I would like to clarify that I am simply a resident of Hollywood trying to write about the leadership in our community, and my intent is not to promote anyone. If you have suggestions on how to make the article more neutral, I would be happy to hear them. Lastly, could you help me understand why someone like Stephanie Fielding, the Mohegan linguist [redacted] whos name is known by virtually no one, is considered more notable than Josh Levy, who has done extensive work for his community? Is it because of her prestigious education or her publication history? I’m just trying to better understand the notability standards and how they apply here. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Josh Levy
@Alexnewmon2623:. I have reviewed, and declined, your draft. I have left my extensive reasoning on the draft, but the TL;DR is that the sources listed were not sufficient to show that the subject is notable for an article here on Wikipedia. I notice you appear to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about this drafts acceptance, and I want to be aware that all the editors here are volunteers and the declination of a draft is not personal, and I implore you to assume good faith. cyberdog958Talk 04:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberdog958
Hello. Thank you for your time.
Good faith was assumed, but I found it quite interesting that I was right off the bat disciplined as a new writer. Constructive criticism is to be expected, and responding to my questions and to my submission in general in the tone that the other moderator gave is not constructive.
I asked simple, basic questions, which were answered in a defensive way as if I was trying to argue and break rules I had not known existed. I understand you are all volunteers, so am I at the end of the day.
Now, to the your response (which I appreciate being more constructive then my previous experiences,) I don’t think it’s logical to say that the sources are not reliable, and that the subject is not notable in an objective sense. What I was asking is if the definition of notable, reliable, and the size of jurisdictional ___location is subjective which it is, to Wikipedia.
I also asked if, to wikipedias subjective definition of notable, one’s academic pursuits and credentials matter more, which we now know to be true. Josh Levy is not an academic individual; he is a politician at the local government level. The reason I created this article is because I have seen articles of many people that are far, far less prominent, important, and known then mayor Levy(at an objective level), so I thought it would be a good idea.
You mentioned many times how my sources are not suitable for Wikipedia. Could you give examples of sources that would be acceptable as it pertains to this individual? What steps could we take, and what changes can be made to make this article acceptable for publication. Is, because Josh Levy is not an academic figure and a political figure above the local level, this article not able to be published at all on Wikipedia?
Thank you again! I look forward to your response. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: You're getting the wrong impression here. On Wikipedia, we have two different ways of establishing notability: The general guideline (GNG), which measures how much reliable sources with strong editorial oversight and no connexion to the subject have written about it, and specific guidelines (SNG), which are developed for specific topics and are more selective when it comes to sources. To merit inclusion, a subject has to meet either the general guideline or one of the specific ones. Note that these specific guidelines are sometimes developed to address situations where the GNG cannot realistically grant notability due to its own flaws; one of these is WP:NACADEMIC, which instead specifically measures academic impact rather than the usual array of sources. This is because under most circumstances, someone who would meet NACADEMIC would have a very difficult time meeting the GNG.
I do not think NACADEMIC applies here, as we're discussing a holy man and not necessarily a scholar. (Merely being an alumnus of a notable college/university isn't a claim for NACADEMIC.) Instead, it looks to me like the more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which is far broader in its scope and much closer to the GNG in most circumstances. To that end, I will point you to my Decode subpage and assess your sources.
You don't have much in terms of third-party reliable sources actually discussing Levy, and as a result, you don't have much of anything to base an article off of at present. Are there any newspaper articles or religious magazine articles that discuss Levy (and aren't just interviews)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a lot better of a response! Thank you so much. However, I believe you looked at the wrong article. I’m working on Draft:Josh Levy Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That I did. However, we do have a SNG for politicians. I won't attempt a source assessment here as this implicates a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano thanks for this. Is there anything that can be done to make the article suitable for publication? Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: I already went through every source and stated why they were not enough in my declination statement on the draft. Unless you can present new sources that have significant coverage of the subject in question by a reliable source that is independent of the subject, then nothing can be done to satisfy the notability requirement for politicians. Please read the pages I linked to understand what is needed for the subject to be notable and the draft to be published. cyberdog958Talk 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberdog958
I am still struggling with understanding how the sources I provided are not sufficient. I would greatly appreciate you to give me contextual examples (meaning you tell me what you, as a reviewer, would need to see in order to consider the sources acceptable). Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that if the person reviewing Josh Levy could find a reason to publish it, I think a reason can be found within mine. That is what I mean when I say subjective. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because you believe that another article on Wikipedia does not meet the criteria for notability does not mean that this one would get published. I’m not sure how much clearer on what would be required. I described exactly what reviewers look for when assessing sources and I stated exactly why the sources in the draft are not sufficient. cyberdog958Talk 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don’t believe that the article in question does not meet requirements for publication, I know. A reviewer confirmed it. I wasn’t even asking and they did. Again I’m not trying to argue.
Also, the “guidelines” are not particularly clear; they are lengthy yet vague.
You did kind of answer some of my questions. As for the city of Hollywood government website, is that not a reputable source? I don’t know if it matters much who it was written by, in this context, as the information regarding the mayor would have to come from somewhere. I’ll go ahead and add more articles I’ve found (that seem to be more “significant” from the considerably vague information I’ve been provided) in the sources/references section and resubmit. Thank you again. @Cyberdog958 Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Alexnewmon2623. Official sources (such as government websites) are almost always primary sources, and cannot contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then where else is the information supposed to come from? I think anything posted on a government website, secondary or not, is probably accrete though I could be wrong. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 28 March 2025 review of submission by 진국

