Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 6 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 8 >
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.


February 7[edit]

05:33:20, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Yhyhyhyhy[edit]


Yhyhyhyhy (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:27:46, 7 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by LordVoldemort728[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


@User:Dan arndt declined my submission and said "Fails WP:ANYBIO -being the first lady of the president of Pakistan does not make her automatically notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Requires significant coverage, not mentions in passing or confirmation that she is the wife of Musharraf, in multiple independent secondary sources." but he is 100% wrong. Draft:Sehba Musharraf passes Wikipedia:Notability (politics) which says that "The person is the monogamous spouse or life partner of a national head of state in any country.". Please review this decline and for your information I am also a WP:AfC reviewer. I also know about notability. Please see this.


​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LordVoldemort728, I agree with the declines by Dan arndt and KylieTastic. The subject may pass WP:NBASIC (or other NBIO criteria), and per WP:NEXIST notable topics are kept at AfD. However, WP:AFCR states If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason, so given that your draft does not show NBASIC/NBIO being passed a decline isn't entirely wrong. Do you understand that your linked page, Wikipedia:Notability (politics), is not part of WP:NBIO but instead is a proposal? The banner clearly states that: The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Overall, WP:NBASIC or other WP:NBIO guideline needs to be passed on its own. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC); edited 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:40, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Softwarecookies[edit]


I made a few attempts to submit a page regarding Apache AGE that Apache Software Foundation owns. Unlike my previous attempt at AgensGraph, which is a company-owned product, this is an open-source product I'm interested to get words out. The main reason for the rejection I've been getting is a lack of notability in reference. Even when I benchmarked other Apache-related software (Apache Jena) or other graph databases (Neo4j) and applied the type of references they used, the same notability guideline rejected my submission. It made me wonder why other Apache software or graph databases are fine with using their own blogs, websites, or third-person-controlled Apache Software Foundation resources as their references, whereas the page I've been working on isn't qualified. I read the notability guideline, but I see so many other software pages getting away with that guideline. What can I do to improve the references I used?

Softwarecookies (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Softwarecookies. The draft has been tagged and declined as failing the general notability guideline or the web notability guideline. The former and criteria 1 of NWEB require significant/non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (other NWEB criteria are also failed). Three of your four sources are from The Apache Software Foundation, but your draft states AGE was integrated as a project under The Apache Software Foundation... so the foundation is not an independent source in this case. The other reference is a proposal that is also not an independent source (the bottom of the page states Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Open Source Project License granted to Apache Software Foundation. Evaluate Confluence today.). So please add reliable, independent sources that constitute of significant coverage. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VickKiang, first and foremost, thanks for the quick explanation. However, this brings to my next question.
I compared to Apache Jena a lot when I made the draft for Apache AGE. In Jena's page also states "Jena was integrated as a project under the umbrella of The Apache Software Foundation..." and the type of references from the foundation seemed to be fine for the editors back then. The question I'd like to ask is why is it okay for Jena to use the foundation as reference and not AGE?
And in Neo4j, the references used in that pages are almost all from their own blogs and websites. According to the general notability guideline, these are not independent sources. I'm not asking this to demean neo4j and persuade you to take their page down. What I'm wondering is why it is okay for them to use their own blogs and websites for sources, when it is not even okay for me to use references from the Apache Software Foundation for an Apache software.
As for the proposal, I'll take note and find other reference. Thanks. Softwarecookies (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is difference between what references are acceptable to use in articles and what demonstrate notability. It is acceptable to use some non-independent self-published sources under uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF, but an article has to be mainly sourced from independent reliable references. In addition, your draft requires 2+ reliable independent non-trivial sources to demonstrate a passing of WP:NWEB#1 or WP:GNG. Regarding the Neo4j article, it is not in great shape, but at Wikipedia the best way of dealing with other non-notable topics is to nominate them for deletion via WP:AFD or tag for cleanup, and evaluate notability of new drafts under policies and guidelines, instead of comparing the notability of one article with another. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:15, 7 February 2023 review of submission by 108.21.240.171[edit]

Hi. If anyone reads this my question has to do with an "article" I randomly decided to write about a music company called MVBEMG. The company signed the first openly Gay artist in New York state, is currently working with Brazil's next star who is dubbed the "Alicia keys of Brasil", and is well recognized all over the internet.

I decided to write about this company because I'm a part of the LGBTQ community in New York, and I was blown away when I learned that MVBEMG signed the first openly Gay Rapper in the state, amongst other notable accolades, that I'm now discovering.

Any advice or clarification on why this article was deleted would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 108.21.240.171 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not deleted. It has no independent reliable sources to support its content; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable company. Signing an openly gay artist may make the company notable, but there must be coverage of that point in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.240.171 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:59:22, 7 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ldm1954[edit]


The first draft was rejected for reasons I understand. The second draft had extensive references: primary, secondary, archival as well as hard evidence such as LSE admission records. Many of these are to UK trade newspapers and some are extensive. However, to check these would require work/research, for instance search the UK Newspaper archives, the British Library, the History of Advertising Trust. I have done this, plus I have a few other copies. It took weeks.

