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


July 10[edit]

00:07, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala[edit]

Please what do I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankincense Diala: This draft has been rejected due to disregard of the prior reviewers' comments and critiques, and it will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it declined? There was enough citation to prove it's notable. So now what should I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano, I blocked the user: too many COI/UPE suspicions here, and too much IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:04, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CBrookUM[edit]

Can someone please let me know any specific items that led to this article being declined? Anything specific we can address? The reason I see it was declined is fairly general - lack of credible sources.

However, we have listed links to Washington's diary where he specifically mentions staying at the house multiple times, a letter he wrote to a friend stating his visit there, the NPS, a few Historical Societies, VF Park, a person with the PA Historical Society that did her Penn State thesis on the house, ArbNet, the official designator of Arboretums, Independence National Historical Park among many other sources. Curious how it took roughly 11 minutes from initial submission to review all of the sources.

Please let me know anything specific we need to provide, update or change.

Thank you CBrookUM (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBrookUM Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating and have access to your account. If you represent an organization associated with this historic structure, that needs to be formally declared, see conflict of interest. If you are editing as part of your job or otherwise get any form of compensation, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see the paid editing policy.
Many passages of your draft are unsourced. What sources you do have seem to be primary(George Washington's diary, citations for it being designated a historic strutcure, etc.), any draft should mainly summarize independent reliable sources say about the structure. It may be notable(i.e. it wasn't declined for lack of notability) but it still needs sources. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Akaayu[edit]

Why my Draft has been rejected Akaayu (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu: your draft has been rejected, because after multiple reviews it still doesn't provide any evidence of notability per WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Prince kumar 2.0[edit]

Can you help me Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince kumar 2.0: no. This draft has been rejected. If you could please stop creating – under any account – more drafts on this topic, that would be appreciated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sanya Wadhwani[edit]

I submitted an article for review but it was declined. I was trying to add about a company in the encyclopedia that is helping students in grooming them for preparation for MAANG companies. Please guide me how to write the article and also highlight in the article where I made mistake. Sanya Wadhwani (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sanya Wadhwani. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics. There is no evidence that Coding Blocks meets our notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanya Wadhwani your draft, Draft:Coding Blocks, was declined because it is written promotionally and that all sources are from the company's website. I've tagged it for speedy deletion for that reason. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Junurita[edit]

I have found many sources to put in my article, why is my article considered to lack reliable sources? Junurita (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junurita: you need to cite the actual sources, not Google. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Junurita (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 10 July 2024 review of submission by AngelynAsrisch[edit]

hello sir

here is some more reference of this article

https://www.miragenews.com/research-inspires-journey-into-politics/ https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news-and-events/news/research-inspires-journey-into-politics https://crs.org.nz/the-crs-board https://cginz.org/Event?Action=View&Event_id=842 https://www.shirleyroadcentral.nz/community-boards/ https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/results-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-election-revealed https://www.ncwnz.org.nz/tags/ncwnzchch https://www.nzibt.ac.nz/profile/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/431088/failed-ousting-exposes-party-political-influence-in-local-government-chairperson https://www.peopleschoice.co.nz/christchurch-community-board-candidates https://multiculturaltimes.news/profiles/2019/9/22/sunita-gautam-candidate-for-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-central-ward https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/public/christchurch/edgeware/message/61335528 https://policy.nz/2022/waipapa-papanui-innes-central-community-board-central-subdivision/candidates/sunita-gautam https://venuefinder.nz/wedding-profile/sunita-gautam-celebrant/73566 https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/05/PCBCC_20240509_AGN_9126_AT.HTM AngelynAsrisch (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelynAsrisch: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Please don't post your sources here, we've no need of them here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AngelynAsrisch I have responded on your talk page. Qcne (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 10 July 2024 review of submission by ArtsSquareWiki[edit]

Hi everyone,

After my submission for this translated article was denied because it wasn't backed by enough reliable sources (it relied too much on the organization's references), I have been working on improving it. I have now gathered and incorporated information from reliable articles and documents from various sources around the web to rewrite the article.

I hope the revisions are now satisfactory. Could someone please review the article before I resubmit it for approval?

Thank you very much for your assistance.

All the best, ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtsSquareWiki: we don't provide on-demand reviews or 'pre-reviews' here at the help desk. If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reason(s), resubmit the draft, and you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CaptainTavish[edit]

Hi, this was my first attempt at a Wikipedia Page.

I mistakenly focused more on the notable works of the company rather than the company itself. I've since edited the page to include more about the company including an external reference to a piece about the company itself, rather than just the news articles about their notable pieces. I've added a comment in reply to the reviewer that I've addressed their issues. I've resubmitted for review.

My question is, does this now join the back of the queue and sit there, waiting another couple of months or more before it gets picked up by someone else to review?

If I've not done enough and need to edit it again, this could become a long process. Is there anyway to get feedback as to if I've done enough?

Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainTavish: I haven't looked at the draft yet, but just to answer your question about back of the queue, there is no queue. There is instead a pool. In other words, drafts go in, and reviewers pick what they want, when they want, in no particular order. So yours may get reviewed as I'm typing this, or you may have to wait a few months, or anything in between; there's no way of telling. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. As it happens, that is what happened. While I was typing the question someone has taking a look at the draft. Ironically, having been told to talk about the notability of the company more, the latest feedback was that it was now too promotional... Hopefully I've addressed this now. Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why it is promotional is that it is largely what the company wants to say about itself (eg the section on Community Engagement cites one source which is largely quoting the founders, and another which only mentions the company. 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) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you that is helpful. I'd thought that it was ok, because only the factual aspects of the event were mentioned on the wiki page. I have found an alternative source which doesn't include any quotes from the business owner. CaptainTavish (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Avi Gazit[edit]

Hello, the draft rejected because the resources I have presented in the draft - I quote - "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

To my humble understanding the official website of India' Prime Minister is quite a reliable for the article, isn't it? Also, the YouTube link present India' PM himself meet Hiroko Takayama.

An explanation what i am doing wrong or what additional resources are need to make this draft appropraite for publication will be much appreciated, thank you very much. Avi Gazit (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi Gazit: the Indian PM's website and YouTube channel are primary sources, whereas we need to see secondary ones. Also, two sources (which are actually just one source) wouldn't be enough to establish notability in any case; we need 3+.
And articles on living people (WP:BLP) require inline citations to support pretty much every material statement, whereas you've only listed these sources at the end without citing them anywhere. Thus the entire draft remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt and kind reply. Could you please refer me to a guide for adding an article, so I could understand what exactly are these secondary sources and else needed to stand the standard? Thank you again. Avi Gazit (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi Gazit: in most cases, notability is established according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This requires sources to be, among other things, secondary, which typically means newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc. (although the issue is more nuanced than that; media channels may also provide primary or tertiary content, even if they usually are secondary).
In addition to GNG, there are also some special notability guidelines, and in this case the ones for artists (WP:ARTIST) or academics (WP:NACADEMIC) could conceivably apply. These both have specific criteria, one or more of which needs to be met, backed up with reliable evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Following are some major newspapers (in digital) in Japan. Will adding those to draft as additional resources will enable the article to be properly posted/published in Wikipedia?
1) https://www.sankei.com/article/20230605-KZSIMXYLOZNBDFGMUATA4UQUTQ/
2) https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR6N7J9JR6LPITB017.html
3) https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/local/hiroshima/news/20230609-OYTNT50068/
4) https://mainichi.jp/articles/20230613/k00/00m/040/171000c
Last is a major newspaper in several prefectures in Hiroshima area:
https://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/articles/-/312596 Avi Gazit (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of adding the links, you need to rewrite your draft to summarize what the sources say. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sushil Dobhal[edit]

Hello sir, why my article submission was declined, please post my article. Sushil Dobhal (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you at the top of the draft The submission appears to be written in Hindi. This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Woodgrain1[edit]

Hi, I created this page to be informative about a social networking service. It is similar to other articles already on Wikipedia, however it was rejected due to notability. Can you give a more specific reason on why or how I can fix this to have the page published? Thanks Woodgrain1 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 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.
Writing an article starts with finding independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in depth. If there aren't any, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woodgrain1, your draft is entirely lacking references to reliable published sources that are both completely independent of Image Eagle and that devote significant coverage to Image Eagle. Without references to such sources, it is simply impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about this topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The service was launched this month (according to the draft), meaning that WP:Too soon may be in effect at this point. Wait till significant third-party writeups come in over the next several months or more--provided it really takes off (even within its niche). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Damjana12[edit]

Hello, Recently I created my first wiki page which got declined first and since then I've implemented some recommended changes. I would value it a lot if you could please have a look into it and let me know if you see anything that would need more work and improvement so I can make sure the page gets published when it has a second review. This is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Kotter

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support, what a great community of people I'm learning a lot from all of you.