edit

My draft about Wadiz got declined again. May I know which part of the article I need to improve on? It was previously declined for the same reason but I have made many edits and removed sentences that sounded like an advertisement. I tried to write sentences as neutral as i can and added sources from the news articles but it got rejected. Could you help me to make this draft an article? 진국 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @진국. I haven't looked at the sources, but reading your draft, it reads very much as "This is what Wadiz wants people to know about itself". That is why it reads as an advert.
Wikipedia has basically no interest in what Wadiz says or wants to say, or in what its associates or customers want to say about it. The article should be a summary of what people who have no connection with Wadiz, and have not been commissioned or fed information on behalf of the company, have chosen to publish about it in reliable sources.
The list of companies and products who have used the platform is pure advertising, unless independent sources have written about their use of it. Looking at the source cited for the first one (Labnosh), the article is mostly based on an interview with the CEO of the company behind Labnosh (so is not independent), and only mentioned Wadiz in passing - so it does not contribute to notability, and there doesn't seem to be a strong case for mentioning it at all in the article. (That is just the first example). ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Preetladhar76

edit

what references should I submit? Preetladhar76 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetladhar76 It's inadvisable for you to be writing about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden. Please read the autobiography policy.
Did you personally take the image of yourself? It appears to be a professionally taken image, which usually means it's the work of the photographer and that the photographer owns the copyright, not you.
You need sources that you can summarize that establish that you are a notable creative professional. The sentence about your next book being published soon should just be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Judithglyde

edit

First of all, a few thoughts. It was noted by your reviewer that I was writing this article about myself. I felt no need to further confirm. Because of a writer being 'discouraged' to write about herself, but was told the article would not necessarily be 'refused', gave me encouragement to write a very neutral article about my own life. As I feel that this is indeed a notable life, I have written significant coverage and not just 'passing or fleeting' mentions. I have experience in writing neutral bios, and this submission is not only neutral but shows a certain notability in this life. I feel that Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources seems to have been shown by in-depth citations, in as much as the career has consisted of significant academic, professional and creative work, as well as independent writing. This requirement that you state, "Significant coverage has be the subject in published, reliable sources that are "independent of the subject" needs to be explained." I have tried to include independent sources when appropriate to ensure the coverage is objective and not promotional. It seems as though adding citations to as many biographical sources as possible is not the answer, although you ask for "additional references". I have added news media, academic journals and others; I have not added self-published sources or personal blogs or social media posts - the sources I have used — all have fact-checking reputations. (I could add one theory book I co-authored that I keep forgetting to add.) I don't understand the comment, "NONE of these sources provide significant coverage of her, some of them have reliability that is debatable at best" (all the sources I provided are not debatable - they exist even if just a mention to prove the source/citation exists - such as news/organizations), "and the rest are just obituaries of other people that don't go into depth about her."(Well, obituaries are about the person who died, and do not GO INTO DEPTH about those who have not.) Again, I may not have said that I AM HER, but the reviewer had made that case - I felt that it was not necessary to further clarify. As you have said, you want neutrality in the article. If neutrality is written along with sources, there is no conflict of interest. There could be a conflict of interest if someone with a conflict writes this article; however, no one knows a person better than the person herself/himself. Finally, you can tell my specific need for assistance: I feel that I have written a very neutral biographical article with good reliable citations for the sources for significant points in my life. Please let me know what else I can do. There seems to be no point to carry on if Wikipedia will definitely refuse an article written by and about the same person; or if my citations are just not good enough. Thank you for your assistance. Judith Glyde Judithglyde (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please read the autobiography policy as to why it's highly discouraged for people to write about themselves. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about a topic, not what it says about itself(like a person or business). In my many years here I've never seen someone succeed in writing about themselves, though it's probably happened. The point is that it's very rare. Are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it.
You have done a nice job summarizing your work, but you have not summarized what sources say makes you a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did you personally take, and personally own the copyright to the professional-looking image of you? It's uncommon for the subject of the image to own the copyright to it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked four random sources, none of them supported the content? Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Fizzandlil

