Help desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 22

07:46, 22 June 2023 review of submission by Nartenn

Nartenn (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Umnico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, how do references 1, 2 and 5 not count as WP:PRIMARY? Please, review the submission, so that the article can be published. Thanks Nartenn (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nartenn: I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly, but regarding sources 1, 2 and 5:

1 and 2 are just CoHo filings, which only confirm that the company exists
5 is almost certainly based on some sort of publicity materials

For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 22 June 2023 review of submission by Alan347

Alan347 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Michael Briguglio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I get this page accepted please ? I can't understand how to improve it. I mean looking it at it it does not look any different than other pages about other people who got approved. Alan347 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan347: ignore other articles; we don't assess drafts in reference to existing articles, but to the currently applicable guidelines and standards. (See OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)

For this draft to be accepted, you need to show that this person is notable, either by the WP:GNG general notability guideline, or by one of the special guidelines such as WP:NPOL for politicians or WP:NPROF for academics. Currently none of these standards is met (or at least wasn't, when I reviewed this a week or so ago).

You should also respond to the COI query placed on your talk page at User talk:Alan347. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alan347. Wikipedia is only interested in summarising what independent third party reliable sources say about a topic or person. References 1 and 2 are primary sources so cannot be used other than to validate basic biographical facts. Reference 3 is not independent of Michael as he is an op-ed columnist with the source. Source 5 can only be used to cite his unsuccessful election result.

You need to go find some independent third party sources that extensively cover Michael, and then summarise them, making sure to cite each statement or fact. Please have a good read of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 22 June 2023 review of submission by Aturdingeh

Aturdingeh (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Atur Bey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, i need some advice and help for approving my articles. I don't know the main reason why my article has been decline everytime. I tried my level best and but still i can't find why my article is declined. Aturdingeh (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aturdingeh, your article has been Rejected and will therefore never become an article; there is nothing you can do. Your article was rejected because Atur does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria:

- Reliable Sources: Your article should have relied on strong, reliable sources that are not Wikipedia:Primary sources. These sources should have been independent of Artur (not self-published or from Artur's own website) and published by reputable institutions. Most of your sources are Wikipedia:Primary sources such as links to buy his works or from his personal website, so did not count.

- Multiple Sources:You should have found at least three strong, reliable sources that discussed Artur in detail. As mentioned above, most of your sources are primary and there is no evidence of multiple, strong reliable sources.

- Significant Coverage: Artur should have been discussed in detail in the strong, reliable sources you found. The sources should have provided in-depth information about him, going beyond basic facts or promotional material. As mentioned above, most of your sources are primary and there is no evidence of multiple, strong reliable sources with significant coverage.

I hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 22 June 2023 review of submission by Beverly Simmons

Beverly Simmons (talk · contribs)
- Ross W. Duffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received notice on 4 June 2023 that this article was accepted for publication, assessing it as C-Class, placing it "among the top 19% of accepted submissions."

Yesterday, Scope Creep deemed it NOT ready for publishing, because it has too many "intricate details" that are not of encyclop(a)edic interest and that "large sections are unsourced."

I'm surprised to have the 4 June judg(e)ment overturned by this person.

Can Scope Creep's overruling be overruled?

Even if I make changes according to their complaint, do I have to wait another 3 months for approval? Beverly Simmons (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beverly Simmons you need to declare your conflict of interest which is clear. I will leave some additional information on your talk page. In this instance, @Scopecreep was correct to move it back. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]