Best wishes, Damjana Damjana12 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damjana12: you also asked this at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as it duplicates efforts.
You need to respond to the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary posed, which has also been queried on your talk page.
We don't really provide pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. But after a quick scan I'd say it looks like there's a good chance this person may be notable (h-index of 46 isn't to be sniffed at), but the draft is written in a vaguely promotional manner, and there is unreferenced information which needs supporting (eg. what source provides his DOB, or his educational background?), so those might be areas to still work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by posting in multiple places; I understand the importance of not duplicating efforts. I will focus on addressing the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary raised on my talk page and the Teahouse.
Regarding the draft, I appreciate your quick scan and feedback. I'll make sure to revise the draft to avoid any promotional language and will add reliable sources for all unreferenced information, including the subject's date of birth and educational background. I'll also be patient and wait for the official review of the resubmitted draft.
Thanks again for your help! Damjana12 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Aidantonebase[edit]

Hello, a little while back I submitted a page draft for this company (in full disclosure I do work here, I have taken every action I know of of disclosing this on my page and keeping the language of the page as neutral as possible).

The post got rejected due to a few reasons, including some language which I can see to be a bit promotional. I've got a question regarding frequency/type of references:

My post was taken down because not every single sentence came with a reference, including each bullet in a very long list. Another point was that there were non secondary sources, even though the article hit the minimum of 5 reputable secondary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. What is the guideline behind these aspects? Here are two pages I'm also curious about:

Both of these pages have a few reliable sources based on the Wikipedia guidelines, but they also resort to using company information publicly available, as well as leaving out references when it becomes redunant (see the bulleted list on the Masterclass page). I based my page entirely off of Masterclasses page since we are in the same industry, but the points I was knocked down for seem to also be violated by MasterClass's and Spotify's page. I asked the individual who approved the rejection of my post but haven't heard back in a month.

If someone could clarify why these two companies are allowed to have their pages formatted the way they are and tonebase is not, that would be super helpful and save me from submitting another invalid draft to AoC. Tonebase is a very well established company with plenty of reputable media coverage in line with the Wikipedia policy, so I'm willing to be flexible to adhere to any rule set forth. Thank you! Aidantonebase (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aidantonebase You have some common misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they consider to be their own history. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company or routine information(like financial reports) and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about a company- not what it sees as important about itself. That one company in an industry may merit an article does not automatically mean others in the industry do as well. The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles. This may include some that actually have them, and just haven't been removed yet- this is why it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, see other stuff exists. It's best to use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Companies do not maintain the articles about them here, and they do not own them or exclusively dictate what appears there. Ideally, articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. If you have evidence that Spotify or MasterClass employees are maintaining their articles without the Terms of Use required disclosures(the one you made), I can tell you how to provide that evidence(do not provide it here, publicly).
Regarding your draft itself, it was deleted as thoroughly promotional, in seeing it(I can view deleted articles as an admin) I must agree. You need to set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and only summarize what others have chosen on their own to say about your company. (no interviews/press releases). My advice is that you go on about the business of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to organically develop in the usual way through independent editors taking note of coverage of your company. That's the best indicator of notability. Companies trying to force the issue themselves aren't often successful. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 11[edit]

00:51, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Thugpoetak[edit]

HEY DEAR I WANT TO CLAIM MY SPOTIFY ARTIST PROFILE THATS WHY THEY ARE DEMANDING MY WIKIPEDIA I REALLY WANT TO PUBLISH THIS Thugpoetak (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author blocked for a very obvious reason. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any platform that hard-requires a Wikipedia article for verification is incompetent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 11 July 2024 review of submission by AlexBW0524[edit]

I received feedback about the article submitted for publication that it did not demonstrate enough solo works outside of her group NewJeans, and does not have enough individual notability. I then edited the article as per these recommendations by adding information about a campaign she did for the the South Korean National Elections Commission and information about her campaign with Chanel Beauty's N°1 de Chanel Red Camellia line. I was wondering if I have improved the article to better show individual notability? Additionally, I did my best to properly cite the sources, however I would appreciate someone checking that I did so correctly. AlexBW0524 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBW0524: I haven't analysed the sources in detail (you get that when you resubmit the draft for another review), but if the only new content you've added is about some modelling work she has done, this is unlikely to help with the notability issue. The point that the reviewer made was that she is notable only or mainly as part of the group, and we would need to see evidence of her own notability as an individual musician rather than a group member. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for responding. I'm a bit confused as her fellow group member Hanni Pham has a published wikipedia page with similar credentials. Specifically similar pre-debut filmography, both have exactly 2 writing credits for their group's works on extremely notable singles, brand endorsement work, etc. I'm not sure in this case why her group member's page would be published while hers would not? If you or someone else could point out what specifically about her group member's activities is different enough to have qualified for notability, that would be extremely helpful since it's currently unclear to me what exactly differentiates their activities enough that one is more independently notable than the other. AlexBW0524 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexBW0524: without analysing the draft and its sources, I can't really comment (you'll note that I said I hadn't done that, I was earlier merely remarking on your additional edits), except to say that we don't assess drafts by comparison to other similar drafts or articles, so whether another member of this girl group has an existing article or not doesn't really come into it. The Hanni (singer) article seems to have been in the process of being reviewed, when it was moved into the main article space by an administrator without leaving an edit summary to explain their thinking, therefore I've no idea what the rationale behind that was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions to the best of your abilities. I'll continue working on the article in the draft space for the foreseeable future and adding more sources and information. AlexBW0524 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Helposys[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional because it provides general company information that is of public interest. The content has been revised to remove any promotional elements, including the phone number. This page aims to offer neutral and factual information about the company that may be useful to internet users. Helposys (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helposys: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. Contesting the deletion here at the help desk is pointless, you need to do that on the draft talk page (as indeed you have done). And just to explain, yes, the draft is promotional, because it is the business telling the world about itself (speaking of which, I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it), rather than being based on what independent third parties have said about it, which is what Wikipedia articles should be based on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Sukhi vale[edit]

I will added 6 reference for proof Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim is a notable person why not accept it . Please told me details I will recover my mistake. Sukhi vale (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukhi vale: the sources need to meet the WP:GNG guideline for notability; none of the ones cited in this draft do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me for proper reference added please do this you are experiend , I'm new here Sukhi vale (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sukhi vale: thanks (for asking), but no thanks. I've no knowledge of, or interest in, this subject, and we here at the help desk generally don't get involved in co-editing. You could ask at some WikiProjects, eg. WP:WikiProject Football and/or WP:WikiProject India, if anyone there can help. But by and large, the onus is on you as the draft creator to develop the draft to an acceptable standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Huntere123[edit]

The submission was declined for unreliable sources, however the main sources used throughout the article are a book from R. P. Hunnicutt's A History of American Armor, which are considered to be a highly reputable source on American armor, and are used throughout other Wikipedia articles on the subject, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank etc). The other main source used is various Jane's publications, which are also considered a highly reputable source for information on defense related topics, e.g. armored vehicles, and are also used in other Wikipedia articles on similar topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Survivability_Test_Vehicle_(Lightweight) etc). Due to this I am unsure why my submission was declined for the given reason, and any assistance would be appreciated. Huntere123 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntere123: Without looking at your sources, the entire History section needs to be broken up into distinct paragraphs. It's borderline-impenetrable as is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 11 July 2024 review of submission by 103.135.255.194[edit]

How i got approval this Biography ? 103.135.255.194 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. It has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources, and there is nothing to suggest that they are notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Danny8384535[edit]

how do i add sources? is it like adding citations? Danny8384535 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danny8384535 Yes. The two terms are broadly interchangeable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Amirsohelkhan993[edit]

Amirsohelkhan993 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirsohelkhan993:JBW (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirsohelkhan993 Your attempt at your autobiography has been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim[edit]

Where is Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim Indian footballer article page ? Sukhi vale (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukhi vale It is where you left it, presumably, at Draft:Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do I add properly please help me Sukhi vale (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads on this.
I told you already, it's your job to develop the draft. Currently there is nothing to suggest this person is notable, and until there is, the draft won't be accepted. That's what you need to focus on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 12[edit]

08:15, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Beamai2004[edit]

