Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


August 20

[edit]

00:00, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 158.181.83.238

[edit]

How can Wikipedia ignore this important Professor of Labour Law at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland? Can you help solve this problem? 158.181.83.238 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted the draft for review? When you're ready, click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button and a reviewer will check it out. C F A 💬 03:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on a quick look, it doesn't appear to me as if a single one of your cited sources meets the triple criterion of being reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule. Without several sources which do meet these criteria, no draft can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and be accepted as an article.
I believe the notability criteria for academics are a bit different, but they depend on evidence of the subject's work being accepted and cited, which again your draft does not do.
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) 10:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 20 August 2024 review of submission by TheDutchArchivist

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to the website, most of my activity is fixing or expanding information on pre-existing Dutch movie articles. (I'm from the Netherlands) A few days ago, I created a draft of SpangaS op Survival, a Dutch film based on the TV series that Disney distributed in the Netherlands around 2009. When I submitted it, it was rejected because of the lack of reliable sources, the sources I originally added to the article were from official websites related to the film. I have a question regarding editing articles in general, what sources/websites are considered reliable for articles about film and television? I'm not an expert on it and I need help regarding this field so that I can improve my wiki skills. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDutchArchivist: my guess is that the reason why this was declined for insufficient referencing is that most of the information in the draft is not supported by citations, so it's not clear where the info is coming from. Personally, I would have probably declined this instead for lack of notability, because it doesn't seem to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Do mediums like newspapers, magazines or old archived websites from that report on the film count as reliable and add to the citations? even if it's from a different country that isn't the US? I think that could work.TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDutchArchivist: newspapers, magazines, and other secondary sources are pretty much the gold standard (assuming of course they are reliable and independent), so yes. And they don't have to be from any particular country, or in any particular language; non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. Also, they don't have to be online, although if you're citing offline sources please make sure to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate your help, I will re-submit the article again once I found enough sources. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't see emphasised in the replies above, TheDutchArchivist, is that most of the sources (and all those used to establish notability, need to be wholly independent of the subject. 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) 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Dutch person, I can confirm that these are good sources and independent from the subject. The Algemeen Dagblad is a national newspaper with no vested interests in te film, the Kijkwijzer is a reliable source, IMDb is a reliable source, the Netherlands Film Festival uses the NFF Archive as a source, Nu.nl is a national news site, and AllesOverFilm also has a good reputation. Luijtenphotos (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos, please do not try to give other editors advice on reliable sources when you don't know what en-WP sees as reliable. IMDb is not acceptable as a source here, since it relies on user-generated content. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use IMDB as a source though, I used BoxOfficeMojo though TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Satipem

[edit]

I just created an article about the regional news channel. Can somebody please improve the problems and move the article to the original. Satipem (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how this works, @Satipem - if you want an article on this subject to exist, you need to do the work yourself. This includes finding and citing sources, as well as writing the draft. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it for you, but first you need to establish that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Read Your First Article if you haven't already, and then see whether you can improve your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Piwiki504

[edit]

Hello my initial draft for this page was rejected a few months ago for insufficient sources, and I can see that some others have since contributed to it, but it's been rejected again. I can see there are now a lot more sources referenced. What more will be needed for approval? Piwiki504 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwiki504 Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
This draft does little more than tell about the topic. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has not yet been demonstrated. This does not require more sources, it requires better sources. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Ggzion

[edit]

My draft was declined after the reviewer commented that the sources were not reliable. While yes, I had used the school's own website as sources most of the time, I found that the instances I used them as sources were ones were there was no opportunity for any other references to be used. For example, when I was talking about leadership specific to the school (coordinators for each grade), I cited the official website of the school as there wouldn't be any newspaper/other website reviewing this. Ggzion (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ggzion The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic(a school in this case), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. An article should not merely document existence. In the past, before current guidelines were developed, many articles about schools were created that merely show existence, but guidelines have become tighter since then, and volunteers have not yet removed older articles.
If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the school would not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Ggzion (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443

[edit]

i want to create a page or article about my state progress between the period of 2024 to 2029. Please help me 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your first article.
You need to start by finding several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule.
Then you summarise what those sources say about the subject.
Your thoughts, knowledge, and conclusions have no place in an article: it should just be a summary of what the independent reliable sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

This is the simplest page I have created from home that includes the latest work with source code and is about the god. It has been created for common people and should be respected. Robstat7 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reply I have just given to the previous section, #19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

This is notable topic. Please provide me volunteers to help improve this page. Robstat7 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

Thank you for your kind guidance. Actually this page doesn't have a COI. Robstat7 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please don't keep starting new sections here: add to the existing section.
2. Your draft has been rejected, for the reasons I gave above. Please stop. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads for this draft will be reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

[edit]

02:40, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Bérangère444

[edit]

Good day everyone, the article I wrote on Okinawan prehistory got rejected because it did not have enough references. There are currently 34 articles and books in the references. I can find more, but could someone tell me how many I will need to be accepted? Bérangère444 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bérangère444, it's not rejected for not having enough references. It's been declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources - ie, the sources aren't good enough, not that they are too few. But I'm not sure why you were given this decline. It seems fine. I'll have a more detailed look and resubmit+accept it if I don't find anything problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, thanks for your quick reply! If it's a problem of reliability I'm not sure how I can solve that, most of the people I put in the references are professors in universities or work at archaeological departments here. Shall I provide curriculum for each? Well, there is still the possibility you'll find the article correct after all! Bérangère444 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:03, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

Dear sir/mam, this page is original and notable in the sense that it works on the real intel 64-bit computer system and both its structure and functioning is completely different from (Unix/Multics) operating system kernel. Please review my draft again carefully. Please. Robstat7 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous responses you've received for this question. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, if you are kind enough, could you please tell me what is "exactly" missing? Robstat7 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7 If I'm perfectly honest, the answer is "everything". Please have a look at other articles on Wikipedia and read WP:FIRST and follow the links there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you consider my draft unique and different from other wikipedia articles? It is not about the guidelines but having something completely different on wikipedia. Robstat7 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robstat7 Why should you or your work be given special treatment that the other 8 billion people on this planet would also like, but not get? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is. I doubt how many of you are from the operating system kernel development background who can understand my work. Robstat7 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for you to write about your work. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with a topic say about it, not what those associated with it say. You've given no reason why you should be treated differently then everyone else who wants special treatment. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you want notability, right? Do you what will happen to the whole wikipedia if the outsiders come to know the truth of notability? Robstat7 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd certainly have a lot less work to do as AfC reviewers! Don't threaten us with a good time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: well don't keep us in suspense... what is "the truth of notability"? (Just between you, me and the gatepost; we won't tell the outsiders.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is my final warning. Publish the draft in 5 minutes. Robstat7 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favour, don't go there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been published yet. Robstat7 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing give me the status update. Robstat7 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no update. We will not be publishing your draft. -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are not interested in your proselytising, and the parts of the article that are not proselytising are so vague as to be completely and utterly meaningless even to a layperson. You have refused to source or defend your draft beyond making vague threats, non-sequiturs, and ultimatums. I foresee an indefinite block in your future if you carry on like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Brianfahmiguntara

[edit]

Hello admin. My name is Brian Fadli from Indonesia. I am writing this letter to request assistance in reviewing and developing the article about Huanyu Entertainment, which is currently in the draft stage.

Huanyu Entertainment is a company with significant influence in the entertainment industry, and I hope this article can provide accurate and comprehensive information to readers. However, I realize that this article still needs a lot of improvement and development to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

I humbly request the help of experienced admins and contributors of Indonesian Wikipedia to assist in developing this article. Your suggestions, feedback, and assistance will be greatly appreciated in ensuring that this article is suitable for publication and can benefit the broader community.

Thank you very much for your attention and support.

