Help desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

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.

August 30

00:41, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Joieva

Joieva (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jaye Sera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have followed all the instruction but I'm not sure why it's still rejected, what should I have done? Joieva (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joieva:, thanks for the post. Unfortunately, I must disagree with the claim that you followed all the instruction. You were advised several times that your draft did not meet notability guidelines. The rejections contained many links that explain how and what constitutes notability. Pointedly: notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. The onus was on you to read the guidelines linked to you, and either you did not do so, or refused to follow them or seek further assistance to understand them. You continually submitted the article no less than six times despite being warned it would be rejected if you did not make the requested improvements, and then went ahead and put it forth a seventh. It has not been (correctly in my view) rejected on a final basis. You have continually failed to provide secondary sources, and so the rejector has correctly taken this to mean that no additional references exist, meaning subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. As the draft is rejected, I'm afraid you have no further recourse and must abandon your efforts here. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:10, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Dj Makosam Official

Dj Makosam Official (talk · contribs)
- User:Dj Makosam Official/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please i dont know why you rejected my page Dj Makosam Official (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dj Makosam Official: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Francisasinatra

Francisasinatra (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Henry Buckley (American Jurist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The record-holder before Mr. Buckley had an article about him, so I am wondering why Mr. Buckley's case isn't notable enough. I think that I met my burden on providing relevant information about him. Please let me know how I can make this work. -Fred M. Francisasinatra (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Francisasinatra, did you look at the linked deletion discussion? Your first step needs to be overcoming the issues raised there. If you can do that, you'll also need some better sources - LinkedIn isn't acceptable, and your sources should discuss Buckley in some detail. Having his name listed along with other names isn't enough, and obituaries for family members don't tell us anything about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:26, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Abbaskip

Abbaskip (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Overeem Whisky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I'd like to understand in further detail why this article is being declined. There are multiple independent sources, with articles written specifically about the distillery - which I understand to be the primary criteria (as well as others which are just referencing certain stated facts). The brand is an established brand, available at mainstream retailers throughout Australia - and the references are no different to those provided on multiple Scotch Whisky distilleries of a similar age. Abbaskip (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left an explanation on the draft, as well as other comments on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen other articles like yours, please identify them so we can take action. Other inappropriate articles existing cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip: which sources do you think establish notability per WP:NCORP? Because I only found one myself, the Oz Whisky Review, and even that I'm not too sure about.

Additionally, I was going to add promotionality as a second decline reason. This reads like an online brochure to me.

Whether their products are available at retailers is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This sounds like an online brochure" is dismissive and entirely off the mark. Apart from the awards being mentioned, the article is generally about the history of the distillery, being founded, sold and bought back - plus the products they product. It's not a sales pitch at all.

Both Spirit Business references, Tasmanian Times article and the Shout all establish notability. Abbaskip (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem particularly invested in this topic. Are you associated with this business in some way?

The acquisition of this business by another, and the reversal of that acquisition, (what the Spirit sources document) are routine business activities that do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way related to the business, I work in an entirely different industry, live in a different state and don't know the business owners. I do drink the whisky though, and have noticed that the Australian whisky industry is severely under-represented on Wikipedia (likely) due to these sorts of rejections.

You're essentially moving the goal posts for a notability - as world industry awards certainly establish notabiliy, otherwise no whisky brands would be on Wikipedia (when basically every distillery in Scotland is). Abbaskip (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the precise section in WP:NCORP where it says that a company becomes notable by virtue of its products winning some awards? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'll provide you a list of 90% of Scotch whisky distilleries for your removal. Abbaskip (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, I cannot remove any page. I can request speedy deletion, or begin AfD discussion, but then again so can you. Feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate with any articles that you feel aren't up to scratch, including of course improving them as the preferred option.

You may also wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to learn to understand how conversation english works, since you're such an expert on encylopedic articles - and realise that my comment was to make a point, not to have the articles deleted.

This article is simply not being accepted as the various moderators here haven't heard of the brand themselves. There is generally very little written media to reference for Spirits brands beyond articles outlining award winners, reviews and materials that could be deemed promotional.

Look at Tamdhu Distillery as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamdhu_distillery Abbaskip (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that English (or even 'english') is not my first language. None of us are perfect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My typing certainly isn't perfect either (no edit in talk articles is strange), but I'd have thought that was a given in a back and forth (conversational) talk article.

I've removed a reference to "Casey's Shed" (despite this being a common whisky COMMUNITY term - not something 'affectionately known' by the industry or business itself (but hey, the wiki experts who know zero about Australian Whisky are here, so I need to get these things right).