There is a detailed article on Gustav Maier (WriterI in the German Wikipedia:: Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Maier_(Schriftsteller) Since Gustav Maier has been described in the first volume of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein as an important benefactor and sponsor of the young Albert Einstein at Zurich, from 1895-1901 and in all biographies on Albert Einstein, I have submitted a shortened version of the German Wikipedia article on Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller) in English, hence, this is a well referenced and notorious personality who definitely deserves an aticle also in the English version of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for looking into this matter. Beamai2004 (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beamai2004 Please understand that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one version(if it is) is not necessarily acceptable here. When translating an article from one Wikipedia to another, it is up to you to ensure that the translation meets the policies of the language version you are translating. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Your draft is far too poorly sourced to be acceptable at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beamai2004, when I look at your draft, I see vast swathes of unreferenced content that violate the core content policy Verifiability. Translations from other language versions are welcomed, but only if they comply with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Yours does not do so. Cullen328 (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the German article de:Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller), I see that the vast majority of citations are to his works. That is not acceptable in en-wiki: the majority of citations, and the basis for almost the entire article, should be to independent works about Maier. ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 12 July 2024 review of submission by BasharatAli254[edit]

please let me know why my draft is not being accepted. how may I improve it 

BasharatAli254 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BasharatAli254 Rejection usually means the end for a draft. You re-submitted it with zero improvements, despite previous advice given on the 10th July. Your draft is written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial.
If you think you can re-write this draft to comply with our strict policies on neutrality, let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 12 July 2024 review of submission by ExoField[edit]

Hi, can someone briefly review this and see if it sounds promotional or not and if it is ready for submission. I'd also appreciate any advice for improvements. Thank you. ExoField (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit it for review we don't do pre-review reviews! Theroadislong (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. I see. Can I at least get a confirmation if it sounds promotional or not.
Thanks. ExoField (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExoField without making any comment on if the University meets our WP:NSCHOOL criteria, I would say it is written in a fairly neutral way. Qcne (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. By the way, I'd appreciate if you made a comment on whether the University meets the WP:NSCHOOL criteria or not. ExoField (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just about does.
Please remove the Google Maps reference (we don't use Google Maps as a source). Qcne (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you so much. ExoField (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry to bother you, is it ready for submission? Can I submit it now? ExoField (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExoField I have submitted it and accepted it for you. :) Qcne (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I got caught off-guard a bit, I thought this was supposed to take many days. Thank you so much.
Also, are you well-versed in geography, by chance? I have a couple of questions regarding a canal Wikipedia page. Again, thanks a lot, I really appreciate the help.
Warm Regards. ExoField (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly an expert in Geography, but am pretty experienced in reviewing and editing articles - what's the question? Qcne (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article here: Upper Swat Canal
It was tagged with not being notable enough under geographic guidelines by a much more experienced editor. I've went over the geographic guidelines and understood the point. Now, this canal has a couple of books written on it and it almost always has a separate section in the references which are currently present in the article. Hasn't notability been established? I originally thought the issue was that there weren't enough references, is it the quality of the reference which creates the issue? I'd appreciate any guidelines here.
By the way, I'm 100% sure that this article is notable, it's the largest, most important canal in North-Western Pakistan, but I'm finding a bit of trouble finding sources which highlight its importance which aren't written in a blog post. There are a lot of references dating back to the early 1900s which mention that it will be one of the most important canals in the future, but all of it is used in future tense.
Thanks for reading. ExoField (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the references given, and I agree it meets notability! I will remove the tag. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ExoField (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Mahendra Umesh Nayaka[edit]

How can i publish this article Mahendra Umesh Nayaka (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahendra Umesh Nayaka: you cannot, it has been rejected (and previously deleted after an AfD discussion, I might add).
Have you previously edited under a different account, by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no i have not UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 12 July 2024 review of submission by UnknownHistoryFacts[edit]

i wonder why my article has been deleted. I got accused of vandalism, however, this story is true. Just because it isn't in history books or anything doesn't mean that it never happened. John H Backflip was a relative of mine and this story has been going round in my family for ions. it really means a lot to me and my family if it would stay on wikipedia, because i would like to share this story with the world. There are a LOT of vandals on this site, and their pages sometimes stay up, but my page, that isn't meant to be funny got taken down. I would really appriciate it if you can take another look. UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnknownHistoryFacts: it hasn't been deleted. It soon will be, though. Let's leave it at that, okay? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) here is proof of the existance of john backflip UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for others, but there is zero chance I'm going to click on some random link like that.
Sources have to be published, and reliable, and we need to see several of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed (it was just a Facebook reels meme) Qcne (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UnknownHistoryFacts Creating hoxes on Wikipedia is not permitted, and your account will be blocked from editing if you continue. Qcne (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) it's not a hoax, here is proof of the existence of John Backflip UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is irrelevant. We're looking for evidence that reliable sources have written about John Backflip. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 185.252.40.36[edit]

Hello, I wrote an article about a Turkish entrepreneur. It was declined because of the lack of references at some parts of the article. I got my info about the person at a live event that her company hosted a few months ago. How can I add proof about the person's life in this situation. I would appreciate if you can help me with my first article. 185.252.40.36 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. In order to meet our verifiability requirements, all information about a person in a Wikipedia article must be based on published reliable sources. This could include interviews, newspaper articles, books, etc, but you specifically cannot use anything which is not published. Qcne (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're Venusedit? In which case, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
At this event, did they convey all the information in such a promotional manner, or did you put your own spin on it?
I noticed that you've also created a draft on the other co-founder of the business, Draft:Bülent Tekmen. What is your relationship with these people and/or the business? If you attended their event, and ended up writing articles on both individuals, there's probably a reason for that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend works in their company. That is why I attended their event. They didn't tell me their story personally. It was a general story-telling and evaluation of the company session. I didn't know what to write about in my first article and they looked like a fun couple so I chose them. I don't think it should be a problem because I'm not trying to promote them but if it sounds promotional I can edit the text to make it more neutral. Venusedit (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 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) 20:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 24.45.213.68[edit]

How can we get this page posted? There seems to be enough reputable sources. A similar company to ours is on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DocuWare 24.45.213.68 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Square_9_Softworks. The draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. Qcne (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568[edit]

THIS PAGE IS ALWAYS REJECTED SO I MADE A MISTAKE I DONT KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS BAD PAGE ANYWAYS CAN U DELETE THIS PAGE INSTEAD Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not shout. I have requested deletion. Qcne (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 12 July 2024 review of submission by The Summum Bonum[edit]

To whom it may concern need to delete my drafts need thy assistance Your guidance is at my mercy truly yours The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Summum Bonum: Assuming nobody has made any significant edits (i.e. edits that aren't copy-edits, null edits, or draft reviews), you can tag it for deletion with {{db-g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your help The Summum Bonum (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Gautamparmaraone[edit]

why my draft deleted Gautamparmaraone (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's spam, @Gautamparmaraone. Qcne (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Robert20654[edit]

Dear Sirs. Please I need help to format the Accolades Table. I did som,ething wrong and now I don't know ho to fix the prolem that I caused. In particular some cells "Nominated" don't show correctly. Some cells "Won" are in the wrong column. It seems thare is an extra column at right, that I don't know how to delete. Thank you very much. Robert20654 

Robert20654 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert20654 you need to compare the rows that display correctly with those which do not. Change the first incorrectly displaying row to match a row which displays correctly. Then use PREVIEW to see the effect. If it has solved the first one, submit/save.
Do the same with the next.
Sometimes solving the first one will solve the rest. This means that you should go down the table, correcting one at a time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Adamcat222[edit]

We received feedback that the subject was not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is one of the largest hedge funds in the world. We have sited multiple large news sources. What else are we missing? What can we add? Adamcat222 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? User accounts are strictly single person use, the draft was rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to disclose your evident conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamcat222: Odds are you cited the sources based on their outlet; we have to judge sources based as much on their content as well. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked below as "critiques"):
Other than the Yahoo/Insider Monkey source, the others I could assess are of no use for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Ricrickey[edit]

Why was this declined Ricrickey (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricrickey: why was a blank page rejected? I guess because it was blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was a viable encyclopaedic article? Qcne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense Ricrickey (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m new here I have no clue how this works Ricrickey (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ricrickey, have a read of WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He, Ricrickey. I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent several weeks (at least) working in Wikipedia and learning about how it works. Would you take up tennis and immediately enter a major tournament? Would you try building a house when you have no housebuilding experience?
Once you have an understanding of funbamental principles such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and notability, then it might be worth reading your first article and giving it a go. Until then, trying to create an article is going to be a disappointing and frustrating experience, as you probably won't understand the feedback you get.
Note that creating articles is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been here for nineteen years, made nearly 25 thousand edits, but I've only ever created 14 articles (and some of those were just redirects or disambiguation pages). ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Abdelalinour[edit]

hello what i should do to creat my own biography ? Abdelalinour (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelalinour, First of all, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Your draft lacks valid references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to you. Interviews are not independent and do not establish notability. I suggest that you abandon this effort, although I wish you well in your entertainment career. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 1-335 Warriors[edit]

I created a page that is for an active duty army battalion. The page was not approved to be published and I don't understand why. Our higher headquarters at the Army level (3 echelons up), Division level (2 echelons up) and Brigade level (1 echelon up), both have approved pages. They are First Army, First Army Division East, and 157th Infantry Brigade respectively. Our battalion is even mentioned on the 157th Infantry Brigade as a subordinate battalion. The source that I provided is used to populate our entire page. The notification didn't mention what part of the page was not supported by an article.