Sincerely,

Brian Fadli Brianfahmiguntara (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brianfahmiguntara You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this may take some time, please be patient. You will be given feedback if it is not accepted. If you have a more specific question, please ask here.
You speak of the Indonesian Wikipedia- that is a separate project from this one, with its own editors and policies. You will need to go there and be familiar with their requirements for writing a new article. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Useless D. Mid

[edit]

It is very notable, it was one of the most popular horror video games especially among generation alpha a few months back and I don't understand why you would class it as not notable enough Useless D. Mid (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Useless D. Mid: this draft has been rejected (for the second time), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Wikimartinaa

[edit]

This is correct information, please see it is important for farming people, it will help them Wikimartinaa (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimartinaa: I suggest you drop this matter. I've already said you're not allowed to edit under any account or IP address when you've been blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:35, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Writer.domain.amm

[edit]

Hey guys,

I'm curious as to why mine was rejected when mine is submitted for review and the other is drafted. I also already looked up my topic to make sure there wasn't another article about it, and when I began the draft, Wiki said that it was the only of it's topic.

Why was my published article rejected for a draft created after mine? Writer.domain.amm (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer.domain.amm: I take it you're referring to Draft:Angela Giarratana as the 'other' draft? It hasn't been submitted for review, so arguably yours shouldn't have been declined on that basis. Yours would/could/should be declined for insufficient referencing, though, so in that sense the outcome would be the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I'm still figuring out how this messaging thing works. I didn't know it was a board, I thought it would go to my reviewer so that the subject commentary was flush. My bad on the confusion.
The article was rejected for another article existing (the aforementioned draft) with the same name.
Have a good one :) Writer.domain.amm (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Rossamccloskey17

[edit]

I am wondering why my article was taken down for copyright without any copyrighted material included in it.

Thanks! Rossamccloskey17 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossamccloskey17 I fixed your link, you need to include the "Draft:" portion. I can't access the website the content was from, but unless the text was explicitly released under a license allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution, it cannot be on Wikipedia. You shouldn't just be copying the content of your website here anyway- any article about your center must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rossamccloskey17: I cannot see the content as it has been deleted, but the reviewer found it to be a copyright violation of the material on the centre's website, and the attending administrator concurred. This is highly unlikely to happen for no reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SparagusGamer

[edit]

So from what i understand the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article and has to be scraped? SparagusGamer (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SparagusGamer: not quite so. The draft was declined because it doesn't (yet) show that the subject is notable. You need to provide evidence of notability, either according to the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PRODUCER notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any articles about the subject from "reliable sources", does that mean that the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article? Sparaguss (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SparagusGamer: quite possibly. Essentially, we summarise what independent and reliable sources have previously said about a subject. If there are no such sources available, then they cannot be summarised, and consequently it isn't possible to base a Wikipedia article on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SigmundaFreud

[edit]

Hi I keep submitting the page with references as asked but it keeps getting rejected - can anyone please tell me what I need to do to get it over the line? SigmundaFreud (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SigmundaFreud I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established that this person meet the definition of a notable creative professional. You have documented their work, but not summarized independent sources that discuss what makes them notable. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud: primary sources do not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud, you have gotten some great advice, but if you don't mind I'd like to add some more.
First: slow down, there's no rush. Take your time to improve the article, finding suitable sources, before you submit it. If you keep submitting sources that aren't suitable, sooner or later a reviewer will decide there just aren't any good sources and will reject the draft. As 331dot said, rejection is the end of the line, so you want to avoid that!
Second: find good sources. With Wikipedia articles, sources are the most important thing. The article summarizes what's in the sources, nothing more. Many new editors write their draft and then look for sources, which is going backwards. Here's your crash course in good source finding!
Good sources, ones you can use to establish notability, must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). Sources must meet all three criteria, so if a source has significant coverage in a reliable source but it's an interview (not independent), that source doesn't show your subject is notable. Because you're writing about a living person, you also need to follow WP:BLP (biographies of living people). If you haven't read that yet, please do!
Once you've found your sources, make sure you know how to cite them correctly. You've gotten most of the way there, but citations need to have more information than just a URL. Referencing for beginners may be helpful here.
Finally, I'm going to do a quick check of your first five sources, so you can get an idea of how they'll be looked at. Remember, you want to establish your subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, so as many sources as possible should match WP:42 to make it very clear he's notable.
Source 1, Vanity Fair: this is a single sentence quoting the subject; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not independent)
Source 2, GQ: there are only photo credits; it does not show notability (as above)
Source 3, Esquire: same as source 2
Source 4, BAFTA: this is a promotional biography; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not reliable, not independent)
Source 5, WWD: this includes photo credits and a single line about the subject; see source 1.
So none of your first five sources are any good to you. They show Charlie Gray is a photographer, but there are millions of photographers in the world. You need to establish that Charlie Gray is a well-known, notable photographer. Look for articles about his work, or books, or even academic papers - people writing about him who are doing so only because they think he's great (or terrible - you can be notable for being really bad at something!)
I hope that's been helpful for you, and that you have a better idea of what to do from here. If you want another quick source check later on, please feel free to come to my talk page and say hi - and if I've been unclear, ask for clarification and if I don't show up soon someone else definitely will. Good luck on your source hunt, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! SigmundaFreud (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Guidance on Vaibhav Palhade Draft Article

[edit]
Moved from WT:AN

Hello,

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 Ballal2003 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ballal2003! The most recent concern was that Palhade did not satisfy WP:NWRITER, which has specific requirements. Which of the criteria do you believe he meets? Keep in mind that if none of them apply, he may still be notable under WP:GNG, the General Notability Guidelines - or he might not be notable at all, of course, but let's presume he is for the moment. My suggestion is to find sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). Only these sources prove notability - other sources might be usable for very basic details like someone's birthday or children's names, but you can't use them as the evidence of notability that you need.
When I am looking for sources, my first step is to Google the subject in quote marks, like this: "Vaibhav Palhade". Usually the main tab is not helpful, because it will give you his social media and his website, and they are not independent and therefore not useful for notability. News, Books and Scholar are often where the good stuff is. Interviews are not independent, so anything that says things like 'we spoke to Vaibhav Palhade...' or 'Vaibhav Palhade tells us about...' in the preview Google gives you can be immediately discounted as well. If you find articles (or books, etc) that are not interviews and not on the subject's website, pull up the list of perennial sources and start cross-checking. Some publishers, as you've found, are considered unreliable and so you have to get rid of those sources too.
You already have some sources, so I will give you a quick analysis of the first five!
Source 1, by Chaturvedi, could be reliable and independent but is very short and doesn't really tell us much. Nevertheless, it's worth keeping for the moment - but if there are better sources that give us the same information, choose them instead.
Source 2, from Sakal, is reporting something Palhade has written, so it's not independent and can't show notability.
Source 3, by Bhandari, is suspicious - it's got a lot of what we call peacock words, which means intense praise. Words like 'impeccable talent', 'perfectly', and so on may indicate the writer is biased. I would not include this if I were you; it doesn't seem independent.
Source 4, from ABP Live, is a 404 at the moment - check your link.
Source 5, from Patrika, is mostly about things Palhade said, so it's also not independent.
I hope this has been helpful to you. Please feel free to ask questions if something is unclear, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Ballal2003

[edit]


THE MESSAGE WAS ALREADY SHIFTED HERE BY SENIOR EDITOR & MISTAKENLY REPOSTED HERE BY ME.PLEASE HELP ME TO REMOVE THIS REPEATED MESSAGE.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballal2003 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Hello,[reply]

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 

Ballal2003 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered you on the Help desk, @Ballal2003. Please don't post questions in more than one place. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Dr. Carrotflower

[edit]

The "Submission declined" message tells me that my article doesn't have good enough coverage but I don't understand what more, specifically, I could mention. I would love some feedback on this. Ideally, tell me the information that should be there, that is not. Thank you. Dr. Carrotflower (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Carrotflower: An obituary in the NYT is always a good indicator of notability in my experience, but reviewers will generally expect at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage to be in the article in order to accept. I found this in-depth article in the LA Times and this article in photographmag.com, which, combined with the NYT article, may alone be enough for notability. Newspapers.com is down for me right now, but I can see many articles with significant coverage on newspaperarchive.com (e.g. this in the Mesa Tribune), so I have accepted the draft. C F A 💬 23:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

[edit]

03:17, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Charcot Cinq

[edit]

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and I do not understand the grounds on which my draft article has been declined: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

I've read all the guidelines. I believe the subject is notable as she has received significant coverage from independent sources as can be seen from the list of references.

