Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 May 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_May_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.
Hi, my article did not meet the criteria as it lacks multiple published sources that are indepth, reliable, secondary, and independant. Can anyone help me with how to make my article visible and correct through these measures
Hey, I have incorporated multiple reliable and independent sources in international and local websites, citing the popularity and impact of the serial as well. Yet, it is being rejected on the same basis, when I have addressed the matter. I can give a detailed reference assessment, if required, to justify the acception of an article. Please look into it. Reshmaaaa (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the reviewers who have "declined" (not rejected) on the basis of the sources being unreliable such as this which is non-bylined churnalism which is similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA as well as this one which is the same.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, I've gone through your first five sources; I only speak English so I'll be relying on machine translation for non-English sources.
Source 1, from Samaa TV, is about an actor, not about the series; it does not provide reliable, independent or significant coverage (you need all three);
Source 2, from Dawn News, is the same;
Source 3, from ARYNews, has basically nothing about the series and so can't be used either;
Source 4, from Independent Urdu, is an interview with an actor, which is not independent;
Source 5, from The Nation, is mostly about an actor, and the over-the-top praise and lack of a named writer means it's hard to see as reliable or independent. There's really very little about the series itself, as well.
Although I am not an AfC reviewer, if you presented me these sources in an existing article I would be removing your edit and asking for better sources. I agree with the reviewers thus far; you need better sources. Have a look at WP:42 to get an idea of what you need in a source: you will need at least three sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 in order to show us that this series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I hope this helps. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @StartGrammarTime, let me make an assessment of majority series references below;
[1] - This covers the female lead of the show, who made her debut with the series, briefly discussing the plot of the show.
[2] - It is about the female lead as well, focusing on her background and how she managed to get a role in the series after becoming viral.
[3] - covers the viewers reaction to released teasers of the show.
[4] - focuses on the critics views regarding female lead role.
[5] - shedding light on female lead incident where she went viral.
[6] - focuses on the main leads of the show and their pairing as a couple.
[7] - talks about plot of the story, where Abdul Bari, male lead takes a stand for her wife in the series.
[8] - people's reaction on the finale of the show.
[9] - written from the point of view regarding what should Pakistani people watch, where serial is listed and the plot is discussed in detail.
[10] - Here the article is about the most watched Pakistani dramas digitally and the show is discussed there as well in detail.
[11] - here it authenticates that show is being watched internationally by UK audience as well.
What else we should expect in the references section of a drama serial? All the references are covering the serial and it's title. Few sources have not mentioned the title but confirms the prevalence to the article. Express Tribune, Dawn, Samaa, Biz Asia, Urdu point are all reliable sources and looking one way or the other show has been covered from every aspect in the sources.Reshmaaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you ignored the source assessment by the three reviewers who declined plus another editor opining here says a lot. No amount of editing will make it notable unfortunately so not sure what else to say to help you. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is declined by two editors. The first time it was declined, made sense to me cause it required improvement at that time but this time I'm quite confident. Also @StartGrammarTime is not an AFC reviewer, so I'm just discussing it here and taking opinions and Sorry but yours are not convincing with regards to weak sources. Reshmaaaa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reassessment suggests that you're missing the point entirely. The assessment is supposed to directly evaluate the sources for reliability, independence, and being significantly about the subject. You simply list what the source is, not connect it with these crucial concepts, which has nothing to do with a source assessment. I do not think this draft is near ready to be published. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, did you read through WP:42? It will be very helpful to you, especially since it links to a lot of other policies. Remember that you need at least three sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42 to show the series is notable.
Adding more sources will not necessarily help you, since multiple reviewers are saying that the current sources don't show notability. Concentrate on better sources, evaluating them all against WP:42 and setting aside any that don't match. Reliable, independent, in-depth sources will give you most of what you'd want to put in your draft in any case, so lesser-quality sources can be replaced or discarded entirely. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa:, Seems to be a case of WP:IDHT. Based on your edit history and the studio this show represents, I am going to say this is likely not your first/only account you have used to edit Wikipedia either. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't assess https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1242776 (language barrier). Automated translation does not work. Assuming I accept your summary as the truth (which, as a rule, I do not), this would be at best unhelpful for eligibility (wrong subject).
https://www.aaj.tv/news/30447387 doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Once again, this is about one of the show's actors, with the show just lazily crossing the street in the background.