Thanks for your help. 1-335 Warriors (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1-335 Warriors, your draft completely lacks valid references to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this battalion. One Wikipedia article is not a legitimate source for another Wikipedia article, per WP:CIRCULAR. Most battalions are not notable as Wikipedia defines that term. The few that are notable are the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as books or journal articles by respected military historians. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Win8x[edit]

Hey there. I understand why my draft was declined and I am not contesting that. While I will try to find more sources, are my non-independent sources, 2 and 3, completely out of the question or can I keep them? Yes, they do contain interviews but what I use the sources for isn't the information from the interviews (rather, I use what the authors themselves of the articles say about the company). Thank you! Win8x (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Win8x! The difficulty here is that we can't be certain whether the authors got that information from the owners, or whether they did some research on their own. Since we don't know, we must assume that the information is not reliable. Interviews can sometimes be used for very basic facts that would not be disputed by any reasonable person, but I would recommend forgetting about the interviews and having a look for more sources that have no connection whatsoever to the owners. Good luck with your draft, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you! Win8x (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 91.105.102.125[edit]

Dear Customer Support,

My submission was rejected without stating a reason, as I am sure that my submission does not violate Wikipedia's rules. Is there a possibility to get a reason for cancellation and work it through?

Best, Naruba. 91.105.102.125 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in Russian and this is the English Wikipedia. We can only accept submissions in the English language. Your draft is also unreferenced, which violates the the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is not "customer support". We are unpaid volunteers here and you are not a customer. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naruba, please remember to log in when using Wikipedia.
You perhaps wanted to post this on Russian Wikipedia? But I doubt that they would accept it there without any sources. A search for "Jyllandsgade 5 Struer" turned up nothing at all about a band, so I doubt whether the band meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 13[edit]

04:45, 13 July 2024 review of submission by 202.41.10.107[edit]

The draft was last declined in 2022 and should be reviewed once again because now the actor has attained WP:N with his lead roles in Hero - Gayab Mode On, Ali Baba: Ek Andaaz Andekha. He had a prominent role in Amazon mini TV series Jab We Matched. Also, he is currently doing a lead role in the show. Pukaar - Dil Se Dil Tak. So kindly review the draft once again. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to approach one of the editors who rejected the draft directly: @Scope creep or @Bonadea. But notice that while NACTOR mentions "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" as a criterion for notability, you still need the reliable independent sources.
Before approaching one of those editors, you should go through the long list of citations in the draft, looking at each one critically: does it meet the triple criteria of the golden rule? If not, you should probably remove it, and any information cited to it, unless it is a self-published source in which case it may be allowed to stay if the kind of information it supports it appropriate. For example, the first two citations contain only passing reference to Nigam. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Mamorenor[edit]

Hello.

As I usually do so, I did a search in Wikipedia about a software component that has been trending within the software development community ( ==> HTMX )

However, I was surprised to find "no entry" related to such software component in the main "English" pages.

Even more surprised I was when I noticed that there is an entry about the HTMX software component in the Czech wikipedia pages.

Therefore, I decided to help the community and write the English version of the HTMX software component.

After registering in Wikipedia and after starting editing of the HTMX article, I was shown the current draft of the HTMX article with many "article submission declined" entries ( x4 ).

I am very familiar and experienced writing technical articles, and after reading the current draft article of "HTMX" I found it to be good enough for submission acceptance.

Nevertheless, I am a true beginner when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. I noticed that the "submission declines" suggest to "ask for help" to get guidance into how to "fix" the article to have its submission accepted.

Can you provide guidance into what is wrong with the current draft so I can contribute to edit and fix it?

Thank you !!! 

Mamorenor (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, writing for Wikipedia is very different from most other forms of writing.
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.
This means, that the first stage in creating an article is to find sources that are wholly unconnected with the subject (or in this case, with the developers of the sofware. Almost nothing written or published by the developers, marketers etc is of any relevance to an article, and nor is anything they say in interviews or press releases. Also unacceptable is anything such as blogs, which are not published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking.
I also observe that your citation number 5, for example, does not mention HTMX once. The sole purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to verify a claim about the subject of the article. If a source does not mention the subject, it is almost always a waste of everybody's time. In copntext, your citation no 5. appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the value of open-source: that makes it advocacy, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Weltall Zero[edit]

Hello, I need help with three issues regarding the UFO 50 draft page. 1) Two of the references show as broken, even though I can see nothing wrong with them. In fact, some of the references appear as broken and then fix themselves when editing unrelated parts of the page or moving them around, which is quite puzzling. 2) Would the current draft be a reasonable submission for approval? 3) If someone with image upload permissions could upload the game's cover (https://50games.fun/images/logo.jpg) as the article image, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Weltall Zero (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weltall Zero: See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a reference more than once. You basically used reference names but did not assign those names to any of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't seem to be the case. I added names to every source, all of which work correctly, except for these two. They do have matching names in both the reference and the source (I made triple sure that they matched, even copying and pasting them), so I see no reason they wouldn't work. Indeed, they do work when I move things around (but then others break!), which is baffling. I've also double checked for unbalanced brackets, but I can't find any.
I uploaded a screenshot of the relevant code: you can see that the Edge and GamesRadar references are right there in the references section, between the RPS and Day of the Devs ones which work perfectly fine:
https://i.imgur.com/S6fCCDQ.png
I'm honestly at my wit's end here. :D Weltall Zero (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weltall Zero It appears to have been fixed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Victor Schmidt fixed it. Thank you both! <3 Weltall Zero (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 13 July 2024 review of submission by BubbleWombleBee12[edit]

Hi, can someone Review this article Draft:Buchi Babu Sana please? BubbleWombleBee12 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbleWombleBee12: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, it will be reviewed in due course; please remain patient (it seems it was only submitted two days ago, anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not considered a reliable source and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Adefolarin1[edit]

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.

Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.

This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.

This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Adefolarin Adefolarin1 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you are frustrated. This is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article without spending any time learning about Wikipedia and its requirements.
Like many other new editors, you have written your draft BACKWARDS, instead of writing it from what the sources say and nothing else. And when I say "the sources", I mean almost exclusively the indpendent sources. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what Ogunwusi or her colleagues say about her: it is only interested in what people with no connection to her have chosen to publish about her, and that is what you should base the article on.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefolarin1 Please do not go forum shopping. You have also asked this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, and included an image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is a copyright violation. I was going to offer similar advice to that which you have just received, but now have no need to do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, interviews cannot be used to establish notability and blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Adefolarin1; since other people have mentioned the tone, I will focus on the sourcing first, since that is clearly a source of frustration for you. Let's see if I can help break it down a bit. You might already know this, so please bear with me if you do.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject (Ogunwusi) is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very strict. Additionally, since she is a living person, you must also follow the WP:BLP (biographies of living people) rules. One of the most important BLP rules is that every statement that a reasonable person might question must be sourced. And, of course, all your sources must be suitable - they must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of being reliable includes editorial oversight and strict publishing standards; some sites (newspapers, magazines, etc) will publish anything if they are paid, and those sites are not reliable.
Source 1) describes itself as a blog, and blogs are usually not reliable. There are no bylines (writers' names) on their articles and their About Us page doesn't give me much confidence. This probably cannot be used to establish notability, since the source is not reliable.
2) is an interview, which cannot be used for notability (not independent). You can use interviews for some extremely basic facts, like birth date, but not anything that might be challenged.
3) is not really about Ogunwusi; it's about a festival she presided over, and what she said. Unfortunately that means it is also no good to you, because it's not significant coverage and is also not independent.
4) is also not about her, it's about a different festival and more things she said. I'm starting to wish I could attend these festivals, they sound like a lot of fun! But sadly, this source has the same problems as 3).
5) is an interview, which again you cannot use for notability.
You can't write an article with these sources, so your first and biggest hurdle will be to find sources you can use.
Once you have done that, you'll probably need to rewrite the draft completely. Wikipedia articles on people are usually fairly standard: they begin with information about someone's childhood and adolescence, then onto their career and/or their notable accomplishments, then their current personal life, perhaps any controversies they've been involved in, and then their legacy or things people have said about them. The way articles are written is basically a series of facts, so you would be planning to write something like 'Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi was born in [place] in [year, maybe month and day] to [parents]. She has a [degree] from [place]. She owns [business names].' You could include the fact that her official marriage date was postponed and why, with a suitable source. You'll notice that this way of writing is quite different to what you currently have - it's not easy to write in an encyclopedic way, which is one of the reasons we suggest people practice editing other articles before trying to write one.
I hope this has been helpful to you, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. Advised to in future not ask for help at more than one place. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 July 2024 review of submission by SageOst2024[edit]