I've added a CNN Travel reference, multiple other newspaper references - businesses buying businesses IS significant in the Australian whisky industry, especially when it's Lark (Australia's first established whisky distillery), and means the distillery moves with the purchase (something that was deemed sufficient notability in the Tamdhu Distillery article). Abbaskip (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not suggesting the Tamdhu article should be removed, nor that it's a bad article - simply that your standards of notability are off, due to your own biases. Abbaskip (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettercairn_distillery

Another distillery page just like Tamdhu listing essentially nothing but ownership information, and with one of the references being a simple distillery profile on a page that has an indexed profile for all Scotch Whisky distilleries.

Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. Abbaskip (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip "Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. "

I disagree wholeheartedly. Instead t is that the English Language Wikipedia has made ts acceptance criteria more robust since many articles were placed here. The Wild West of the early days has gone, and our poachers of yore have either gone or Become gamekeepers. In that 'spirit' I have just flagged Fettercairn distillery for additional referencing.

This is something you can help with, should you choose to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do the same with Tamdhu distillery?

You could also add Dalwhinnie Distillery? Another with similar sources.

In fact the vast majority of distillery articles have similar sources, because as mentioned this is what Notability looks like in the whisky industry. Abbaskip (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip That was done by another.

I am not sure that Dalwhinnie Distillery suffers from the same issues, but I have tagged it for inconsistent use of tense. I understand what you mean with regard to this industry. "Inherent notability" allows an article to exist, bit that does not say that referencing cannot be improved, nor that prose cannot be improved.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a substantial number of secondary, independent sources regarding Overeem whisky, the distillery etc now. Is it worth resubmitting now? I feel it's over referenced to be honest, and I'm finding it extremely hard to not make the primary article look more like a marketing piece than it apparently already is, but legitimately cite other references for notability. Essentially the things that make it notable are things that make it look a marketing piece. I've also changed some language and removed some pieces that should also make the article read less like a flyer.

Sincere thanks for your very useful feedback and honesty, really is much appreciated and helpful Abbaskip (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip Three references are contraindicated by their reliability:

I would look at them with care and make a decision.

One source of over-referencing is the products section. Assuming you link in external links to the corporate website (just one link, please) and I have not checked, I would drop this entire section, unless a particular product is particularly special, when it needs a reference to say so.

I suggest you scour the prose for phraseology such as "returning to the family" whcih really is purple prose and eliminate anything that looks as if written for a magazine.

I feel it is acceptable currently, though somewhat vulnerable. Tightening it up, cutting elements, will remove the vulnerability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look now. I understand that copying other articles is fraught with danger - however the product list is extremely common on Whisky Distillery Wikipedia articles, as it's an important aspect that defines the type of product the distillery offers, is factual and isn't subjective. The links were generally to the corp website and product range though, so I'll update.

I'm interested in why you think those references/sources are potentially not reliable?

I'll also work on language.

Thanks again Abbaskip (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip I have a gadget that colour codes them based upon a table of sources. I get Green, no colour, amber, and red. These are amber. That alerts a "Stare hard at this" response. One is a blog, which tend to be generated with limited or no editorial oversight. Without checking again, one feels very much like churnalism, and the other is one you should study based upon those clues.

Just because other articles on distilleries do something does not mean those are correct. These things become self perpetuating if we don't take care. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip You might also reduce the number of citations per fact. Once cited it is cited. More is by no means necessarily better than a single citation. Choosing the best is key before discarding others.

Note that opinions here differ on this point. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry the multiple edits are because I was doing it on my phone. I was clearing up sources, removing some of those I figured weren't needed and also trying to make the language more succinct and encyclopedic in some places.

I believe I've addressed the issue around notability and sources already, and have removed some of the other sources. Abbaskip (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the first section of the article referencing that the distillery was the 4th in Tasmania, that it was considered one of Australian Whisky's founding distilleries, and then redid most of the first paragraph of the History section to avoid double up, but it seems to have disappeared? I also can't find it in version history? Abbaskip (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip It cannot be absent from the history of the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it again, based on your note. The prior edit mustn't have properly saved or similar. Abbaskip (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit your own comments to fix errors- click "edit" in the section header. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for this. Abbaskip (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out another problematic article that needs action taken- I've marked it as such. We're only as good as those who participate, and we need help to weed out inappropriate content that isn't suitable as an example. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion this is promotional, and I would have added that as a decline reason. You're entitled to have a different opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft actually says (affectionately known as "Casey's Shed"), which is so unencyclopedic and non-neutral and cloyingly promotional that it calls everything else into question. An encyclopedia does not instruct its readers what to be affectionate about. That's just the most blatant example of promotional content. I fully endorse "This sounds like an online brochure" which is what any experienced, uninvolved editor would say after reading this. Print it up on glossy paper and hand it out at adult beverage trade shows. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to remove that from the draft. That was a term used amongst the Australian Whisky Community (drinkers, not industry - I have no idea what they industry do). Abbaskip (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Kanapala Zenith

