Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 21 << Mar | April | May >> April 23 >
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.


April 22

[edit]

08:12, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Amitunbind

[edit]

Hello, Can you please suggest me what should i remove from my article? Amitunbind (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitunbind: I've requested for the lot of it to be removed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Ephrem-IRB

[edit]

Because the article I submitted was not accepted. I would like some one to review the article I submitted. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: your draft (not yet article) has been reviewed, and declined. We're not interested in what the organisation has to say about itself. We want to know what other, entirely unconnected sources have said about it.
Also, you need to disclose your status as a paid editor. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I don't want to be paid anything. I just wanted to give information about a regional organization in the Eastern Africa. Kindly advise. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ephrem-IRB: I'm saying you are being paid, because of your employment at this organisation, and our terms & conditions of use require you to formally disclose this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct I am an employee of the organization that I wanted to give information. Where can I disclose that please. Thank you. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been provided with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get it clearly. Where can I correct those things? Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "did not get it clearly". Can you not find the message on your talk page, or do you not understand it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Write a statement on your user page, User:Ephrem-IRB, in which you say something to the effect of "Per the Terms of Use, I declare that I am an employee of the Independent Regulatory Board of the Eastern Africa Power Pool". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is rejected. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new section for new posts, please use this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ephrem-IRB You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia and what we do here. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. An article about an organization must primarily 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. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the organization or basic informaton(like staff) and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the topic- what makes it notable. Press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, staff interviews, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it's even harder with a conflict of interest. You must set aside everything you know about your organization and all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 136.233.52.242

[edit]

I was notified that "I can now create articles myself without posting a request". I have created and moved this page Sielmat. Yet I am not sure if it is the same as publishing an article for creation since I cannot find this article in Google Search. Do inform me in this regard. 

136.233.52.242 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New articles won't be indexed by search engines until they have been approved by new page patrol, or until 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any such way to submit a "request for approval" to this new page patrol? Thanks. Puia 98 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Puia 98: new pages get added automatically into the pool for reviewing, there is nothing you need to (or indeed can) do to request this. There is currently a large backlog of over 14,000 articles awaiting review, so this could take a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 22 April 2024 review of submission by A smart kitten

[edit]

I came across this draft from the talk page of the IP editor that submitted it. It was declined by Dan arndt as failing WP:DISAMBIG; however, it seems to be a valid disambiguation page from what I can see, and the entries seem to meet MOS:DABENTRY. Posting here to request a second set of eyes. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the article doesn’t disambiguate to any other Wikipedia articles, just to a series of unrelated things. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Pep.maps2020

[edit]

Request your assistance in approval of this profile page. Pep.maps2020 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that has no meaning and literally resembles a fan page. As per @CanonNi:, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional website. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 22 April 2024 review of submission by MarGiann

[edit]

Hello I am trying to publish the article "Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters . However it does not seem to work. Could you please help me further with that? Thanks a lot in advance. MarGiann (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: this draft was declined for being non-encyclopaedic, both in structure and content. As such, it would require a fairly comprehensive rewrite.
Also worth noting that it was declined nearly six months ago, and is very soon eligible for speedy deletion as an abandoned draft. So if you do plan to continue editing it, you should do so sooner rather than later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the fast response. I have considerably edited the document and I wanted to resubmit. However, I get to receive this message.
"No stashed content found for 1181823001/bad43be9-91aa-11ee-b2d6-4cd98fa9ea25"
I think it is a technincal issue but I am not sure what exactly is the problem. MarGiann (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarGiann: yes, it is a technical issue, and as such outside the scope of this help desk, but AFAIK it has to do with the browser losing the local stash (temporary content store) where the edits you make reside until they are committed by publishing the draft. This happens if the browser is left open for a long time or something goes wrong with your system. Some browsers apparently are better at recovering such data, but you getting that error message suggests it may be lost for good. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Arinc9

[edit]

This draft that I have submitted is not an attempt to be humorous, nor is it a hoax. We have collectively decided on RIPE NCC's SEE 12 event that creating this page would be helpful in addressing the misinformation for anyone accessing the internet. At least Vesna Manojlovic from RIPE NCC, Daniele Bovio from the European Academic & Research Network (EARN), and François Flückiger from CERN have endorsed this action.

I am submitting this while at the Divani Caravel Hotel. You can prove that by running whois on the IP address that I use to submit this. The SEE 12 event is being hosted in this hotel. Arinc9 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of your sources mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting my reply here as well:
No, all of the sources documented here mention this person. You can refer to World Wide Web to confirm that this Sir Sam Walker person does not exist in the context of the creating of the World Wide Web. Arinc9 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arinc9: so you're submitting a draft with four sources each saying Walker is one of the creators of WWW, to prove that isn't the case? So far the evidence only seems to show that is the case!
Besides, four passing mentions (which is what they are) would not make him notable enough to justify an article.
If you want to create an article on (what I think is) your intended topic, you would need to first show that there are numerous sources incorrectly claiming something (which is what you've done, sort of), then cite reliable evidence refuting this, and then show that this misinformation (disinformation?) is being widely enough discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable to warrant an encyclopaedia article on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be trying RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
If you can find several sources discussing whether Walker exists or not, then there may be an article possible. But if you can find only mentions of him then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there cannot be an article about him. (Note that this is quite independent of whether he exists or not: Wikipedia has articles on many notable but non-existent subjects, such as unicorns, N-rays and the luminiferous aether.)
Furthermore, even if he is notable, then your assertion that he does not exist appears to be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