No one has re looked over my sources that I redid from the official sites that Vielle and his team created. I have removed the wiki references, and added his profile which proves quite a few of his feats. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these also include independent sources such as Nitro Type comp records and his team history. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024 For anyone to look at your draft you need to submit for further review, please. IT will then be looked at in due course 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see not one of your citations (which are not properly formatted - see WP:REFB - but that is another matter) is published by a reliable publisher. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your draft has no sources whatever.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 13 July 2024 review of submission by MaceMezio[edit]

Hey, I just want to know which sources are unreliable or how I make my sources reliable on my article. One reason why I am asking this is cos I have seen from other pages of rides at Thorpe Park with less references than my article. Thank you! MaceMezio (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaceMezio! WP:42, the 'golden rule', might be helpful to you here: your sources need to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. To be reliable, the sources need to have editorial oversight (so not blogs, for example) and be reputable (some newspapers, websites, etc, will publish anything if they are paid to do so, and that is not reliable because they'll say whatever anyone wants them to). With that in mind, let's look at your sources:
1) is Coasterpedia, which is a user-generated source and thus not reliable.
2) is the manufacturer's website, so it's not independent - they'll want to say nice things about their product!
3) is a blog, so probably not reliable.
Looking through Thorpe Park's rides, I actually found one that's been assessed as a Good Article (The Swarm (roller coaster)) - this would be a great one to base your article on, since Good Articles (GAs) have been vetted by the community and we know they are, well, good. Look at the sources it has, and see if you can find similar things for your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply
I have replaced some of the references with new ones, so how do my references/sources look now!
I understand The Swarm has several great references, however I do want to point out, the article for "Flying Fish (roller coaster)" for example has only one reference and I do not see the article needing any other citations.
Thanks! MaceMezio (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @MaceMezio! I'll answer your questions backwards: the reason some articles don't seem to have the same reference quality we're asking of you is because they were created in the old days of Wikipedia, when it was a wild frontier and just about any article could be created with little or no information. Flying Fish was created in 2006! There are millions of articles and nowhere near as many active editors, so these older articles tend to get missed until someone draws attention to them. You are absolutely correct that Flying Fish doesn't have good references, and in fact if I can't find any I'll be nominating it for deletion since the article shouldn't exist without good references. There's a whole essay about this at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Standards are much higher now, and there's no way Flying Fish would be accepted if it was submitted as-is.
Now, back to your draft. Remember you want sources with significant coverage and that are reliable and are independent of the topic. If the reference fails any of those criteria, you can't use it for notability.
1) is a blog, so probably not reliable (no editorial standards, we have no idea of their fact-checking process)
2) is a link to a book that was for sale - was this a mistake? If not, you can't use it unless the book contains a significant amount of information about Quantum specifically - and if it does contain that information specifically, you'd need to cite the book itself as a source rather than a place it could be bought (not significant coverage).
3) is from the manufacturer (not independent).
4) doesn't show any evidence of being a reliable source (no sign of editorial standards, no idea if they fact-check), so it won't help you either (not reliable).
Still no luck, I'm afraid. You are of course welcome to search for more sources, but please do your best to assess them against the WP:42 criteria before using them in your draft - when we give feedback, it's to help you understand what you're looking for, and I think you're at the point where you should be able to work out if a source is any good or not. Just ask yourself whether it meets each of the criteria, and reject it if it fails any of them. It may well be that there simply isn't enough information out there; that happens! Not every coaster, or every building, or every TV series, or every person is notable. Sometimes they become notable in time, and sometimes they vanish into obscurity. This can be a very frustrating discovery when you've been working on a draft, which is why you should have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and try out the advice you find there. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I will leave the article for now since I cannot find any more relevant references atm, every once in a while I will see what I can do about it, tho I don't want my draft deleted since I think I saw after 6 months, it will delete or something?
Btw, I used the book as a reference since I was able to preview it and the page numbers were put in correctly, but yes ig the way it sourced was a mistake.
Think that is all I have to say.
Thank you anyways. MaceMezio (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14[edit]

02:47, 14 July 2024 review of submission by RadioStoryTeller[edit]

I don't want to run afoul of the COI Guidelines, so I'm now reaching out for help in completing Draft:Secrets_of_Harridge_House. I disagree that this article is not suitable or inappropriate for Wikipedia, in that it isn't sufficiently sourced. There are far more sketchy articles currently available on Wikipedia that the same criticism could be applied to. I ask that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition. Please don't be judgmental, as this is my first excursion into creating articles for Wikipedia. Everyone's got to start somewhere, right? Thank you for your time. I look forward to the next steps in this process. RadioStoryTeller (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioStoryTeller: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll make a few observations in case it helps:
  1. You need to formally disclose your COI, as instructed in the message on your talk page. It isn't enough to say (assuming you're the one who added that) on the draft page "I'm Scott Young, a co-creator and co-writer...", because that won't stay there for very long, and in any case doesn't tell us which user account it refers to.
  2. I don't think anyone is telling you to "stop writing on this article", only that you must disclose your COI before continuing.
  3. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, in case that's what you mean by "ask[ing] that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition"; that is entirely your responsibility.
  4. As for other sketchy articles on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are indeed many problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. All new articles must comply with the currently-applicable policies and guidelines, and that is why we assess drafts in reference to these, and not by comparison to existing articles.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely promotional, no indication of notability and no independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RadioStoryTeller If you would like to help us out, please identify these "sketchy" articles you have seen so action can be taken. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us out, and with millions of articles and only thousands if not hundreds of regular editors, we need help in addressing problematic articles. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:23, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Jan Steinman[edit]

How to include sound Jan Steinman (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan Steinman: not sure what you mean, exactly, but there are two templates (at least) which could be used, {{Listen}} for sidebar content and {{Audio}} for inline audio.
That said, you don't really need to worry about such nice-to-haves, which don't in any way affect the draft's chances of being accepted. Instead, you should be working towards demonstrating notability, which is a core requirement for publishing, and for which your draft currently shows very little evidence, if any.
BTW, that list of external links in the 'The Neal Gladstone Radio Show' will need to go, as inline external links not allowed in the article main body text, and in any case such a long list is not appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under "To be accepted, a draft should:" the word "notability" does not appear. I have worked hard to satisfy the conditions listed.
Can you provide me with some guidance on "notability?" Jan Steinman (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source that documents his death, and has some coverage of him, you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him and shows how he meets the definition of a notable musician or more broadly a notable person.
The performances section should be removed, it's uncited, and probably should only list performances that merit articles themselves(i.e. like The Eras Tour does for Taylor Swift). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman: the first bullet point under "to be accepted", which reads qualifies for a Wikipedia article, refers to notability, and links to Wikipedia:Notability. And now 331dot has provided you with more specific links to person and musician notability guidelines. Please study those guidelines carefully.
I also need to mention that, as the person has died only a few months ago, this draft almost certainly still comes under our WP:Biographies of living persons policy (see WP:BDP), which requires inline citations to reliable published sources to support any potentially contentious statement and all private personal and family details. Currently most of the draft is unreferenced, and some of the sources cited are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman Additionally, while we have no reason to doubt the permissions given by his widow, we have no evidence of that permission. Without those permissions being recorded there is a strong probability of deletion. It is essential that permission is sent using the instructions present at any file.
At present, with this draft decorated with pictures which are pleasant, but add no value, and recordings which are similar, this is more a tribute page than a biography. Please see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and act accordingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman You have now proven that you can upload sound files.. Ok. However, being able to do something does not mean that you should do it. Wikipedia is not an archive of all of Gladstone's work. This great list will not be acceptable in the article, even if you achieve permission for them. 100% of them have been tagged as requiring permission.
Please give serious thought to our needs for an article, not a memorial, not an archive. If you wish to memorialise him, please get a website. Wikipedia is not a free web host. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I have been trying to advise the editor that we are not a repository for a slew of sound files. Regrettably I have only just checked that the draft is not a copyvio. The great majority is. I have redacted what I have found and requested a cv-revdel. There are two copyright warnings on their user talk page. Since they are in reverse chronological to the acts of copyvio I have decided that the second warning should be treated as if it were their first warning. YMMV.
@Jan Steinman This draft would never have been accepted as written, whether this was a copyright violation or not. WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies as does WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:39, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Anilbudhamagar2022[edit]

why i could not upload my biography Anilbudhamagar2022 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anilbudhamagar2022: a message was posted on your talk page three months ago explaining why autobiographies are not a good idea. And we take an especially dim view of totally unreferenced, purely promotional autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload your biography to social media or a personal website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1[edit]

Hi, I am trying to get my page for Aly Brier, the wife of Tommy Nelson approved. The issue I keep running into are that the sources are not considered "reliable."