I have made an enormous effort to use as many citations as possible to published, reliable, secondary sources (e.g. the BBC and Guardian) to verify the points in the article. If there are references which could be considered 'passing' it's where the subject is mentioned in a list of similar subjects (e.g. "Yin was named by The Evening Standard Magazine as one of the top tastemakers in the London food scene in June 2017.") which is unavoidable.

I also looked at published articles on similar subjects on Wikipedia to ensure I had a template to mirror when I started creating my article, and I believe the one I've put together exceeds in independent, good quality references compared to some of them.

Please could someone help by explaining in more specific detail the references which are not good enough by Wikipedia's standards?

Thank you. Charcot Cinq (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charcot Cinq: a quick scan through the sources suggests that they're mainly reviews of her book or restaurant, plus a few brief author profiles and similar, rather than significant coverage of herself as a person. So that I don't have to go through all 29 sources, can you tell me the 3-5 that you feel best meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. that are independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of her? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. Of the 29 sources I listed, I guess this one has the most significant coverage of herself as a person: https://www.greatbritishchefs.com/features/sambal-shiok-malaysian-laksa-mandy-yin. I didn't use the following two articles as citations but they also cover Yin as a person:
https://setthetables.com/mandy-yin-sambal-shiok-laksa-bar-london-cookbook-launch/
https://www.tatlerasia.com/dining/food/mandy-yin-sambal-shiok-cookbook-laksa-bar-london
I can add them to the references for the draft if you confirm that this is the right thing to do and will help get my article approved. Charcot Cinq (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charcot Cinq: the first GBC article is mostly a restaurant review, but yes, it does alongside that also cover her directly. I'm not sure the source is particularly reliable, with editorial oversight and fact-checking etc., but I can't say categorically that it's unreliable, either. The other two are her talking, so aren't independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is the first one enough to go on? Or can it only be published once myself of other editors can add other coverage? Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charcot Cinq The personal life section is uncited, and shouldn't mention the name of her minor child(unless the child themselves merits an article). How do you know this information? 331dot (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a foodie, Malaysian food in London in particular and follow lots of Instagram accounts of restaurants and chefs I like, Yin/Sambal Shiok is one of them and she occasionally mentions her husband and son in her IG stories. I also have her cookbook and her family is mentioned by name in it. I shall remove the personal life section before resubmitting for review as it's true that it's uncited. I thought I had to include this info as other similar profiles on writer/chefs in Wikipedia had a 'personal life' section. Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be a personal life section if you have citeable information to go in it. It would be okay to cite her social media for the name of her husband(though the child's name would have to stay out, as indicated) but if that's the only piece of information that would be there, it doesn't need its own section.
Just to clarify, we don't have profiles here, we have articles. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understood. Will remove the section. Charcot Cinq (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited and resubmitted for approval, could someone have a look at it please? Charcot Cinq (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

The Little Z page was declined because YouTube was commonly in the sources. I was looking through some other articles, and a lot of similar people to Little Z have their respective pages filled with YouTube as the sources almost entirely, like Alpharad for example. I think it makes sense, as my claim that he makes videos on YouTube about smash bros where he did a certain thing, can be proved by the video on YouTube he made about smash bros where he did said certain thing. There aren't many articles being written about YouTube videos or obvious reasons, so it's difficult to find other sources for him. If anyone could give me advice, it would be very appreciated, thank you. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan: you can cite this person's YouTube videos when you're mentioning them, but you can't establish their notability by citing only their YouTube videos. In other words, you can't claim that this person is notable because they make YouTube videos, and as evidence of that, cite some YouTube videos they've made. No person or thing can establish their own notability, otherwise everything would be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's difficult to find sources other than YouTube videos connected with them, that should be taken as a sign that they may not be notable. As for Alpharad's article, there probably needs to be a bit of trimming there, too, but at least there's a good deal of sourcing that is independent and reliable. In any case, you can't rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there isn't enough interesting articles on him not for a lack of notability, but because there isn't much to say about subjects involving him, as he isn't controversial and is in Australia not America. He has several hundreds of millions of views without creating short-form content, and is considered a sort of celebrity compared when meeting people like Marss so is arguably more notable in that way, even though that's using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. I can go add more independent sourcing on him, because they do exist, I figured the page would be better without those though. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing isn't just an option, it is the option, and is the very basis for how English Wikipedia works. Without independent sourcing, there's no meaningful source for anything to be written on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I'll go work on it. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Rejected a month ago today, but with a couple dozen sources (and most importantly, an above-average "Reception" section) to show for it. There is primary use of the topic's own material for refs, but as for the rest, I can't quite put a finger on it. Putting this literature draft up for reconsideration/review. (Filing on behalf of page creator StruMus (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. On one hand, the majority of the citations are to the subject itself, or to Struwig's (who seems to be the author of this draft, also?) PhD thesis, neither of which helps us much. On the other hand, the first few sources listed in the bibliography suggest that this received plenty of serious attention in the 80s, which would seem to make it notable by definition. Due to the style of referencing, and with most sources being offline, this is tricky to rule in or out with any certainty. If I had to make the call, on the basis of "more likely than not to survive an AfD" I would probably release it into the wild and let the community deal with it as it sees fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @DoubleGrazing and @Slgrandson! Thanks for looking into this. The encyclopedia certainly got serious attention in the 1980s - both in South Africa and abroad, as you can see from the reception section. Most of the referenced sources are articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Because they date from the 1980s, some of them are unfortunately not yet digitised (older journals are often not digitised in South Africa due to a lack of funding/resources). In South Africa, the encyclopedia remains the only such large-scale publication on South African music and musicians. As a result, it is still being used by researchers today. Let me know if I need to change the referencing style in any way, but I can certainly vouch for the notability of the encyclopedia. StruMus (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 22 August 2024 review of submission by JonathanCarty410

[edit]

How can I make this submission acceptable? JonathanCarty410 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JonathanCarty410: this draft has been rejected already, you should not resubmit it.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.
And regardless of that, every subject must be shown to be notable, in order to be accepted into the encyclopaedia. There is no evidence of notability here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Oceanview99

[edit]

I believe this page should be resubmitted, as there is a lot more on the subject person than one event. Besides national coverage of the subject, they are heavily involved in political campaigns and has substantial information released on his background as well. Oceanview99 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanview99: well, you're of course welcome to make a case for it, by appealing directly to the last (rejecting) reviewer. But you need a persuasive, policy-based argument for doing so, not just that you "believe". Although I add that when four different experienced reviewers think the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, there's probably a reason for that.
What is your relationship with this person? All of your edits to date have to do with this subject, and you uploaded a photo of him as your own work, meaning you must have been at close quarters at least on that occasion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Guilderbell

[edit]

Hello,

Immanuel Velikovsky has his own page on wiki. Charles Ginenthal took up the mantle of Velikovsky's ideas regarding science, cosmology and catastrophism. He has published many books regarding these topics and I feel you cannot have a full discussion on wiki and catastrophism in general without mentioning all the great work this man has done for this avenue of science. I know I am knew to editing wikipedia but I would greatly like to see Charles Ginenthal have a page that at least delves into the bibliography of his books and I am hoping that others with expertise on his books will be able to contribute to the page with knowledge of his theories, and scientific studies he did as well as his fierce defense of Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas. Guilderbell (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guilderbell: that shouldn't be a problem. You just need to support the draft with reliable sources (see WP:REFB for advice on referencing), and demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E

[edit]

What can I do, to fix this submission? 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The subject isn't notable enough to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. See WP:WHYNOGARAGE.. C F A 💬 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite Spotify (streaming website), Apple Music/iTunes (online storefront), or YouTube en generale (unknown provenance). Take those away, and you have zero sources, fatal for any draft and especially so for an article about a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lvlyqtrn

[edit]

Why was this article rejected even though it was written using an objective point of view and with several existing and reliable sources according to the author Lvlyqtrn (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvlyqtrn: because there is no evidence of notability, the draft is purely promotional, and you seem to be collaborating with the other account working on this, Qatrin's page, and you probably both have a conflict of interest that you've not disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lumberingreconnoitre

[edit]

The article was denied for not having reliable sources. I'm not sure I understand.