[edit]

How do I write these sentences in a neutral tone: The For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, or FIDOS, is a UK film awards event created by Toby Rose. It celebrates performances by dogs as well as recognize canine talents in films. It's the sister award to the Palm Dog awards, which was also created by Toby Rose in 2001 and held at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France. Both events were inspired by Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt. Founded by cinema journalist Toby Rose in 2007, the first annual Fidos Awards presentation was held as a part of The Times London Film Festival at the BFI on the South Bank on October 28, 2007. The event is now held in March. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: words like "celebrates", "inspired", and to a slightly lesser extent "talents" are quite peacocky or marketing blurb-y. Replace them with the most boring, dry synonyms you can think of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit for the first sentence: The FIDOS, or For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, is a film awards ceremony in the UK founded by Toby Rose. It honors dogs' performances and acknowledges their skills in movies. The Palm Dog awards, a related event created by Rose in 2001, takes place at the Cannes Film Festival in France and is considered the sister award to the FIDOS. These awards were created in honor of Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt.   Rincemermaid (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 22 April 2024 review of submission by NMDP

[edit]

Hello--I have made changes that the previous reviewer suggested, but I also want to leave a message for the next prospective reviewer showing how the subject of this article meets the requirements of notability of composers and lyricists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) This subject meets criteria #1 and #2, but I think the reviewers have been missing this. Where would I leave such a comment after I resubmit the article? Thanks! NMDP (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NMDP: you can leave comments on the draft talk page; I will add a note highlighting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks VM. NMDP (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. NMDP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NMDP: Given you have 53 sources it may very well be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have two okay sources, and the rest of the ones I can assess are a combination of name-drops, Discogs, and Allmusic content-free album profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano. Thank you for your time on this and your comments. My thought is that Della Penna seems to qualify as a notable composer/lyricist under Wikipedia's own criteria:
For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
  3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)
He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The Minetta Lane Theater. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).
Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? NMDP (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NMDP: Remember when I said above that it may be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat? Two sources out of 51 being good (discounting the two walled NYT sources) is a problem for any draft, since it means that reviewers aren't going to bother approving the article as the sourcing is still very noticeably subpar. All the extraneous sources other than the Berkshire Eagle, American Songwriter, and (potentially) the two walled New York Times sources need to be removed, and the draft rewritten based on the sources that remain. Bear in mind WP:BLP applies here as well, which makes the useless sources even more of a liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll give that a shot. Thank you. NMDP (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Again--thanks. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Will work on it. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC NMDP (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to chime in and note that the first New York Times article is substantial coverage of Della Penna as a part of Dead Outlaw, but the second only provides a brief mention of a group Della Penna was in without mentioning him by name. Reconrabbit 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C

[edit]

I'm wondering if I can get more specifics on how to address the suggestion of making this more "encyclopedic" rather than an "essay" and also specific points where I should revise from having an opinion to being neutral? Thank you for the guidance. 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty finding any of your sources which actually meet the triple criterion in WP:42. All of them I've looked at are either published by the subject, or mention them without saying very much about them. The last couple don't even mention it.
This means, it seems to me, that your draft does not yet establish that the Union meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Furthermore, if there are no independent sources which say anything substantial about the Union, then there is nothing that can go in the article - which is probably why it reads as an essay.
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 entirely 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) 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 108.6.176.12

[edit]

The draft was declined for being mostly a copy paste of Hurricane Ian, but a discussion at Talk:Hurricane Ian determined a consensus for a split and trimming down of the main section. The draft should be accepted because it reflects consensus. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article splits are not usually done via this process; see WP:PROSPLIT for the procedure. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the reviewer simply wasn't aware of that split discussion (an easy thing to overlook, if you ask me). Courtesy pinging Shadow311. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Gaw54

[edit]

PLEASE HELP!!!! I have made multiple edits to this page and published them. Then someone seems to reject my article and now all my edits have disappeared. I am beyond frustrated. Gaw54 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: your draft has only been declined, not rejected, and that does not make edits "disappear" (as you can see yourself from the edit history). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But my edits DID disappear. I made a number of new edits yesterday and today, published them, and then when I went back to look at the document, they were gone. Moreover, one of the objections to the article was that I needed to use footnotes. There are 23 footnotes in this article! I simply don't understand the basis for the article being declined. This was written to respond to the call of the Women Artists Project to fill the gap between the presence of male and female artists on Wikipedia. With this kind of experience, I can understand why. I've spent over a week on this entry and I still don't understand why it is being declined or how I can it before a reviewer who might actually know something about the subject and provide more useful feedback. Gaw54 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaw54: I'm not saying your edits didn't disappear. Maybe your browser crashed. Maybe your computer (or whatever device you're editing on) did. Maybe you didn't publish your edits. All I'm saying is, declining (or rejecting, for that matter) a draft does not cause anything to vanish. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaw54 As explained below, you are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Please only edit one of them to avoid confusion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Explorer Hamza