Since her work primarily consists of short films, the coverage is not as easily available as that for feature films. Can you please let me know which websites are causing this holdup when someone goes to review the page or provide suggestions for alternative websites I can used for sources that are considered appropriate?

Thank you for your time, I greatly appreciate it. Slasher2point1 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slasher2point1 For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Check your references against these tough criteria. No references which pass? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Uryder23[edit]

I’m working on my first Wikipedia page, doing the editing while incorporating input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person.

One of these people (Joe) is an artist, and has offered two related images to make them part of the page. He’s not active on Wikipedia and his technical skills are not strong, so he has asked me to upload the image files. I’ve explained the Commons license to Joe, and he is OK with the terms. But the upload process wants me to claim that I own the work, which I do not.

Do you have any suggestions about how to proceed? If Joe sends me an email documenting his agreement to the CC license, is there some way to use the email to comply with the rules about image uploads?

Thanks Tom Edds 

Uryder23 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uryder23 Images and technicalities about them, should be discussed on Wikimedia Commons. To save you some trouble please read c:COM:VRT and follow the processes outlined there, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tom. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into a task that may cause you considerable frustration.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..
Note that "input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person", other than helping you identify independent sources about Breeze, are of little value, and may even be a hindrance. 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.
In fact, if you know people associated with Breeze, you may even have a conflict of interest in writing this - this does not prevent you from doing it, but it can make it even harder, as it is likely to make it hard for you to judge whether your text is sufficiently neutral. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat[edit]

Minor incident submitted the draft for review and may not be notable enough to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lucas Pat. Indeed, the draft was rejected as not being notable enough for an article. Did you have a question about the rejection? Qcne (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Minor incident is rejected, not declined submission. But you need to add references or reliable sources for incidents to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, that is why it was rejected. I still am not clear if you had a question about the draft, though? Qcne (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Clearly add more reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review, not "non-clear" submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Pat I do not understand what you mean, you are the one who submitted this draft? Why are you telling me to add reliable sources and submit the draft for review? As it has been rejected, it will not be considered. Qcne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne will help you add reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review but the submission is rejected because topic is not notable enough to accept submission, not to decline submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are saying, @Lucas Pat. Please re-phrase. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat Is English your primary language? It seems like you are using a translator or AI to communicate with us. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Yes. Is Portuguese the second language? Lucas Pat (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat You should edit the Portugese Wikipedia if you cannot communicate with us without using a translator.
Você deve editar a Wikipédia em português se não conseguir se comunicar conosco sem usar um tradutor. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Joao Rocha likes Portuguese-language Wikipedia because the submission is rejected and the topic is not notable. Lucas Pat (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese Wikipedia is blocked from editing for 3 days because of vandalism. Lucas Pat (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend waiting until your block has ended, and continuing there. Qcne (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Yes. Impossible to edit in Portuguese Wikipedia but possible in English Wikipedia until July 17. Lucas Pat (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the language skills to edit the English Wikipedia, please wait until the 17th July. Qcne (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne They are blocked for vandalism on the Portuguese WP 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Bdavid1b00[edit]

The article has been rejected multiple times. I have referenced enough sources 

Bdavid1b00 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdavid1b00 there is no indication this person meets our notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the way forward? Bdavid1b00 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try and prove notability by following the instructions at the link above. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Nono19192[edit]

I received feedback that the article needs to be written in a neutral tone of voice. I'd love to get some specific pointers on how to improve the article for it to be approved. Can you please advise what kind of images I am allowed to use in the article? Many thanks in advance Nono19192 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nono19192. I will highlight below a list of unacceptable words/phrases. Wikipedia must be written in a strictly neutral point of view.
  1. been synonymous with elegance, creativity and floral art for over a century
  2. Through its rich heritage, Lachaume has served and continues to serve a distinguished clientele,
  3. securing its status as an institution of Parisian sophistication
  4. visionary florist
  5. gained recognition for its timeless, elegant and refined style
  6. highlighting his passion for elevating floristry to a form of art.
  7. where it continued to prosper, attracting a clientele including European royalty, cultural icons and renown fashion designers
  8. beginning a new chapter while maintaining its classic decor and commitment to timeless elegance
  9. illustrating how passion, craftsmanship, and creativity can create a legacy in floral art
To be blunt, the draft needs deleting and re-writing from scratch. In it's current form it seems to exist only to promote and advertise the business. This is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Please carefully study both WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
Do you, by any chance, have a connection to Lachaume? It seems hard to believe an uninterested bystander would write about a business in such a promotional way. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 14 July 2024 review of submission by 39.58.232.226[edit]

War 2 39.58.232.226 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Qcne (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 15[edit]

09:24, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Айке Керимбекова[edit]

Hello! I am not able to add an article to the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. What can I do? Айке Керимбекова (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Айке Керимбекова: I don't know, but in any case there's nothing we can do to help with that here on the English-language Wikipedia; the two are completely separate projects. You need to go to https://ky.wikipedia.org/ and enquire there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Ok. Thanks. 91.247.59.70 (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 15 July 2024 review of submission by BasicScientist4487[edit]

This submission was rejected on the basis of being "not adequately supported by reliable sources".

However, the draft uses both primary and secondary sources, which from my reading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, in combination, meet the requirements for both reliability and notability.

I would be grateful for any specific guidance on which sources in particular need to be removed/revised in order for this draft to be accepted. BasicScientist4487 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BasicScientist4487! Let's see if we can work out what your difficulty is.
My immediate first suggestion will be to remove any sources that come from the Centre - anything from its website, any interviews given by staff/founder/etc, any articles or papers published by employees. Your sources must be independent, so anything connected to the Centre is immediately useless for your purposes. Having looked at your first few sources, this includes anything published by their parent organization/s. I will skip these in my quick source analysis.
Your sources must comply with WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coveragein reliable sources that are independent of the topic. 'Reliable' also means sources must have editorial oversight and be published by a reputable place. Sources have to meet all three criteria to be acceptable. With that in mind, let's have a look!
5) is the first source not connected to the Centre, and it's actually not about the Centre; it draws upon studies done by the Centre, which is not the same thing. I note also that there's a disclosure that the author of the piece has a close connection to the Centre, so it would not be usable in any case. (not significant coverage; not independent)
6) is only a mention in a list (not significant coverage).
8) is also not about the Centre (not significant coverage).
9) is a mention, and it turns out the Centre is named as a sponsor (not significant coverage, not independent).
13) looks like a data analysis; I can't access it, but I would be extremely surprised if it was about the Centre (not significant coverage).
15) sounds very much like all the information has come directly from the Centre; it's very promotional. Even without the interview, I think this would fail 'reliable source' as well as the obvious one. (not independent)
19) isn't about the Centre (not significant coverage).
All the other sources are connected to the Centre in one way or another. Unfortunately, this means that you don't have any usable sources.
You need at least three good sources for an article to be accepted. If you can only find one or two, it might be worthwhile putting that information into the articles of the parent organizations - but you do need at least one source to even mention it in the parent organizations' page. Although I am sure this is disappointing news, I hope it helps you in your search for sources. If you do find them, your next step is going to be to start all over again, and only write in the draft what you find in the sources - have a look at WP:BACKWARDS for more information.
Regardless of your next step, I wish you good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is hugely helpful and much appreciated! Thank you. BasicScientist4487 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome @BasicScientist4487! Another thing to consider, if you're having trouble finding good sources - it might just be WP:TOOSOON. I know the Centre is five years old, but sometimes it takes time for things to get rolling, and I suspect that there will be more coverage in the next few years as their research projects and associated papers start being published. If there's not anything around at the moment, you can just sit on the draft and make a minor edit every six months (so it doesn't get deleted) while waiting for the Centre to become notable. And of course there are literally millions of articles that could use your help in the meantime! You write neutrally, fluently, and clearly, which is something we always need more of - if there are other subjects that interest you, I think your assistance editing articles about them would be very welcome. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Naksha M S[edit]