All sources I used are the original source of the information, except for the medium article. The 2b2t.org sources are reliable as that is the official blog of the 2b2t server.

My guess is maybe the youtube sources are not reliable ? For example I source a YouTube video for the digital drone delivery part under History as its the best source we have as the company has not released their code. Should I remove this section and resubmit ?

Thank you for the opportunity to resubmit. This is my first time making a whole wikipedia article and I want to write articles on lots of the smaller online businesses of MMOs. Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YouTube is not a reliable source(as anyone can put anything on YouTube without editorial review and fact checking) unless the video is from a news outlet on its verified channel. Wikipedia doesn't want to know what this platform says about itself, as that is not an independent source.
Are you associated with this platform? 331dot (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the video has millions of views and is by a verified channel. i am not associated with 2b2t.shop. Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumberingreconnoitre. 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) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with 2b2t.shop sorry Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Inigo.novales

[edit]

I would like to know how long I have to make changes and resubmit this draft. I am hoping for a long extension, as I am waiting for the McGill Department of Physics to publish a list of MacDonald Professors of Physics and for Web of Science to correct some of RT Sharp's publications, which have been misattributed. Thanks. Inigo.novales (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit on how long a draft may remain, except that if it is unedited for six months it may get deleted (and even then, you can ask for it to be restored).
You have submitted it for review - there is no way of telling whether it will get reviewed in minutes or months, as this depends on when one of the volunteer reviewers sees it and decided to pick it up and review it.
Whether or not the draft is accepted depends on whether it is adequately sourced by independent reliable sources: sources from his employer may be used to verify uncontroversial factual information such as dates, but do not contribute in any way to establishing notability. For a living person, every piece of information in the draft should be sourced.
Likewise, the presence or absence, or accuracy of attribution, of his works will not affect whether the draft is accepted (unless the draft misrepresents what is in the cited sources). You can continue to work on the draft while it is waiting for review, and (if it is accepted) once it becomes an article. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 67.6.204.10

[edit]

- So we can't read information from original album book, and type up the info for use in Wikipedia? - Nor use info from Discogs that is confirmed in the original album book? - I submitted INFO that correlated with original album book release, to help others who might be looking for the info. It took me a few hours. Tried to understand your system, but not worth it.

You can delete this page whenever you choose. No one can access it anyway.

THANKs! 67.6.204.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not what we do here, we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've interpreted your comment as a deletion request; if you want it back to attempt to do as we need, I can restore it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Vaqarmaz

[edit]

What are the reliable sources you are looking for in this article? Vaqarmaz (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB to learn how to add footnotes to articles. WP:RS explains reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Vaqarmaz

[edit]

Please tell us where we need to improve this article to publish. Could you please list the objections so we can correct them. Vaqarmaz (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

[edit]

06:17, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Bonejoint

[edit]

There is a suggested change to the current article "title". The suggested new title is "LAMA2 muscular dystrophy". This title is more comprehensive and inclusive of other disease subtypes. 

Bonejoint (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonejoint: The proper way to do this is to follow the WP:Requested moves process on Talk:LAMA2 related congenital muscular dystrophy. This help desk is specifically for help with AfC submissions and cannot help with page moves outside that context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Astronomyspokesmann

[edit]

Hello! I am asking for help about the page above. This page was written about an official, public, and non-profit science department.

The page was claimed by 3 editors earlier that it has no reliable sources and references. So, I took the effort to gather 20+ different reference, including per-reviewed published research. Then, some other editors claimed it has no relevance to academic institutions, so I put two more paragraphs about the department's establishment history which extends to the late 1960's, and a paragraph about the courses given at the department-and of course, all with references. Now I got the refusal, saying that it's not notable department, and it's a promotion page. Please note:

This department is the only astronomy operating academic institution in my country, that deals with space physics and astrophysics. Thus, it is notable by all means.

Also, stating that it is the only department of the kind is not an attempt for promoting, it is simply a fact. Should there be many other departments of the same interests for this topic, in order for mentioning it to be non promoting, is a matter of absurdity.

Please also note that, other than stating "this is the only department of it's kind in Iraq"; there is no single other place in the article that has "promoting" spirit. There are no sentences or words that advertise or describe the department's goodness.

The reason of refusing the article is not suitable, I think. May be and perhaps the editor who refused it sees it unworthy, but that's not a good reason.

All this been said, why the first three editors didn't mention the notability issue? The page was created earlier in July, and many editors have given notes for weeks, and there were some effort to meet the early requirements.

Now it seems the issue isn't about references or being an academic institution, but about notability and promotion. The updates are quite different, and inconsistent.

It seems like a maze when one should satisfy the opinions of many people, each has a different point of view, and all think that only their own opinions reflect rules of Wikipedia.

Please note that I searched for academic departments before writing this one. So this is not the only (or first time) when an article about a science department was found in Wikipedia.

If you please, could you help me out with this? I thought Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for providing a general and public knowledge- and knowledge isn't biased to opinions. Creating a page about this institution was meant to be within this scope, providing knowledge, no more. So help, please.

Thank you. Astronomyspokesmann (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomyspokesmann I fixed your link, you lacked the "Draft:" portion. As a faculty member, you must become familiar with conflict of interest if you aren't already.
You have a common misunderstanding about what it is we do here. Wikipedia does not merely provide information, nor is it a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do. That's what social media is for. Wikipedia articles about organizations must 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. You haven't done that, you just described the offerings of your department and its activities.
Beware in using other articles as a guide, as these themselves could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer editor. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

10:56, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Joseph77237

[edit]

hi. is this ok?, or do I need to correct something else? regards. Draft:Praeterintention Joseph77237 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need the whole url when linking to your draft. You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 23 August 2024 review of submission by GreenAppleClimber

[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering if there's a place I can submit this draft for more community support? I'm hoping more people can help me edit the page. GreenAppleClimber (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request assistance at the general Help Desk- but you or others will need to fundamentally change the draft to address the main concern- your draft just tells about the software and what it does- instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. For products that is usually product reviews written by professional reviewers unsolicited. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 23 August 2024 review of submission by ArthurTheGardener

[edit]

The page Bear Head has just gone live, but I see whilst linking it elsewhere that it has been mistakenly described as a 2024 novel by Adrian Tchaikovsky, rather than the correct publication date of 2021. I'm not experienced enough to know how to change this, but I'd would appreciate it if someone corrected this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurTheGardener: I take it you meant the 'short description' meta data? I've changed that to 2021. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, yes. Thank you so much for your help. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Luijtenphotos

[edit]

Hi!

I would like to write articles about major YouTube channels (that are in the Top 1000 according to Social Blade), but my first article was rejected (by someone named OnlyNano) without clear, constructive criticism. During my time as a student, I wrote articles for the Dutch, French, and Limburgish Wikipedia and never had any issues.

The sources were said to be unreliable, but I used only verifiable sources alongside primary ones. OnlyNano did not provide examples or explain why he found my sources (except for Fast Company, which he claimed was "a good start") unreliable.