edit

Hi. My name is Graham. I'm helping Philip try to get his page accepted as an article. It's been rejected (twice). We don't know what we need to do to get it accepted. We don't know who or how to contact anyone to discuss the problems with the draft page or what we need to do to overcome them. We're not experienced or seasoned contributors and we're stuck. Can someone help please ? Fizzandlil (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fizzandlil: Hello Graham, one problem I can see at once when I look at the draft is that the majority of the sources are to publications by him. To show notability, there must be reliable sources, wholly unconnected to himself, writing about him. Independent reviews of his plays in major newspapers would be one kind of source that would serve for this purpose – have a look at the notability criteria for creative professionals (such as authors and playwrights) to get an idea of what is required. There may be other issues as well, but the lack of independent sourcing is something that would have to be addressed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea Thank you for taking the time to reply. That's a big help and a first step to overcome. Thanks. Fizzandlil (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Fizzandlil. Please be aware that if you are help your friend get a Wikipedia article about himself, then you have a conflict of interest. That does not forbid you from working on it, but you need to be aware of the restrictions that follow.
Secondly, Anybody who wants there to be an article about them needs to be aware of an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Thirdly, please note that 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) 19:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Minecraft11226

edit

What website is reliable for finding graves of dead people? Biography. Minecraft11226 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries thaf document the ___location of burial. The family tree really should only include people with articles. I'm also not sure what the claim to notability is; being related to a notable person is insufficient(WP:NOTINHERITED). If " not much is known" about them, they would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 28 March 2025 review of submission by FateHum

edit

Hello! I recently made a page, which has been tagged as possibly including some issues. I would like to refine and work on it, if anyone here has experience, feel free to comment below and give me some suggestions and advices. Please be specific, wherever possible, rather than talking in broader terms. Which parts are unnecesary? Which parts need to be rewriten, and what are some examples of better ways to rewrite those parts? Christina Wendall FateHum (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FateHum You had the word "advice" where the title of the draft or article should go. You also don't need the whole url when linking. I fixed this. This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process. To ask about articles, please use the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, it says i cant post there FateHum (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FateHum Ah, you should be able to tomorrow, once a full four days has passed from when your account was created. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha and thanks FateHum (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Blink184

edit

Hello community

This is my third attempt to add an article for this album. I can't find when and where this album appeared on the charts. All of the band's albums are on Wikipedia, and I don't quite understand why this one shouldn't be there. I ask for help in preparing the article for publication.

Thank you. Blink184 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nkt every album of a group merits an article just because. You need sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blink184: the WP:NALBUM guideline has seven criteria, chart performance being just one of them. If you can't find information on whether this has charted, go for one of the other criteria.
We don't publish an article on an albums because articles exist on the other albums by the same artist/band. We publish one if the album can be shown to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Johnsmackenzie

edit

I started the page as I wanted to add to this list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yacht_clubs_in_Scotland

I looked at the pages listed there and some eg East Lothian Yacht Club have no citations only internal links to Wikipedia pages.

I have sources for lots of the statements made, but given the nature of the topic there are not likely to be multiple sources.

The page is not a promotional "brochure" as I am trying to create a history, for example the list of major events hosted.

Can someone give me an indication of where I am going wrong? Johnsmackenzie (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. The article you pointed out has no sources and I've marked it as problematic. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example; you should use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have described the activities of the club; Wikipedia articles must do more, they 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) 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK - that's really helpful. I will think again. Johnsmackenzie (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this club, that must be disclosed, please see the information I placed on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a disclosure on the page - but will review the information. Johnsmackenzie (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 28 March 2025 review of submission by OldFeather90

edit

He is very important, I don’t know why the admin says he is not sufficiently noatable OldFeather90 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but it was I who rejected the draft. Being important is not a notability criterion in Wikipedia; please take the time to read the notices placed on your user talk page when the draft was declined and rejected, to find out how Wikipedia defines "notability". There's nothing in the draft that indicates that Rutledge meets any of the notability criteria for people. When the draft had been declined twice for inadequate sourcing, a single new source was added – and that didn't even mention Rutledge, so it's pretty clear that he isn't notable as it is defined here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @OldFeather90. The thing to understand is that 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.
The "notability" criteria are mostly saying "is there enough suitable material available to base an article on?". Some subjects that are famous, or popular, or important, or influential, just haven't (so far) had enough independent material published about them to base an article on, and those are not notable, as Wikipedia uses the word. ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 28 March 2025 review of submission by 102.0.2.86

edit

Am eager to know why this draft is being rejected 102.0.2.86 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear reasons have been given. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand 102.0.2.86 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the messages at the top of the draft. You disclosed a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Swensonia

edit

I have submitted an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Regina_Joseph which has been rejected. I've been advised by the editor to focus on NPOV tenets but would like some additional feedback, perhaps in the form of 1 or 2 examples of where the NPOV tenets are not met in order to help guide my efforts to edit the piece which, as you can see, is rich with citations, etc. Any specific feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time and help. Swensonia (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly disregard; I failed to see earlier response last night. I didn't mean to ask the same question twice for different feedback. Please accept my apology. I'll respond to the earlier feedback from last night. Swensonia (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 28 March 2025 review of submission by JacA12

edit

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Thank you. JacA12 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? JacA12 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_March_28&oldid=1283697290"