Why is the article not getting approved Naksha M S (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naksha M S. There is no indication you are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do? ,What should I do to publish the article? Naksha M S (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naksha M S: you shouldn't; you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, per WP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try some sort of social media or blogging platform. In any case, Draft:Naksha Saran has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Aundreplayer[edit]

this is a new project Aundreplayer (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(indeffed) Qcne (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Naksha M S[edit]

I'm not able to understand the problem with the article and moreover, I'm not able to understand the overall process Naksha M S (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naksha M S you are not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, therefore you cannot have an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naksha M S: please do not start multiple threads, thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Unnamelessness[edit]

This revision was interestingly rejected by NegativeMP1 with a rationale of WP:TOOSOON. However, the title has been officially announced, with enough WP:RS being added to cover the topic. That being said WP:N is estabilished, and the article passes WP:GNG. This is not like the old revision, which was rejected by SafariScribe. The whole passage has been structured to improve the quality, and is enough to guarantee a START status. According to the AFC reviewing workflow, I see no reasons why this should be declined. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will accept it once the redirect has been deleted. Qcne (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I looked at the recent rejection reasons and immediately thought that the article was going to be in the same place and not much would have changed in two days, and I was also hesitant about going against another reviewers opinion. I guess the article is fine. λ NegativeMP1 16:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 15 July 2024 review of submission by V. Karlstedt[edit]

Hi, wondering if you have time to check if the page looks good before it gets reviewed? V. Karlstedt (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@V. Karlstedt: you're asking us to review it before it gets reviewed? We don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk, but you'll get one when a reviewer happens to pick it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I just rejected it, if you think content like "Docklands became a sustainable, mega-club and the wet dream of each and every party kid." you clearly have no chance here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why not?
It is written (copied) from news article.
And that's not all that's on the page (one sentence) V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt Which means you have violated copyright. It is wise not to repeat that error. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six images have been uploaded after Swedish Wikipedia's one image.
The picture from the Swedish side: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_(nattklubb)
from 2002 has been refined on the English (my) site. Check it out! V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt: not sure why you're mentioning that, but just to say that images have no bearing on a draft's acceptance prospects. And in any case this draft has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 123creativeuser[edit]

Dear Wikipedia-Team, I have trouble to successfully upload the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Could you explain this further? Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article.

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Best wishes 123creativeuser 

123creativeuser (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: the sources are all primary, meaning that they cannot satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Your other option is to demonstrate notability by WP:ARTIST, by producing reliable and clear evidence of how they meet one or more of the four criteria listed there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! Where do I demonstrate the notability by WP:ARTIST? Jeewi Lee meets the criteria 4 b) (been a substantial part of a significant exhibition) and 4 d) (been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums). Do I need to state this anywhere? I believe this information has already been made clear in the article. I linked sources from institutions, where Jeewi Lee had exhibitions / articles written about her. Do they not count as secondary sources? What would a secondary source be? 123creativeuser (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: if you want to rely for notability on the person meeting ARTIST 4d, then you mention that their works have been included in the permanent collection museums (obviously specifying these by name), and cite reliable sources to support that statement.
Note that being part of an exhibition at a museum is not the same as being included in the museum's permanent collection. And more generally, be aware that the ARTIST guideline is quite onerous, and draft authors typically underestimate what is being required. I'm not saying it's impossible to meet that guideline, but it is far from a given.
Secondary sources are defined at WP:SECONDARY. They typically include newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes. Organisations' websites are almost invariably primary sources, even if they are 'third party' relative to the subject itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you show where she has work "within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" I can't see this? Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123creativeuser Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, thanks 331dot (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 15 July 2024 review of submission by V. Karlstedt[edit]

Can you explain what is not approved on the page? V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is written totally inappropriately for an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt: please don't start multiple threads, it makes it difficult to track the dialogue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 123creativeuser[edit]

Hello,

I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Could you explain this further? Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article.

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Thank you in advance!

Best wishes 123creativeuser 

123creativeuser (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: please don't start multiple threads, if you have further comments or questions just add them to the one you already started. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123creativeuser You have done a nice job of documenting her work, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about Lee and what makes her important/significant/influential, either as a notable artist or a notable person more broadly. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:32, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Pizpa[edit]


Article put up for AfC: Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct_During_Disagreement

Hi, thanks for reviewing my AfC Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement. However, I'm confused at the justification for the decline. What I wrote is an essay with advice on Wikipedia editing, similar to e.g. WP:EDITDISC. If you review that essay, you will not see any citations of external sources. Is it possible for me to have my essay reviewed by the same standard that WP:EDITDISC was?

Sorry I'm struggling with the form :) Pizpa (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizpa: Wikipedia essays are not published as articles. They are published instead in the Wikipedia: or User: namespaces. See WP:ESSAY for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Sorry for the misfire :) Pizpa (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Black11films[edit]

Did you see the articles? They cover him greatly? Especially number 3. Try look it again please. Black11films (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black11films: the first source is IMDb, which is basically useless, and the last one just announces the film premiere. The other two (which are only really one, as it's the same publication) aren't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some more, try look at it now.
I hope it's better now. Black11films (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to disclose your clear conflict of interest, Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting yourself or your YouTube videos. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black11films: no, it really is no better, unfortunately. The sources still don't show that he is notable, and you still aren't supporting the content with inline citations. You shouldn't just write what you want, and then tag on a few sources that may or may not verify some of it. You should summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about the person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, but you guys are really not trying to help dough. I will not go further with this article and you have demotivated me to help Wikipedia will future insights. Thank you again. Black11films (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since your only "insights" are to promote yourself and your videos, it is no great loss to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Tallstop99[edit]

If I remove the citations/references to the Rumph websites, will that be enough to get this extremely influential and important artist a page on Wikipedia? Tallstop99 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallstop99: if you remove them, the draft will be almost completely unreferenced. So no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. So does leaving them help or hurt my case? Tallstop99 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tallstop99. Removing his website leaves three sources:
  1. starwars.com obviously not independent, but does give a good overview of Jim Rumph.
  2. people.com doesn't mention him at all.
  3. ebay auction, cannot be used to establish notability.
So, no, unfortunately not yet. We'd need usually a minimum of three reliable independent sources that have significant coverage of Jim Rumph. These could be books, magazine articles, newspapers- all that give commentary, analysis, discussion, etc. Qcne (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
2. people.com doesn't mention his name, but does show his work on the source I gave in the Draft. His work was also featured on the cover of People, but I can't seem to find this cover online other than here. Do these not count?
3. That ebay auction was for a physical copy of an issue of LA Times West magazine, which has a big write up on him. I cannot find an online version of that magazine, but I do have a physical copy of it. Can I use that as a reference? If so, how do I do so?
TIA Tallstop99 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For source 2: we'd need some kind of text, commentary, analysis, discussion, etc. A photo of his work doesn't establish notability.
For source 3, please cite the magazine with a full reference (like, 'Casual Horror. The Usual Knight. Rumph.', John Riley, date, LA Times West Issue xyz). Sources do not have to be online but we do need a full reference so that a reader can find the source in a library or archive if they so wish. A random ebay auction doesn't allow the reader to check the content.
Two or three more sources of the calibre of that LA Times West article would actually likely prove that Jim meets the notability threshold, and would make the draft acceptable.
Hope that helps, happy to have another look if you can find some more sources. You can ping me on my user talk page. Qcne (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the reply.
For #2, one more question. You say "some kind of text" is needed. Does his published work count? He was a published author and cartoonist in Comix Book #4 and Cops 'N Dopers comic books.
3) I will do that, thanks.
For more sources, would an article about him in Monster Land magazine qualify? Or an ad in Playboy magazine?
Obviously, I wouldn't reference therumph.com for my official draft, just checking if these count. Tallstop99 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 15 July 2024 review of submission by ALFI THOMAS[edit]

Are you a fight master .are you studying lakshya Most people feel very good about themselves when they are able to extend assistance to others. You're allowing others to feel those rewarding emotions whenever you request a hand from them 

ALFI THOMAS (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then.
Did you have an actual question in mind that you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing They may or may not, but CSD U5 and G11 may trigger one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ALFI THOMAS: This looks like an attempt at a resume; we don't host those and have zero use for them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 15 July 2024 review of submission by TraciAlexis88[edit]

Hi, my submission was declined by Safari Scribe for references. I am hoping to get help on how to better cite the references as I believe this person should be included in Wikipedia. Appreciate any help you can offer. TraciAlexis88 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TraciAlexis88 You need to prove, if it is provable, that she passes WP:FILMMAKER, or WP:NACTOR by dint of researching and finding excellent references.
Like many new editors you have approached this WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, find your references, and create the draft in your own words from what they say.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TraciAlexis88 Decorating it with a picture in breach of copyright was also not a good idea. It has been nominated for deletion on Commons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of this feedback! Very helpful will review all of the links you provided TraciAlexis88 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 75.174.215.150[edit]

What state was Richard Sheldon Barr disbarred from? 