He particularly has an issue with the source Boing Boing, but there is nothing about a negative, unreliable reputation in the Wikipedia article about Boing Boing. Through Google, I also find several other Wikipedia articles that use the same site as a source, from which I can conclude that the distrust OnlyNano feels about the website does not seem to occur with other Wikipedians. Furthermore, all information (mainly descriptions of videos) can be verified by the reader, from which you can conclude that the sources are reliable. If websites that focus on pop culture are not considered reliable sources, in my view, it becomes impossible to write an article about most YouTube channels.

Is there a moderator who could perhaps help me?

Kind regards,

Luke 

Luijtenphotos (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I find that this new (?) system does not work in practice. I see several articles on these pages that have been wrongly rejected. For example, the SpangaS article (which was rejected because the reviewer did not know the sources and therefore found them unreliable) or the Microsoft Azure Quantum article (which was very well substantiated). My article was rejected by someone whom I estimate, based on their profile, to be someone still in middle school (based on their language use, idols, glorification of 'cool' drugs, and juvenile expressions like "this user is a Satanist"). I have no desire to argue with a child or beg to have my article approved. I was probably already writing Wikipedia articles for the Dutch, Limburgish, and French Wikipedias before they were even born. And I never had any problems there. There, the community would write the article together or improve a mediocre one. I had planned to write a lot of articles about major YouTube channels, but with this abuse of power, all the fun is gone. Luijtenphotos (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: I was going to respond to your thread next, but I think I'll give it a miss. It seems you're only here to belly-ache about how the AfC project is going about its business, and I don't think the help desk is the right forum for that. And personal attacks and slurs are absolutely not acceptable, so please cut them out now. If you prefer to edit "the Dutch, Limburgish, and French Wikipedias" rather than the English-language one, no one is standing in your way.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luijtenphotos This process is almost always voluntary. You are free to directly create articles and roll the dice that other editors will see that they meet guidelines like notability and sourcing. Editors on any version of Wikipedia are free to do as they wish- you can't force other editors to help you. If you want to see an article created, you need to do it yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos, your unkind words about OnlyNano are absolutely uncalled for and I strongly suggest you start applying one of the pillars of Wikipedia: assume good faith. We do not tolerate personal attacks here. Administrators (which I think you meant by moderators) confine their work solely to ensuring people behave civilly to each other and there is no disruption to the Wikipedia; if they wish to help with a draft, they do so as an ordinary editor. They are certainly not going to overrule OnlyNano, who has given you good advice for working on your draft if you want to continue.
On en-WP, we don't write in articles anything that has not been written by a reliable source. Since no reliable source is likely to care about whether Wikipedia thinks a particular source is or is not reliable, we don't put things like 'Boing Boing is not reliable' in the article about that source. Instead, we use the list of perennial sources, which are common sources that have been discussed among editors on en-WP. You will note that BoingBoing is listed as 'no consensus', and then the notes call it a 'group blog', which are both warning signs that it should not be counted on.
If you're not enjoying the experience, en-WP might not be for you - no one here wants you to do something that's frustrating or upsetting you when you could be having fun at another version of Wikipedia. This is widely considered to be one of the strictest Wikipedias in terms of sourcing, which can be difficult for editors used to other Wikipedias. I wish you happy editing wherever you choose to write. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 23 August 2024 review of submission by Dogstar Gazer

[edit]

The previous author did not complete citations and the article was declined. I would like to publish the article by correcting or adding to the citations and applying appropriate tags. How can I best proceed? Dogstar Gazer (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogstar Gazer: I don't know what you mean by "did not complete citations". This draft was routinely deleted as a creation by a likely sock puppet. I would steer clear of it, personally, but if you want to create a new draft with appropriate references etc., that's your call of course. You will find pretty much all the advice you need for draft creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:39, 23 August 2024 review of submission by CBathka

[edit]

The page has been rejected twice. I have gone through the sources to ensure they meet the rules of verifiability. Yet I am still unsure what copy if any is not meeting WP guidelines. Can someone walk me through our latest updated copy and tell us what the specific areas of concern are? CBathka (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real shame that such an interesting and well-supported article can be rejected by just one person who is not familiar with the subject. A lot of good articles get lost this way. A good article about a Dutch film was rejected above. The sources are solid, but because the reviewer doesn't know them, they are considered unreliable. I've never seen this on foreign Wikipedias. There, the focus is on improving the text, rather than rejecting it without substantive reasoning. :( Luijtenphotos (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luijtenphotos: if you don't have any advice to offer, please don't unnecessarily contribute to other users' threads just to air your own grievances. And your insinuations of incompetence or negligence, or whatever you're implying exactly, are not helpful. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CBathka: this draft has been declined, not rejected. Decline means that you're welcome to resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons. Rejection is terminal.
I don't know if this is what the reviewer had in mind (you may have to ask them directly), but my issue with this draft is that it is pretty impenetrable industry jargon and marketing buzzspeak. As it happens, I used to work in high-performance computing and big data etc., and I'm having to read every sentence twice to understand what is actually being said. I expect my grandmother would probably have to read everything thrice (if they weren't both dead, that is). I think the language would benefit from simplification, as well as from a more concise and factual approach. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

[edit]

Request on 09:17:07, 24 August 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by MKutera74

[edit]


Hi, this is in addition to the larger message I've left on my talk page at #Draft:Miguel and the Living Dead Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no financial or legal benefits from this. I only have copyrights, because I created and wrote this article myself, citing sources. I have been editing Miguel and the Living Dead for free since about 2005/2006 on the Polish wiki. I have been interested in music of this aesthetic for about 30 years (I have a lot of books, CDs, vinyls, cassettes, all original editions from all over the world). Finally, I updated it and decided that it was worth making an English version for MATLD. I have been following the band for years and going to their concerts. I know their biography perfectly well. I know the musicians. I sent them the translation and they asked if they could put it on the new page, so I said ok. How could I know that this would constitute a conflict. I am not their manager. Their page was created by someone else, I do not know this person at all. I regret this hard work since October 2023 and unfortunately I did not write this draft in the rough draft. Please help me somehow in this matter. MKutera74 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

MKutera74 I removed most of the discussion that seemed like that it was duplicated from elsewhere, for ease of readability. If I removed a more current comment, please restore it.
The draft was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. If you are communicating with the band about your editing, such as asking their permission(which they cannot give or deny, their permission is not needed to write about them) you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone help me with this matter, or are you just going to send me who knows where and for what reason? MKutera74 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MKutera74 we won't send you anywhere else. What specifically do you need help with? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CanonNi, Pickersgill-Cunliffe has already helped me. The draft has been restored. I have sent it again for consideration to officially put it on the English Wikipedia. I have described all the details in the discussion in the draft, so that the editors and approvers will no longer have any doubts. I hope that after much effort the article will finally appear on the English Wikipedia. I apologize for the inconvenience. MKutera74 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MKutera74 You need to comply with the conflict of interest policy, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Steamwraith

[edit]

Hello, My draft got rejected with the reason being that I need Reliable sources. I've had a look Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I'm not sure which of my sources should be removed/replaced. I've mainly used reputable Swedish news sites; I understand it may be difficult for a non-Swedish speaker to verify such sources. Other than that, social media is used as a source to cite claims made about e.g. YouTube statistics or statements made by the subject.

TL;DR -- rejected draft due to lack of reliable sources, could I get more feedback/help on this since I'm not sure exactly what is wrong.