[edit]

not able to understand rejection , please guide how to submit Explorer Hamza (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: articles on living people (WP:BLP) need to be referenced with inline citations, so that it's clear where each bit of the content is coming from; see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (I don't think that's the only issue with this draft, but it's the one it was declined for.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explorer Hamza: As to your sources proper, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The overwhelming majority of your sources are unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Max Elliott1

[edit]

Mayday friends, could you help me understand why my page was not approved? I have not much experience in creating pages, and maybe I really missed something. Please help. Thanks, gracias, danke, merci, shukran, дякую Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Elliott1: it was declined because it is unreferenced. (A quick glance suggests there are other issues, too, but that's why it was declined this time around.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Max. I'm afraid that that is the usual experience for people who attempt to create an article before they have spent the time learning how Wikipedia works. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and gradually learning about core principles like verifiability, reliale sources, neutral point of view and notability, before ever trying the challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:33, 22 April 2024 review of draft by Gaw54

[edit]


Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done that. I think the process may have been interrupted by someone reviewing and responding the draft before I publish the changes. I just tried again and hope that this works. On a related note, I tried entering tags but got the message that no page existed by the title of my article. Suggestions? Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I have spent considerable time on my entry on artist and curator Bonnie Rychlak. I am very confused about the basis of it being declined. I was told that my inline citations were not correctly but that I should footnotes. I'm very confused. There are 25 footnotes on the cite. Also, I tried without success to tag the page Women Artists and Women Writers in order that it get to editors in best position to provide valuable feedback. But when I attempted to tag the page, I received the notice that no such page with the title Bonnie Rychlak exists. Please advise. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated these sections. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that makes sense. Can you please clarify why one reviewer believes this individual doesn't meet the notability standard? She has a highly respected career in TWO fields both as artist and curator. She is one of the top experts on the artist Noguchi with over a dozen key publications and multiple international exhibitions. Moreover, she has co-exhibited with another artist who has a Wiki page, and was written about by a top critic/curator who also has a Wiki page. I'm trying to help fill the gap in entries on male and female artists on Wikipedia and am dismayed to find any number of male artists whose accomplishments don't hold a candle to those of this individual. I would very much appreciate any guidance on this matter. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaw54: I don't think anyone is saying that this person categorically isn't notable, but rather that notability hasn't yet been adequately demonstrated. You need to show, and corroborate with reliable sources, that they satisfy either the general WP:GNG notability standard, or the special WP:ARTIST one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, Gaw54, prose like As a feminist riposte to the embargoes of Donald Judd and others, her sculptures converted primary structures into upholstered, pillowed, buttoned, and bowed boxes. This decorative re-surfacing was a paradoxical suggestion of depth. Padded and essentially wrapped, the cubes acquired an inside or at least the lure of an inside. But the interior was never accessible or even fully present. Unlike Judd's polished objects that push the viewer out centrifugally, Rychlak's impel one's gaze away from the sculptures by replicating their surroundings. Her mirrors force the viewer to look inside the box to see not only the duplicated surroundings but also the perceiving subject, thus providing the elusive "content." is not the way an encyclopedia article should be written. This hifalutin prose style obscures and intrigues perhaps, and may be appreciated in certain corners of academia, but it is not the crisp, clear language of descriptive encyclopedia writing. Your prose must be accessible to newcomers to your topic, not just to enthusiasts and insiders. Do not make your readers respond with "what the heck?" Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. Actually, this is exactly what one reviewer is saying "Please provide sources for the public collections, notability hinges on this." That seems pretty categorial to me, given that the collections where her work can be seen don't have online collection access. And this is the first time this criteria was mentioned, despite previous reviews of the piece by this specific editor. It just seems like the bar for acceptance keeps moving. I think that the 25 sourced references, including multiple highly regarded publications and exhibitions, has been easily established. I'm at a loss as to what more is being asked for to pass this hurdle. Gaw54 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that is being asked is that you provide sources for the content, it's an absolute basic necessity of editing Wikipedia, if the awards and collections are not sourced then we can't confirm that they pass the notability criteria WP:NARTIST, merely having exhibitions doesn't make them a notable artist. Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaw54 More “what the heck?” content includes Visibility is low, so low that if images are discerned at all, they are reduced to a wavering generality. The image inside the clean white box, reminiscent of medicine cabinets, can be read as banal or sinister, or just mysterious., If this is a quote then it needs a source if it is your own opinion it should be removed as original research. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember 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 entirely 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) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Adamu ab

[edit]

Why are requesting assistant Adamu ab (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adamu ab, your draft was declined because the writing is too promotional. However, I think this was an incorrect decline, as I also do not find that the subject passes our notability guidelines. Please see WP:NBIO for these guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_22&oldid=1221118434"