75.174.215.150 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which state was Richard Sheldon Barr disbarred from and when? 75.174.215.150 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor, I think that might be a question for either Google or the Reference Desk - this board is for questions about writing draft articles. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I need your opinion on the draft WP:NPRODUCER.[edit]

Hi guys! I would appreciate your opinion on an article for creation.The full discussion is here. Thank you.

User talk:Qcne#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

For the WP:producer - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
It says he has served as a talent producer and booker for all 5 seasons of Kelly Clarkson, producing music part in every episode. If we add the links to credits, do you think it could be an option? Considering receiving an Emmy for it- as the recognition of his work on that. J2009j (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Hm. I am actually not sure. It might be worth asking on the WP:AFCHD, you can link to this discussion, to get some input from other reviewers. I don't have much experience with WP:NPRODUCER.
He definately doesn't meet WP:NACTOR yet and there isn't evidence for meeting the more general WP:NPERSON criteria, but that criterion #3 is debatable, so I think a second opinion might be useful. Qcne (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J2009j (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16[edit]

07:11, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Yara Jenkins[edit]

My subject is a fairly new celebrity. There is not going to be a whole lot of coverage on him right now. Yara Jenkins (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Jenkins Please disclose your connection with this person, see conflict of interest. You claim that you took the image of him.
If there is no significant coverage about him in independent reliable sources, there cannot be an article about him on Wikipedia. This typically does not happen with a person until the person has "already arrived" in terms of celebrity, not a new or "up and coming" celebrity. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Metalzoneuae[edit]

How can I change this article so that it is not an advertisement but rather an information article. please provide with sections that I should remove and add? Metalzoneuae (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by 103.102.117.13[edit]

Why is my draft rejected ? 103.102.117.13 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly given by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The draft has now been deleted as promotional. It seems like you are writing about yourself- that is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. You should learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the most diffficult task here, creating a new article. Your draft was completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Maxim13124[edit]

I wanted to create an Article about myself, but I dont have any Sources like Newspapers, because I am only known on Social Media like Instagram or Discord. What can I do, so my Wikipedia Article gets accepted ? Maxim13124 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim13124: you should not be writing about yourself at all; see WP:AUTOBIO. And by the sound of it, you're not notable enough to have an article published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12[edit]

Hi there, I am editing my sandbox article as per the comments provided by the wiki editors. I'd like to change my article to a BIO:Academic but am unsure how to do this. I have already restructured the article to match a BIO:Academic template. Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. What is "BIO:Academic template"?
Or are you saying you would like to show that this person is notable according to the notability guideline for academics? If so, then there is nothing you need to change or restructure; you just need to provide evidence that they meet one of the eight criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, currently it fails the WP:BLP which is my error. I would like to rewrite as WP:NACADEMIC article. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am adding references for an academic bio. We have more primary references than secondary. I am wondering other than a literature review of the academics works, what other sources are considered secondary and are appropriate to a career academic? Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't start a new thread, just add to your earlier one. (I've merged your two threads.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leemhwiki12: BLP is our policy for articles on living people, which among other things sets referencing standards which are stricter than for most other topics. It is not a notability guideline.
Notability (which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia) is in most cases established according to the general WP:GNG guideline. With some topics there are special guidelines, in the case of scientists/academics, the WP:ACADEMIC guideline. You only need to meet one guideline: GNG is fairly clear-cut, so if you can find sufficient secondary sources to meet that, it's the easiest one to go for. If such sources don't exist, then ACADEMIC is probably your only option, but meeting it requires significant career achievements, meaning that only a small fraction of the world's academics are likely to meet it.
Does this help clarify things? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate your help. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Dt12345673838[edit]

Please help me get this accepted, help me what to change or add. please Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dt12345673838: you need to show that the person is notable; see the advice in the decline notice.
I noticed that you've uploaded both photos as your own work. Did you actually take these yourself? If so, what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the decision regarding the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia. I believe Mr. Salkow meets Wikipedia's notability criteria due to his significant contributions as the founder of Ellies Holdings, a prominent figure in the broadcasting technology sector in South Africa. Mr. Salkow's entrepreneurial achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources. These sources highlight his role in founding and leading Ellies Holdings, which has been a cornerstone in South Africa's broadcasting industry. I have compiled a list of reputable sources that provide detailed coverage of Mr. Salkow's career and contributions. I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision and the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia article, accurately reflecting his pivotal role in the company's history and the broader industry. Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to your response. Best regards,
- Firstly he has a wikipedia article about his business- HE the CEO is bigger then the business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellies_Holdings - Secondly search him up Thirdly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12pJxdKSqMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykglp4i95vk Dt12345673838 Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: it's not our job as reviewers to "search him up". We assess drafts based on the evidence provided therein. You say that his "achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources" – then you need to cite those sources in your draft. (In fact, you should base your draft on summary of those sources, citing each one against the information it has provided.)
Whether an article exists on the business this person founded/owned/managed has nothing to do with whether an article on the person can be published. Each subject must establish its own notability, as notability is not inherited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
family Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? As I am lost? Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 I hope this does not seem patronising, but "the work" is what you should do. You want the draft accepted, so do the work as advised. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing The files are up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons as copyright violations 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was just offended by @DoubleGrazingsaying "notability is not inherited". As we know Elliot Salkow worked very hard from selling mirrors from his car to becoming the top 10 wealthiest person in tech in South Africa. So we know that notability is not inherited. But I will include more articles, thanks for the feedback. I have submitted a new draft. Thanks all. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: I wasn't saying that he inherited (or not) anything, or that he didn't work hard. I was saying that notability, in the Wikipedia context, is not transferred by association from one subject to another; see WP:NOTINHERITED. In other words, even if the business in question is notable, this confers no notability on the individual. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Ok. Sorry. Thank you for helping me. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been delated. Sorry, they must have been sent out by other family memebers to websites writing articles about him. Sorry again. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My draft got rejected again. I know it’s not your job to do research. But I have like 8 links on him. Cited everything. I need some help or guidance please 101.173.103.69 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're Dt12345673838?).
The sources do not provide significant coverage of Salkow. Most make only passing mentions, and/or cover his business rather than him. One doesn't even mention him, and one returns 'page not found'. The only one that discusses him more extensively is the TechCentral piece, but it is a first-person account by someone who knew him, so it isn't secondary, and possibly also not entirely independent and/or reliable; in any case, it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 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.
For every source you want to cite, examine it critically against the three criteria in WP:42: only if it meets all three will it contribute at all to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 you may follow the process at c:COM:VRT to seek to have the pictures restored. The copyright owner must licence the files correctly for Wikimedia Foundation to be able to use them.
Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego[edit]

I was told that I should try and direct this to the namespace myself, but I'm unsure of how to do that. This article has over 22,000 bytes so it is clearly notable enough. I'm just not exactly sure how to replace the redirect with this article. Shmego (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego I think you need to have conversations with S0091 and/or Hurricane Noah. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam[edit]

I was wondering why this article was ruled not relevant enough for Wikipedia as there is over 100k people who consider themselves to be members or citizens of this nation. Mquashiesam (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mquashiesam Perhaps you should ask the reviewer who rejected it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do Mquashiesam (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Aasiea[edit]

I would like to publish an image of Mahgul Ali, the same one that was recently removed due to licensing. After looking at the image use policy, the image provided would be categorized as "Own Work" because it is a photograph provided by the family. Do we need to have a copyright on the image before uploading it again? Aasiea (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam[edit]

There is currently a group of over 70 people who are looking for micronation inclusion in Wikipedia "WikiProject Micronations" There are also many micronations already included in Wikipedia. Yet this one is being treated as not notable Mquashiesam (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Producer[edit]

Hi guys! Can we approve a draft for a show producer in this case based on this criteria?

I read what you shared. For the WP:producer - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
It says he has served as a talent producer and booker for all 5 seasons of Kelly Clarkson, producing music part in every episode. If we add the links to credits, do you think it could be an option? Considering receiving an Emmy for it- as the recognition of his work on that.

Full discussion here- User talk:Qcne#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

The person produced 104 episodes of the show, and received Emmy for that. He had one acting role, but he obviously does not meet the requirements for the acting category. J2009j (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17[edit]

00:50, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BeExcellent2EachOther1988[edit]

What is missing? This is my first time ever setting up a Wikipedia page? What sources are appropriate and which are not? I kind of need a hands-on tutorial from an expert on this and understanding the differences. There's enough sources and he's been in the news enough times to warrant his own Wikipedia page but it's I think a matter of picking the right ones. BeExcellent2EachOther1988 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1234956345"