Thank you! Steamwraith (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steamwraith The draft was declined, not rejected. The word rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Social media should not be used to document claims about YouTube statistics. It would be okay to support purely factual statements about the person themselves(like their birthdate) but it can't be used to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! I'm new to Wikipedia so I didn't now there was such a distinction between declined/rejected.
I understand, however, the Template:Infobox YouTube personality will automatically create a reference to the subject's YouTube channel to cite the view and subscriber counts. Do you recommend to find another source, Social Blade (?), or just a news article/other reputable source which states such statistics. Steamwraith (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the template calls for that information and automatically cites it, then I guess that's how it works- but in terms of notability, it doesn't matter if they have 8 viewers or 8 billion(everyone on this planet). What matters is the coverage in independent reliable sources and how it demonstrates they are a notable person as Wikipedia defines it. The number of views or followers does not confer notability on a person; certainly the more viewers, the more likely it is in they get coverage in independent reliable sources, but in and of itself the number of viewers is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. What do I suggest I change on my draft to make up-to-standard for Wikipedia?
(Thank you by the way for the very quick responses!)
I don't know if it's relevant, but the subject does have an article on Swedish Wikipedia. Steamwraith (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. It could be that what you have written here would be acceptable on the Swedish Wikipedia, but it's not here at the present time. The English Wikipedia, as the oldest and most developed version, tends to be stricter than others.
You need to summarize independent reliable sources that on their own offer significant coverage of this person, coverage that goes beyond just documenting their existence or the existence of their videos, and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the person(again, beyond just "they have a lot of viewers"). For "YouTubers" that usually is things like news reports, or reviews of their videos written by professional reviewers. Focus more on that sort of content and less on their viewership itself. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Lilyish134

[edit]

I need help with finishing an article I am writing about a political group in middle east, it was rejected so i want to know how can i improve? any advice would be highly appreciated. it is important to note that i'm making this article as a project for my degree. i major in International Relations and during one of my recent studies i encountered this issue, and i decided to dig deeper, but still my information is not complete. so if you also know about this matter and you are from middle east, please tell me more! Lilyish134 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilyish134 I fixed your link, you need to include the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. The word rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Were you assigned this task as a project? If so, your professor has been very unfair to you, to require you to write a Wikipedia article, as you have little control over the creation process. Professors should review the Wikipedia education program materials for information on how to best incorporate Wikipedia into lessons in a way fair to students. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Heathd1174

[edit]

I don't understand what else needs to be cited, or if the sources that I am citing is not good enough. Heathd1174 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be Mr. Heath....Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their accomplishments, please see the autobiography policy. You need to be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you and what makes you a notable person. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 24 August 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.
Unless you can find several sources which each meet the triple criteria in WP:42, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Tonyfbolton

[edit]

Hello, I'm unsure how to have this article accepted. I created it as, while there are several articles about specific album releases by this band, there is no overarching article to give the complete discography. The feedback is that I need more references, but I have no specific material to reference. Any ideas? Thanks, Tony Tony Bolton (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. You shouldn't be merely documenting their work. If you have no appropriate sources, the band would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Susana Sousa Ribeiro

[edit]

why is it taking so long? Susana Sousa Ribeiro (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't look good and content like "served as both an escape from a course that didn't ignite his passion and a way to reconnect with his creative side" has no place in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 24 August 2024 review of submission by Opeyemi93

[edit]

My article keeps getting rejected after implementing all the suggestions from the editors.

I need help on what exactly I need to improve to get this article accepted.

Thanks Opeyemi93 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opeyemi83 The draft was declined, not rejected. The word rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Are you associated with this person? You seem to have come here expressly to write about this person.
You resubmitted the draft; the next reviewer will leave you feedback. That said, the main issue is that you have not demonstrated that this person meets the definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Opeyemi93, one major problem is going to be your references. The only one that anyone could easily find is the book that Gallagher wrote, which doesn't help establish notability. Have a look at referencing for beginners, it should help you to format the references so that other people can find the articles/books/etc that you're relying on to show notability. Once you've done that, I'd be happy to look over the sources and tell you which are suitable and which needs to be replaced - feel free to leave a message on my talk page if this thread gets archived before you're finished. Take your time, there's no rush! Getting it right is more important than being fast. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Your comment is very helpful and I will do as you instructed. 105.112.101.168 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

[edit]

01:49, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Mudwater

[edit]

Hello, articles for creation reviewers! Draft:2024–25 NCAA football bowl games was submitted for review on May 22nd. Would it be possible for someone to review this article soon? (1) I did not create the draft, but I have just made a number of enhancements to the article. It's a lot more up to speed than it was yesterday, if I say so myself. (2) The college football season just started, and our readers will be eager to have this article on Wikipedia. Each year an article like this is created, but this year's was submitted using the AfC process. Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 01:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater, I see the original draft creator was blocked for "content issues". I haven't looked into it any further than that, so I'm not sure what the problem is - as an editor more familiar with the topic area, can you give the draft a thorough check to make sure it's all okay? -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@asilvering: Hello! Yes, the draft is all okay, and "ready for prime time". When I found it yesterday, it was in need of some copy editing, and it was a bit light on references. Additionally, the list of games had been created before the final schedule was announced, so a lot of the dates were not filled in, and the games were not in chronological order. I fixed all that before posting here. (This is an annual sports article -- see for example 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games from last year.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's all yours! -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 25 August 2024 review of submission by 103.155.151.193

[edit]

Dear Sir, He seems to me to be a remarkable person. I've seen many people less notable than him even have promotional Wikipedia pages. And he is one of the young entrepreneurs of Bangladesh 103.155.151.193 (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, the draft has been rejected and will not be published. If you could point us towards other people who have promotional Wikipedia pages, that would be very helpful - we are all volunteers, and some articles do manage to get past us. We can only do something about those articles if someone notices them and alerts editors who can take action. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to others this is part of long-term abuse see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_Sunnat_Ali_Mollik/Archive. KylieTastic (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Anticipatoryplagiarism

[edit]

hi there. so i received the feedback re too many primary non-independent sources, or primary such as press releases. so i tried removing anything published by a museum or gallery (which i'm guessing is the issue?), and replaced where possible with refs to newspaper reviews and books etc. Is this the right direction or did i misunderstand the issue? Anticipatoryplagiarism (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback. That said it's not clear to me how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the link, v useful! i confess i resubmitted before realising i could ask for help here. warm thanks Anticipatoryplagiarism (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipatoryplagiarism, I will comment about the lead section of your draft. You assert that He works with a wide range of techniques and materials including blown glass and the ashes of burnt books, to create paradoxical outcomes. That claim has two references, neither of which I can read online. Can you provide a couple of sentences from one or both of these sources that back up the "wide range of techniques and materials" wording and the "paradoxical outcomes" wording? Also, later in the lead, you assert that His work often relies on finding humorous juxtapositions, which is also followed by another reference that I cannot read online. Can you provide a sentence or two from the reference that verifies your "humorous juxtapositions" language? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, plagiarism is forbidden on Wikipedia, so your username may lead some other editors to conclude that you are thumbing your nose at our policies instead of joking around. Take that into consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll find the quotes and add them here shortly. i take your point about my username but im not sure what to do about it now? it references a Oulipian concept i liked and about which i started this stub: Anticipatory plagiarism. Anticipatoryplagiarism (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Sohaila ahmed200

[edit]

Hello, I am currently working on a draft titled Dsquares, which has been tagged for speedy deletion under the G11 criterion for unambiguous advertising. I understand that the content may have appeared promotional, and I am committed to making the necessary changes to align it with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Could anyone provide feedback or guidance on how to improve the draft? Specifically, I would appreciate advice on: How to rewrite the content to ensure a neutral tone. What kind of reliable, third-party sources would help establish notability? Do you have any other suggestions to avoid the article being perceived as promotional? Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Best regards, [Sohaila Ahmed] 

Sohaila ahmed200 (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speedily deleted four times as unambiguous advertising or promotion, by four different editors, and now the page has been protected by user:BusterD. I think you should take the hint. Meters (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sohaila ahmed200, your draft contains profoundly unacceptable language like Dsquares is a leading B2B loyalty and rewards provider specializing in end-to-end customer loyalty solutions. The company partners with Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations, and industry leaders worldwide to create tailored loyalty programs designed to boost customer retention, drive sales growth, and eance brand loyalty. That bloated sentence is packed with marketing clichés, promotional bullshit and ad industry jargon. Not a single word of it tells the readers anything substantive about this company. It is all hot air. As Clara Peller asked decades ago, "Where's the beef?" Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 25 August 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:E101:811F:C456:5DF4:81E8:EBB8

[edit]

Why is the text I included in my first submission not showing, per the first rejection? I would life to correct what is wrong, but I believe I entered the text correctly. Where can I get tutorials to use your page correctly? Thank you for any and all help. 2603:8000:E101:811F:C456:5DF4:81E8:EBB8 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revealed the text for you, please read WP:YFA and WP:REFB for further help. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 25 August 2024 review of submission by YazarOo

[edit]

What should I do to improve my draft topic. YazarOo (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YazarOo: I guess the simple answer is notability, given that that's why the draft was declined.
...except that it has now been rejected for the same reason, so arguably there's nothing more you should do, as this is the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Ustc3092024

[edit]

I want to know why and the exact reasons for the deletion.