Kanapala Zenith (talk · contribs)
- Why my article is declined? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let me know necessary corrections in my article. Kanapala Zenith (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User:Kanapala Zenith/sandbox

Your draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Shamsuddin Haider

Shamsuddin Haider (talk · contribs)
- Draft:State Board of School Examinations (Sec.) & Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

problems in this article will be fixed now Shamsuddin Haider (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamsuddin Haider: this draft has been rejected. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't available previously, you may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Adari Aravind

Adari Aravind (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Adari Anand Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Iwaqar,

I'm Aravind from Visakhapatnam. The subject of this article belongs to a political family in Anakapalle district and he leads a 2000+ crores annual turnover dairy company called Visakha Dairy. So, I kindly request you to do research on him and revert for the consideration of publishing it into Wiki.

Thanks & Regards, Aravind Adari Aravind (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adari Aravind unfortunately you did not think to provide references to show what, if any, notability the subject has, which has led to rejection. You share names with the subject. If this is an autobiography may I counsel you against creating one. Very few people indeed are able to be unbiased about themselves.

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read HELP:YFA and WP:REFB.

This place is for asking for assistance, not for asking someone to create your (presumed) autobiography. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, the draft's been recreated - would you mind having a look to see if it's been improved at all, or whether it's largely identical? It looks very promotional to me, but I didn't see it pre-speedy. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for additional work. Thank you, @StartGrammarTime, for suggesting I look. It feels much more positive now, though still feels somewhat like a paean of praise in the tone. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adari Aravind: The burden of meeting our sourcing and content policies is on those who want the content created/added, not on helpers at a noticeboard. You need to put in the work and look for sources if you want the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft hasn't been edited since it was declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Finlay550

Finlay550 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Luke pickles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, just wondering further in detail what the minimums are? Cheers. Finlay550 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Finlay550! The subject of your draft does not appear to be notable per the biographies notability guideline. Please find a few in-depth, third-party sources that establish their notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay550 Certainly. Please read WP:BIO which should give you a great baseline 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finlay550. Your draft has two sources, neither of which is reliable (that's right, we don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, because it is user-generated), and neither of which is about Pickles.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published about the subject - nothing less, and very little more. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Warshipnyc

Warshipnyc (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Venhue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I’m trying to help document unique restaurants in New York City, starting with my neighborhood of East Village. Is there anything specific for this page that needs to be edited for approval? A friend of mine did Foxface Natural’s page Warshipnyc (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshipnyc Unique does not always, perhaps does not often, equate to passing WP:NCORP, which you should study.

This draft was rejected yesterday, which means it will not proceed further 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Warshipnyc. The way that you wrote the article makes it seem like you're interested in promoting the business. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you provide an example? I would like to change any wording that seems like it is promoting. Warshipnyc (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7

Cooldudeseven7 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have gotten declined once and at the moment I have done a lot of changes and also got quite alot of help from other wikipedians. I would like to know if my article, Fuller GT Magnet Elementary is suitable for resubmission? If not, please notify me with tips. Thank you, Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but a quick scan through the sources tells me they're all either primary, or routine business reporting, neither of which contributes towards notability per WP:ORG. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooldudeseven7, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which says Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). Your draft does not make a clear claim to notability. If a school is on the National Register of Historic Places or the equivalent in other countries, then it qualifies. If the school's architecture is so unusual and distinctive that it has been written about extensively in multiple reliable architecture magazines and books, then it qualifies. Winning an award from a non-notable organization that is also given to 279 other schools is not a clear claim to notability. And piping "Magnet school" to "Magnet Schools of America" is poor quality editing because it implies that the notability of that organization has been established, and it hasn't. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Alright, Thank you. So, do I just delete the article I suppose? Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 18:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thank You. Should I go ahead and delete the Draft Article? Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Laurisam

Laurisam (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Prytanean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Wikipedia submission was rejected because it was deemed “not sufficiently notable.” I believe it does meet the criteria but may need guidance on how to better demonstrate this. Could you advise on how to strengthen the article? Laurisam (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurisam Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. An organization being old doesn't make it notable. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss how the organization is notable as defined by Wikipedia that you have not yet provided, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Nangthang

Nangthang (talk · contribs)
- Draft:PDF Zoland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I been trying make PDF Zoland (Zomi Federal Union) Articles, it keep getting deny. How can I improve it? Nangthang (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told several times why your article keeps being rejected. It's a short stub without sufficient sources. Please go back and read the templates and comments left on the draft. Thanks — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]