Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 13 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 15 >
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.


January 14[edit]

01:47, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Toddkatz[edit]

Regarding this notation by the evaluator:

" This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (July 2023)"

Please know that I, as a long-time financial contributor to Wikipedia very much take exception to the insinuation by the evaluator that I created this article for an undisclosed payment, which is completely untrue, as I told him. Furthermore, the evaluator should at the very least point out the section(s) which caused him to come to reach this opinion. (Essentially, I am accused of cheating against Wikipedia rules.) Similarly, an example of what the evaluator sees as lack of a neutral perspective should be provided. I had to support the statements in the article with references … shouldn't the evaluator also adhere to that reasonable standard? Toddkatz (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally understand your frustration with the incorrect accusations. Wikipedia has strict policies against undisclosed paid contributions. If you have not been involved in any undisclosed payment for creating the article, communicating this clearly should be fine. The reviewer might have drawn that conclusion due to not adhering to a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch).
My other suggestion would be avoid citing their self-published sources including official websites, blogs, Google groups, Github. 94rain Talk 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toddkatz If you're not paid, okay. Your statement on your user page will be sufficient in that regard. You've been trying to edit about this password manager since 2016 which is an unusually strong personal investment in a topic, at least that we see here at AFC. You also have only 325-ish edits since 2009- both of these things will suggest to others that you could be a paid editor. Again, if you're not, okay- just explaining what people are seeing. It's hard to tell a passionate fan/passionate user from a COI/paid editor(we often see this with people editing about celebrities).
As an editor I thank you for donating, but donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, we editors have nothing to do with the process. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
I posted yesterday because I received an automated message from Wikipedia inviting me to update/fix the Clipperz Password Manager draft and resubmit. If I did that I guess I'd be reinforcing my "unusually strong personal investment in the topic" leading to further suspicions that I'm being paid to get an article published. Catch-22 indeed.
My motivation: Like about 10,000 other folks I'm a long-time user of this pioneering web-base freeware cryptographic software product and believed (and believe) that it was (and is) as qualified to have a Wikipedia page as many (but by no means all) of the 30 or so password managers that have dedicated Wikipedia pages, including a number that are obsolete, defunct or have been acquired and merged.
I can understand a judgement of "not notable enough" (even if I don't agree). But I don't understand accusing novice contributors of breaking Wikipedia rules (i.e. cheating) with zero evidence (If I had a history of trying to get at least several commercial products to have Wikipedia pages, the evaluator might have a leg to stand on). Nor do I understand alleging "not-neutral-enough" without at least pointing to a sentence as an example so as to help the submitter resubmit with a better chance of success. But, if it's not notable enough, there's no non-masochistic point in resubmitting. That, at least, I do understand. Toddkatz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 14 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA[edit]

There are comments on the draft that it might need reorganization and that it might contain more than one topic. I would like assistance in addressing these issues. I don't understand what reorganization is needed, and without clear indication of what the editor meant by "more than one topic" I don't know where to even begin to address that. I also don't know how to find the editor who originally made the comment in order to ask them. Help would be appreciated. CognitiveMMA (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little but I'm not sure where the comment you refer to was made- but you can consult the edit history of the relevant page to see who made a comment, and a link to their user talk page will be provided there. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 14 January 2024 review of submission by SteinSonne[edit]

Support for Removed Article Hello, My draft article titled 'Demonsomnia' has been declined. It was an article that I had prepared with great care, and its removal has truly been a disappointment for me. I have a strong desire to create a well-organized and proper article while adhering to all the rules. I need your assistance. If I can learn the reason for the removal of my article, I may be able to identify my mistakes. Where did I go wrong? Thank you very much. SteinSonne (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SteinSonne I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft goes into too much detail about the game play and features. Any article about this upcoming game would need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines the term. It's doubtful that it will merit an article before it is released; once it is released, independent unsolicited reviews of the game by professional reviewers may exist which cam then be summarized. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined this again, @SteinSonne. Have a look at the essay WP:NVIDEOGAME which may help. I would suggest waiting for a few more sources to come along that discusses this video game and then add them, then re-submit. You may have to wait until it has been released.
Please rest assured you haven't done anything wrong. Wikipedia just has strict notability requirements. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Sunday123321[edit]

Should this have not been rejected as the source is the person themselves?:

Using the subject as a self-published source

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties;[d] it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Sunday123321 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Your draft may be resubmitted.
IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Any article about this person muat summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. If no such sources exist, she would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is IMDb Pro not IMDb, there is a differentiation between them, one allow anyone to make changes, the other does not- it only allows the account holder to make changes, unless I am mistaken.
The IMDb Pro biography states Serina Allam as the writer. Can I clarify, is a self bio not permitted as a source?
Philosophically, is one not presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?
Or are people who write self bios presumed to be guilty until proven innocent?
Who decides Wikipedia policy? Sunday123321 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community decides policy.
Primary sources like someone's autobiography cannot be used to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunday123321: sorry, does your question "Should this have not been rejected" mean to suggest that this should have been rejected rather than merely declined? If so, then yes, it could have been. Perhaps the reviewer was feeling generous and wanted to give you a second chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 14 January 2024 review of submission by 94.205.144.111[edit]

We need to publish because we are making a Wikipedia page, Regards CEO 94.205.144.111 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this draft is about (I have no idea what a "Slander" is) but in any case, a Wikipedia article summarised what 'independent reliable sources say about a subject. Unless there are several such sources, there is literally nothing that can go into an article (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable) and any attempt to create an article about it will fail. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MADEUP. Qcne (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 14 January 2024 review of submission by HaydnMillerUK[edit]

Most of my references do come from books and other forms of information physically but I did not think that it would work if I was to reference it as it is not from a site. Also, I found it hard because my online research came from one site, so the references would to quite small which is obvious. If there is any way I can do more to adding to the draft please tell me. HaydnMillerUK (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HaydnMillerUK, as long as the references are published with some sort of editorial control then you can use them. They can even be in Welsh! Format them as full references using WP:INTREFVE so that reviewers can verify the books etc exist. What was the one site you used- was it the treharrisdistrict one? The issue with that is that it seems to be a WordPress blog so I don't know how WP:RELIABLE it is. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 14 January 2024 review of submission by QTp-DGoat[edit]

I was told that a reference is missing but i think that i added the reference from the Hebrew counterpart, its basically just a translation and no changes were made so the same reference is used as it has all of the info of whats talked about in the page (the reference is in hebrew though so if it can't be used in an english page that may be the problem) QTp-DGoat (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see Translation. The key thing here is that different Wikipedias have different criteria for such things as referecing, and English Wikipedia is stricter than most.
An article relying on a single reference is almost never acceptable in English Wikipedia.
References in English are preferred if they are available, but if not, references in another language are perfectly acceptable, as long as they meet the requirements of the golden rule: reliably published, independent of the subject, and having significant coverage. It looks to me as if your one reference will be acceptable, but it is not enough.
Please review the requirements for notability in English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was told there are no references but i believe i copied the original reference from the hebrew page i translated QTp-DGoat (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this into the previous section. Please don't start a new section/topic but add to the existing one. (I had already answered this additional question above). --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 14 January 2024 review of submission by EvgeniyGolubev[edit]

Hi there. Could you please tell me why the References To Mohammed Abd Hassan that I am using to support the article are not reliable? Thank you. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EvgeniyGolubev, I am not a reviewer and do not speak Arabic but I think I can explain. Using Google Translate for a rough idea of what the sources say, it seems like many of your sources are stories that Mohammed Abd Hassan has written. These are not sources you can use on Wikipedia. You must look for sources like books about Mohammed Abd Hassan, or articles in newspapers (although keep in mind not all newspapers are reliable) - you must find information that someone else has written about him. Read through the reliable sources page for information on how to tell if a source is reliable. I hope this helps you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @StartGrammarTime, thank you for your message and recommendation. i would like that i didn't use any of Mohammed's Stories to write the Draft. most of the paragraphs in the Draft i used were from intervies with the writers and from the newspapers. unfortunately, there aren't any books about him, because he is a live writer and no many resources about his work. i collected the articles about him from different newspapers to write the draft. but i don't know how to make it acceptable. Thank you again for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Sunday123321[edit]

'Serina Allam is an actress, dancer and model' – this is written by Serina Allam as the source as per the IMDb Pro link - is a self bio not permitted as a source? Philosophically, is one not presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? Or are people who write self bios presumed to be guilty until proven innocent? It is not self evident from the IMDB Pro website with evidence of a video of her acting and dancing that is a fact? Is her profile picture not self evident that she is modelling?

Is the film listed not self evident from being able to view her in it on the IMDb Pro website? Sunday123321 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Self-published sources may be used in a limited way, but the bulk of the article must com from sources wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40, 14 January 2024 review of submission by EvgeniyGolubev[edit]

because I am using reliable resources and my article is not acceptable EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvgeniyGolubev: that's not a question. What did you want to ask?
The referencing in this draft remains inadequate: most of the content is unreferenced, and at least some of the sources cited are not appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing. thank you for your message. Most of the sources that i used in the Draft ar from newspapers and because the writer is not mentioned in books or international newspapers, it makes the resources difficult to obtain. Could you tell me the sources which are not appropriate. thank you for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_14&oldid=1197348043"