As I have seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Jungle this page is doing the same and their page didn't get deleted.

I have followed what they did.

Can you tell me the reasons?

Thank you. 

Ustc3092024 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ustc3092024: this draft was declined as non-notable, and subsequently deleted as promotional. As you may have noticed on top of the Digital Jungle article, it has all sorts of problems, including lack of notability, which have been highlighted, so using that as the basis for creating your draft was not advisable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have now started a deletion discussion on the Digital Jungle article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 25 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:985:A01:F7B0:9C5F:6689:3C7:7656

[edit]

This is True and it’s Estrella Karpouzis Biography as an article nothing wrong with this. If you go to Roosevelt hotel Wikipedia in Notable residents and guests. It shows also this information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Roosevelt_Hotel 2601:985:A01:F7B0:9C5F:6689:3C7:7656 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably the draft contains nothing that shows that she passes WP:BIO. It's interesting that a you compare her with a hotel. The two are not equivalent, though. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carmenaugust2020: assuming you remain interested in this draft, I have reinstated the review history which shows that it was rejected by Drmies. Please do not forget to log in when editing here lest you reveal more about yourself than you wish with an IP address 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will. 2601:985:A01:F7B0:CCC7:92F0:EC43:DDD (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Kej Abrielle

[edit]

I need to create article about my self Kej Abrielle (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kej Abrielle Why? You do not appear to satisfy our criteria. If you have confused Wikipedia with social media, please take steps to remove that confusion. Your user page may contain relatively trivial information about you. WP:Userpage will assist you here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I would not be surprised if the reason they want to create their Wikipedia article is for verification on social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano nor would I. And I am uninterested in that trivial reasin, as, I imagine, are you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I actually am interested - because the same social media websites will accept news articles about the person for verification as well, with lower standards than WP:RS demands. If you have the sources to create an article, then odds are you already would have been verified simply by presenting them to the social media network's CS representatives. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I learn something new every day. Today this is the second thing. Thank you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s no true. 2601:985:A01:F7B0:CCC7:92F0:EC43:DDD (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Jeffreygerald5550

[edit]

I see the page I created for the filmmaker Andrew de Burgh got rejected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_de_Burgh

I wanted to follow up on this as the references given were ample and mention the subject numerous times. Below are some of the links that were submitted as references:

Interview with Infamous Horror (big horror website - almost 2 million followers on Facebook): https://www.infamoushorror.com/interview-with-filmmaker-andrew-de-burgh/

Article on MovieMaker Magazine (a big filmmaking magazine running for over 30 years): https://www.moviemaker.com/only-a-flesh-wound-just-one-drink/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MovieMaker

Article on No Film School (one of the biggest websites in Hollywood): https://nofilmschool.com/micro-budget-feature-scored-fresh https://www.youtube.com/user/nofilmschool (124,000 subscribers)

Interview on Horror Facts (another highly viewed horror website): https://horrorfacts.com/beauty-hides-the-beast-the-twisted-transformation-behind-the-seductress-from-hell/

These all mention the subject numerous times and are published, reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I didn't include all the references but those also mention the subject numerous times and are published, reliable and secondary sources.

Please advise, thank you. Jeffreygerald5550 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffreygerald5550: Interviews and anything the subject writes are useless for notability. We can't cite YouTube unless the video was produced by an outlet that has editorial oversight (such as San Francisco Chronicle) and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. And the reason you keep getting kicked off of IRC by the bot is because you're posting a massive amount of text all at once, which the bots see as spam and will kill you off the network for. You only really have three usable sources, all of which are borderline: https://www.cinema-crazed.com/blog/2016/02/25/just-one-drink-2016/ , https://battleroyalewithcheese.com/2019/09/the-bestowal-review/ , and https://www.starburstmagazine.com/reviews/the-bestowal/ . All the rest are either too sparse or have a connexion to de Burgh. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post. I'm not sure how interviews on big horror sites like Horror Facts and Infamous Horror (which have nothing to do with the subject other than the fact he was featured on it) has a connection to de Burgh or are too sparse.
https://horrorfacts.com/beauty-hides-the-beast-the-twisted-transformation-behind-the-seductress-from-hell/
https://www.infamoushorror.com/interview-with-filmmaker-andrew-de-burgh/ Jeffreygerald5550 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffreygerald5550: Because it's an interview of de Burgh. If you cannot see how de Burgh answering questions about himself/his work is a connexion to de Burgh, then we have a more significant problem in re source assessment here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted if you can address the given concerns. Mere mentions are not what we are looking for, but sources with significant coverage of this person that, on their own, discuss what makes him a notable filmmaker as Wikipedia defines it. We don't just want documentation of his work. The awards mentioned are useless for establishing notability as the awards themselves do not have articles(like Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Rockywriter88

[edit]

In response to the previous rejection, significant updates have been made to the article, particularly in the "Museums & Library Collections" section. This section now includes references to Ruben van Schalm's work being included in prestigious institutions such as The Library of Congress, The Art Institute of Chicago, and The Getty Research Institute, among others. These additions provide strong evidence of van Schalm's notability and recognition in the field of photography. The article has been thoroughly revised to ensure that all claims are supported by reliable, independent sources, which meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please consider if the submission is now ready to proceed for publication with these updates in place. Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockywriter88 It would help to know which draft you are referring to. You have "note to reviewer" where the title of your draft should go. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is Draft:Ruben van Schalm. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is correct that is the draft Rockywriter88 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rockywriter, The draft was rejected after many reviewers went over the content and sources and declined the draft. I saw that you recently added a new section "Museum and Library Collections" - please take note that adding a long list of libraries where his (seemingly) self-published book is held does not contribute to notability. If he has works (not his books) in notable museums or national galleries, that might help. Also the sources are connected - meaning they are primary sources, not significant coverage in sources that are fully independent of the person. You may want to wait a few years while this photographer develops his career before resubmitting. Just a suggestion.... Netherzone (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct and waited to add many new notable museums and Library collections references to this draft on his book publication published by komma publishing [1] if you wish me to add more independent sources on fully the independent of the person I can do so on publication he did on works - [2] - [3] - [4] Rockywriter88 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding, the essence of what I said is: His work is not included in any notable museums nor national galleries. And having a copy of his book in libraries does not contribute to notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies this is the Draft:Ruben van Schalm Rockywriter88 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This I understood in the essence of notable museum I found that his work is in the collection here [5] maybe I can find more Rockywriter88 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Reviewer,
In response to the previous feedback, I have made significant updates to the draft, particularly to enhance the notability of Ruben van Schalm's work. Below are the key changes:
  1. Museum Collections: I have provided detailed references showing that Ruben van Schalm's artwork, not just his book Paradise, is included in the permanent collections of notable museums. For example, his work is now part of the collection at The MA-g The Museum of Avant Garde, Switzerland, CH [6], which is a recognized institution in the art world. This inclusion contributes directly to establishing his notability.
  2. Secondary Sources: I have added secondary sources, including interviews and critical analyses, to provide independent coverage of his work. These sources are attached as PDFs in my comment above and have also been cited within the draft to support various claims about his career and impact in the field of photography.
  3. Inline Citations: All claims related to his museum collections, exhibitions, and other notable achievements have been backed by inline citations, allowing for easy verification of the information provided.
  4. Addressing Concerns: I have taken care to address the concerns raised in previous reviews, particularly regarding the use of primary sources and the importance of showcasing his artwork's inclusion in notable institutions.
Note: Additionally, I have included Authority Control databases in the draft to further enhance its credibility and verification. These databases provide standardized information and external validation of Ruben van Schalm's identity and works, contributing to the draft's overall reliability and notability.
I hope these updates meet the necessary notability and sourcing guidelines for the draft to be accepted. I would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Jimbo218