Of all the sources you present both here and on the draft, only one is an in-depth review of the show. The rest are more about the related actors/actresses while the show is trying to get a part as an extra crossing the street behind them. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques17:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:23, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Dead2late
Not sure if I put the references in correctly, as the links are old and I do not know where to place them when archival or alternative links exist. Dead2late (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dead2late, can you tell us whether you're using the Visual Editor or Source Editor? The Source Editor will have HTML code and Wikipedia's coding when you're editing, and the Visual Editor won't. If you're using the Source Editor, it's fairly straightforward: simply add archive-url= |archive-date= into your cite template, so for example your very first source would become:
<ref name="POY">{{Cite web|title=POYi Judges 2022|url=https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|website=Pictures of the Year International|access-date=2025-05-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625015253/https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|archive-date=2024-06-25}}</ref>
Make sure that at least one link works - if there's a page that's a 404 and no online archive exists, you may need to remove that citation or use a different template (Template:Cite news perhaps if you found it offline) so that the reviewer can access the reference and verify the information. Happy editing! 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting errors are not really a huge problem –they are fairly easily fixed, but you should be able to see that the lists of his works are weidly formatted, for instance.
More to the point, in order for this to be a viable article, there needs to be more independent and reliable sources, and the sources must be cited correctly. For example, the official website for Föreningen svenska tonsättare is listed as one source, but the link in the source leads to the main page fst.se, not to fst.se/tonsattare/stellan-sagvik which is where we can find information about Sagvik. (We don't expect our readers to search through a website to find the information – in particular not when it is a non-English website.)
There is also a bit of an issue with the writing style – it comes across as a CV rather than an encyclopedia article, and there are some Swenglishisms as well (though that's not hard to fix, and is not a reason the draft would be declined). Again, there should be more independent, reliable sources, and those are not hard to find! I just made a quick Google Scholar search, which yielded a respectable number of sources. Sources do not have to be in English to be acceptable, but they do have to meet the requirements outlined in the decline notice. --bonadeacontributionstalk13:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:35, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Superiorpro
I'm actually surprised it was merely declined rather than rejected. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. It looks a lot like you just wrote a story, loosely based on various religious concepts. Wikipedia contains articles about subjects, sourced by what reliable, independent parties have to say about those subjects. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15:37, 8 May 2025 review of submission by 50.213.135.153
Hello, I submitted an article for consideration. The article was generated using only information that was written in articles in newspapers, magazines or tv news stories with the sources provided. There were no other sources used yet the article was denied because of lack of sources. How do I get the article reconsidered with this information provided? 50.213.135.153 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I’m seeking another opinion on Draft:Jeffrey Prang, which was recently declined due to concerns about notability.
Prang is the elected Los Angeles County Assessor (the largest such agency in the U.S.) since 2014 and previously served four terms as Mayor of West Hollywood. He is also mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, including the Los Angeles County Assessor page.
The draft includes independent, reliable sources with significant coverage, such as two Los Angeles Times articles, reporting from the Beverly Press and WeHo Times, and official Los Angeles County reports and datasets.
I believe this meets both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. I’d really appreciate any additional feedback before resubmitting.
Hello! I interviewed Mauricio himself since there is, quite literally, no information on him on the internet. I got in contact with him through my clarinet professor who knows him personally. If that's he's only source I have, will I not be able to publish this article? How can I change my citation to better show the article's credibility? Sam Arcayna (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna information about him doesn't have to be on the internet, print sources such as books and newspapers are equally acceptable. But, if the only source you have is an interview that you conducted with him then you really have to question if he meets the notability criteria. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna Interviews with the subject are primary and non-independent sources, and are therefore useless for meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability. In addition, to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all sources must be available to the public in some form (but not necessarily online). WP:MUSICBIO lists additional ways that a musician can meet the notability guidelines, although reliable sources are still required in any case. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why my articles is beeing rejected, I have added all the references requested but it keeps getting rejected I would like to know what I should do to improve it... Thank you in advance for your help
Hello, @P.thechemist. Most of your sources are not independent of Paradisi. 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 exclusively 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) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]