However, the rejection took 5 minutes. There is no possible way that the reviewer could possibly have validated their statement that it does not show significant sourced material, it is impossible to do this in 5 minutes.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help reviewers if you listed the three best sources, which cover your mother in significant detail. LSE admission records, passing mentions, listings, FreeBMD and Findmypast are not useful sources for establishing any notability. The sources should not need to require a reviewer to search for them. You have written all that you know about your mother and then tried to verify it with sources. We work the other way around, we collect all the sources that contain significant coverage of the topic and then report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below as well. For User:Theroadislong to respond to a complaint where they are involved is a clear undisclosed conflict of interest. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it absolutely is NOT a conflict of interest! You have posted on a help desk and I have responded with a suggestion. Your complaints below are not based on any Wikipedia guidelines and do not belong here in any case. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:11, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Lao-ke[edit]


My submission on "The Institution of Locomotive Engineers" has been rejected because "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

However, the two main sources that I have quoted were written by H. Holcroft, who was editor of the "Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers" from 1919 to 1929, and E.S. Cox who was President of the Institution in 1957. These two papers describe in detail the history of the Institution from 1911 to 1960. Both papers were published by the Institution itself.

I've based my submission almost entirely on the information contained in these papers, however they provide no information about the last years of the Institution from 1961 to 1969. I'm hoping that other Wikipedia contributors might be able to fill in the blanks.

Since receiving the rejection notice, I have added some extra website links that help to verify the basic facts that I've stated, but I doubt that they'll qualify as more reliable sources than the two papers that I refer to above.

Given the eminence of the authors of these papers, and the fact that they were published by the Institution itself, I cannot imagine being able to offer any more reliable sources than these.

Can you suggest what other steps I might take to meet your requirements?

Lao-ke (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lao-ke You slightly misunderstand what we are looking for in terms of independent reliable sources. Publications from the Institution itself would not be an independent source. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with the orgnaization say about its history, not what it says is its own history(or what those associated with it say). 331dot (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, which now makes complete sense. I've added some extra links to three websites, but will try to find more sources that I can use as references in the next month or two. There's very little information on-line about the Institution, which is what motivated me to write a Wikipedia article about it.
Thanks again. Lao-ke (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:16, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Ldm1954[edit]


Further to my complaint about the rejection of the draft I am requesting that the reviewer be banned for confirmational bias. There are clear indications of this, with objections being constantly changed, never any acknowledgement that they have been answered.

The latest is a deletion of my refutation. There has to be a level playing field.

I will add that the very person I have complained about has responded to my first complaint -- with yet again a different set of arguments. Classic confirmational bias, and also classic COI (which is not disclosed).

As an illustration, since their position is untenable they now suddenly claim "The sources should not need to require a reviewer to search for them." In fact there is nothing to this effect in the Wikipedia Reliable Sources page, and the information about how to reach them is included in all cases.

Classic confirmational bias and conflict of interest.

Ldm1954 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a list of major problems:
  • User:Theroadislong claims that there are no citations for the career section. Now they are, but the comment has not been removed.
  • User:Theroadislong claims that there are no citations that support the content. There are now independent sources even for the evacuation of Marks and her school. The comment has not been removed.
  • Claim is made that their are no reliable sources. For instance, a claim that the "History of England Blog" is inappropriate, although a bit more searching would indicate that this was setup by the 1983 Heritage Act. Again, no acknowledgement of fault.
  • Claim is made that a list of what is in a charity archive in the UK (Advertising History Trust) is not reliable. No attempt was made to check what is in their archive, or to ask them. User:Theroadislong persists in ignoring this.
  • When directly challenged on any of this, User:Theroadislong never responds and finds something else (new) to criticize.
  • User:Theroadislong claims that birthdates require validation, but more recently states they are not relevant.
  • User:Theroadislong claimed that her career is why she received an MBE, did not look at the citation (charity work). People who volunteer their time at Wikipedia should be sensitive to disparaging someone else who volunteered major time over 30 years.
  • Implicity established archives such as the British Library do not count.
  • As indicated above, new and incorrect statements are made, for instance that citations should be readily available which is not true, they just need to be properly indicated.
  • User:Theroadislong selectively deletes comments that indicate problems with their statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ldm1954 Grievances about user behavior are not handled here, they are handled at WP:ANI. That said, I would highly advise you against going there as I don't think it would go the way you want. If you want to discuss the validity of sources and what a reliable source is, you may do that here. I can say that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources as they usually do not have fact checking and editorial control. A blog being authorized by law is immaterial. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one mentioned does have fact checking and editorial control. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, comments are not removed even if the problem is subsequently addressed. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • 18:35:19, 7 February 2023 review of draft by 98.150.164.97[edit]


    98.150.164.97 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC) ALOHA: What is the average cost for an 'experienced Wilipedian' to work on the draft, and get it approved? I received an email from someone who said: I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in an encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting it.[reply]

    Kindly reply for more details.

    Best regards, Laura Thank you, Dr.Marsha Diane Akau Wellein

    Third parties monitor the draft space and attempt to offer their editing services. These are not endorsed by Wikipedia in any way. They have varying reputability, and many are scams. There is no way to know if the person is "an experienced Wikipedian" or not, and they cannot make any guarantees. Paid editors are required by the Terms of Use to declare that they are being paid. Do not hand over any money to anyone until you see the final product, if you decide to go that route. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    20:13:11, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Ерден Карсыбеков[edit]

    I created an article with one ref, and 10 days later I added three more refs; but the draft had not been accepted. Could you please explain why? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear how the person passes the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    21:06:03, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Mksalama[edit]

    The article is rewritten after consideration of Wikipedia tips. Mksalama (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rejection usually means that the draft will not be considered again, but if you feel you have improved the draft substantially, then the advice is to approach the original reviewer again. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    21:58:45, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Dharmesh14[edit]

    I have worked hard 13year, i have updated the details and started a company i want to take this forward and help people and i have given free education software for government. Please tell me why you rejecting me.... I have linked what all i have done, in one rejection said too many external links i have removed that and resubmitted. I have given my achievements links not fake one... I don't understand why it got rejected.

    Dharmesh14 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not..."Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication."
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_February_7&oldid=1139027314"