[edit]

I need help on updating this article for more sources. Jimbo218 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rejected as WP:TOOSOON. It likely will not be notable until it occurs, or until you have more sources with more significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 25 August 2024 review of submission by Nicolas Nguyen1312

[edit]

I want to know how I can get my wiki page set up Nicolas Nguyen1312 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, Wikipedia is not social media where people tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

[edit]

01:03, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Trueinternet

[edit]

Article has been declined twice, first admin said it had advertising and that it didn't have in-depth and reliable sources, so I revised language to reduce advertising and also added more citations. 2nd admin says sources are not reliable or independent. I would like to know specific reasons of the decline and how to fix this. The company has a lot more news coverage than what I have used. Also Which sources are considered unreliable and not independent? cannot possibly be all of them? Please provide a list of all the unreliable sources. Trueinternet (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trueinternet: the reviewers (neither of whom is an admin) have chosen slightly different decline templates, but in both cases the decline reason is lack of evident notability (with a side of promotionality), because the sources are just routine business reporting which does not establish notability per WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. There is also nothing in this draft that would explain why it should be included in a global encyclopaedia – what impact has it had on the industry; how has it 'moved the needle'; how is it doing things fundamentally differently from its peers? To me this just describes a very ordinary ROTM hosting provider. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know this but WP Engine is the most well known Wordpress hosting company. One of the news articles from 2018 said they had 75,000 customer at that time. It must be much more by now. As one of the biggest hosting companies, that is why they should be on Wikipedia. I am a web designer and personally always recommending them to my Web design clients who want to have a faster hosting and speed up their website. Tell me how I can modify the draft to make it work. I know I am not supposed to say things that sound promotional or not cited, so it could be challenging, but the fact that they have so much news coverage, would proof that they are a notable and well known company. Trueinternet (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Bushido77

[edit]

Hello, I am confused as to why this article was rejected. Robert Heisner started a new martial arts system. Park Jong Soo (who has an article on Wikipedia) advertised Heisner as one of his lead instructors (cited in this article.)

Hironori Otsuka (who has an article on Wikipedia) signed his Second Degree Black Belt certificate in 1970 (cited in this article.)

Heisner has numerous newspaper reports about him and is acknowledged by other martial artists as one of the primary instructors in the Western New York area.

His Christian ministry impact was also evidenced in many newspaper reports.

Please help me understand what I am missing. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77: you haven't shown that the subject is notable. Inventing a new martial art is not a notability criterion, although it may indirectly result in media coverage etc. that may make someone notable. But apparently the reviewer felt that this wasn't yet demonstrated by the sources cited.
The draft also needs to be rewritten in a more neutral and factual tone appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Content such as "His dedication to Jesus and marital integrity helped steer him into the training that would be valuable throughout his life." (and this is but one example of many) may be suitable for his obit or maybe some religious publication, but has no place here. All the peacockery and hagiography needs to go before this can be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I will try again. I thought the commitment to Jesus was relevant as that is the reason he spent so many hours per week studying the martial arts while in Japan. Most other soldiers were drinking and chasing women... he trained in the martial arts instead. Bushido77 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:58, 26 August 2024 review of submission by PradhyumBajpai

[edit]

I Don't Know How the algorithm works please help me to create the Business model's page made by me... And let me improve the mistakes I have done PradhyumBajpai (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need references. Your article has no reference. Every single sentence should have a citation from a reliable source. Trueinternet (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PradhyumBajpai: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. You appear to have written about some own idea or invention of yours. Please note that Wikipedia does not publish original research, we only summarise what other sources have previously published. If you get your idea reviewed and discussed in academic journals or the mainstream media, it may then be possible to write an article on it based on their coverage, but not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Tool took

[edit]

Set a Wikipedia article Tool took (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleases Check my draft Article Tool took (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tool took: please don't start multiple threads.
I have rejected your draft as it's purely (self-)promotional with zero evidence of notability.
Note also that blocked users are not allowed to edit under any account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Ansaar20

[edit]

Why you rejecting this educational website Ansaar20 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does little more than say it exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, as this is not a mere database of things that exist. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this website, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable website. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Istarek

[edit]

Hello, I am trying to create a page for Prof. David L. Sam, but my submission was declined due to insufficient reliable sources. Though, I am not sure if this comment means I need to add more sources, or that I need to change my current sources. I would appreciate your comments. Istarek (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Istarek Generally your first port of call shoudl be SafariScribe who declined it. I am sure they will be happy to give you their full rationale. I notice, though, that they have
tagged it for Primary Source. WP:PRIMARY will tell you how you may best use the, and that one shoudl be sparing with one's use.
Generally we wish for better sources, not more sources. Sometimes fewer and better sources is the answer 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Ahsan Ali Web Designeer

[edit]

Help me Ahsan Ali Web Designeer (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahsan Ali Web Designeer It is flagged for deletion. Wikipedia is not a web host, nor is it the place to advertise your services. Please do not attempt to advertise here again. This is not social media, and it is hard to see how it can be mistaken for it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your Sandbox is a place for you to try out content before either submitting to a draft or to mainspace. Clearly you are using your Sandbox to create an article about yourself, which is not only very much not playing cricket in Wikipedia's opinion, but it is also very clear to everyone that you are not notable enough for an article. Have you read Wikipedia's terms of service? Even the sandbox is still wikipedia's space, and you are not using it according to the terms of service. That is why you are getting this negative feedback. Spiralwidget (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Spiralwidget

[edit]

I recently became a reviewer, and I have been rejecting a few articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline or standards. I have found this draft and I think it is worthy of being accepted- I was wondering how to accept the draft? On the instructions page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions it is clear that you press the "accept" button. No such button exists on my interface! I am very confused. Is there not a way to accept an article in the editor source code?Spiralwidget (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Did a bit of research- I hadn't saved my preferences correctly to use AFCH. sorted it out now! Spiralwidget (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Visaassessment

[edit]

please advise on this . Visaassessment (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Srandle18

[edit]

Hello! Just wanting more clarification on the process for submission here and why this was rejected? Srandle18 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 26 August 2024 review of submission by LukeLangille

[edit]

Hello! I'm looking for assistance on the Wikipedia draft article I have created, "Blackburn Brothers." I was told that the sources were not reliable. I am just looking for feedback on which ones I need to adjust and which ones are valid. There are many here and I am feeling a bit overwhelmed, not sure which ones need to be changed.

I'm also concerned that the band I am writing about has been around for many years and some of the articles I site are very old. Perhaps Wikipedia is not recognizing them as valid because the sites are outdated. I am not sure if this can be remedied at all.

Thanks, LukeLangille (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 26 August 2024 review of submission by 152.65.210.50

[edit]

Hi,

May I ask your kind assistance to help me publish this biographical page please? Thank you.

Best regards,


Marine 152.65.210.50 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 26 August 2024 review of submission by Doubletrouble10

[edit]

There is significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject cited on this page. Doubletrouble10 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1242384133"