Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

July 31

07:46, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

• Wolfpack1999 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thinking outside the box and 5W1H (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

need advice on how to improve on the article Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wolfpack1999: This isn't an article, it's a self-help essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

07:54, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

• Wolfpack1999 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wolfpack1999, promotional editing of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and the neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. WP:NCORP is the stringent guideline governing articles about businesses and companies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

08:44, 31 July 2024 review of submission by CoTangent

• CoTangent (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pro-Lie Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I translated a German wikipedia article about a mathematical subject ( de: Pro-Lie-Gruppe) into English and wanted to submit it to the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pro-Lie_Group

Unfortunately, the submission was declined becauce This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

My problem is that I think the article is supported enough by reliable sources (I know that is not a good argument, but it was enough for the German wikipedia). Furthermore, it is not a very controversial topic and all the definitions are pretty standard. Does anyone know how I should go on? All the best, and thanks for your help! CoTangent (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@CoTangent: I think this was correctly declined. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which appears to be a WordPress blog of some sort. Those sources are cited against two relatively minor statements in the 'Examples', with the vast majority of the draft unreferenced. We do need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified.

Whether an article on this subject and with these references exists in the German-language Wikipedia is their business, and has no bearing on its acceptability here, as each language version is completely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

CoTangent Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to ensure that the article they are translating for another Wikipedia meets the requirements of that Wikipedia.

You have only two sources; to pass this process, most reviewers generally look for at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the topic and its importance. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! CoTangent (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

10:49, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

• Leemhwiki12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • DRAFT Justin Kenardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I have updated the article as suggested. I've changed the format to academic bio and added in appropriate references. I am wondering if this is enough before I submit it again? Appreciate any help or suggestions, thank you. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Leemhwiki12: I have no concerns about notability, but there are still unreferenced statements which need to be supported. Even something relatively innocuous like "Kenardy completed a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in 1981 and Ph.D. in Psychiatry in 1989 from the University of Queensland" might cause someone to raise an eyebrow and think how do we know that's true... and the reader should never have the need to ask such a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I can reference this statement to his online university profile, but in my last submission it was rejected. I’m curious as to what reference you would deem appropriate. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

12:47, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Rugantino73

• Rugantino73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marco Nica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning, despite the fact that the page complies with all the rules of Wikipedia, is not self-referential, and has encyclopedic value, I am unable to get it published. I have included all the required sources to enhance the content, making this page better than many others that are already present and published on Wikipedia. I find your attitude excessively hostile towards me and, above all, discriminatory. I urge you to publish the page without further disputes. Best regards.

Rugantino73 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rugantino73: this draft most certainly does not comply with "all the rules of Wikipedia", it breaks quite a number of them. And you have 'referenced' it mostly with pictures and links to Amazon. As it stands, this will absolutely not be published.

As for whether this is better or worse than other articles that may exist out there, is completely irrelevant. We do not assess drafts by comparison to other articles, but instead by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.

And before you start throwing around accusations of discrimination etc., I hope you have solid evidence to back up such allegations, as otherwise you may find yourself sanctioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Find a common line. Your colleagues informed me that links to Amazon could be added without any issues, the page has been modified according to your indications, it was simpler at first. If you want the sources and those sources are on Amazon (it is a publishing house like the others), you will have links to Amazon. I can remove everything. Try to think that you are a free encyclopedia and that there should not be companies proposing the creation of paid pages. When a new page is submitted and is rejected because it does not reflect your publishing principles, that is fine, but those principles must also apply to other similar pages that are online; this is what I consider discrimination, and I do not think I should be the one to be sanctioned. Have a good day. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to find a "common line". If Amazon is the publisher of these books, they are clearly self-published vanity titles, that confer nothing in terms of notability. If Amazon isn't the publisher, it is acting as a retailer, and we don't cite shops as sources. In any case, even if Amazon were the publisher, you don't need to add spammy links to your draft, you can simply cite the books with standard bibliographical details.

It is not discrimination that we are declining your draft, when it is clearly not ready to be published, while sub-par articles exist among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) It is simply us applying objectively our policies and guidelines regarding what is acceptable for publication.

And one final point: be aware that if you resubmit the draft without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, it may be rejected outright without the option to resubmit, because this signals your unwillingness and/or inability to develop it further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: Hold on, what is your involvement in Draft:Marco Nica? It seems you've made exactly one edit to it. Are you working with, or operating also, the user account BearThatRun? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We are two working on it: Rugantino73 and BearThatRun. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Lists of works are a decoration, like images. The important part of any article is a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.

The important part of your draft - the biography - is almost unreferenced, and contains non-neutral language ("his passion for"; "original"; "famous").

You have almost certainly written this draft BACKWARDS, as new editors usually do if they attempt to write a new article before learning how Wikipedia works. First find your reliable, independent, sources, with significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Then write a summary of what those sources say, not of what you know. If that adds up to an article, you can add a selected bibliography - preferably citing everything to independent sources, because if you can't find an independent source that talks about a work, why is that work relevant to an encyclopaedia article?

I don't know who told you that "links to Amazon could be added without any issues", but they were wrong. See WP:VENDOR for the limited circumstances in which commerce sites may be cited.

Rugantino73, and @BearThatRun: what is your relationship with Nica? If you know him (as suggested by BearThatRun's comment on the images "He gave them to me", then you should declare your conflict of interest.

Also, @BearThatRun, I have nominated both images for deletion, as you have not provided any evidence that the copyright holder has put them in the public domain. If the copyrighht holder (who is probably not Nica) has made that statement, it must be evidenced by them: see WP:donating copyright materials./ ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

alright, I'm going to ask about the release of rights. Thank you! BearThatRun (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I know him by email since when i was creating the page i needed images. Other than the books/shows i saw. BearThatRun (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

17:28, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Río de las Ánimas

• Río de las Ánimas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Durango Hot Springs Resort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why the citations are not worthy. There are several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums. Any advice? Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Río de las Ánimas: what do you mean by "several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums"? This draft has three citations, of two sources, and both sources appear to be newspapers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't publish the changes. I've added a website for the Animas Museum. And I have a very old book, self-published by the old owners of the hot springs: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/trimble-hot-springs_leith-lende-bear/52117571/. Thanks for any advice and help. I'm a fan of Colorado hot springs and noticed the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hot_springs_in_Colorado has links to several hot springs that don't have pages or have really outdated info, like Trimble. Thanks again. Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

19:10, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

• Monniejaym (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kenyon Dixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have now submitted this twice and read everything about reliable sources. Can someone give more detailed feedback as to what is not reliable? Monniejaym (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Interviews are not independent sources, YouTube is not a reliable source and Soundcloud is a primary source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

21:45, 31 July 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345

• JFBB12345 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Maxwell Bailey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I want to make sure that the five selected papers cited for this subject are referenced in the correct academic format. I have given them all numbered references, as there must not be any links in the article outside of Wikipedia cross-reference links. Please can you advise whether 'Authors: Bailey, J. et al ' should appear in the actual numbered reference (and if so, what is the text code for this, as I do not seem to have put it in the correct small box when 'inserting a journal reference'... Thanks for your assistance! JFBB12345 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@JFBB12345: are you asking about refs 15-19? Yes, they appear to be correctly cited using the {{cite journal}} template. That template can also accommodate author details, but that's probably not necessary in your case, given how you've listed these papers in your draft.

BTW, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for confirmation that the reference citation format is acceptable, much appreciated. No conflict of interest, will reply to your comment on the appropriate page. 2A0A:EF40:C:DA01:7064:E8DF:AE10:6B95 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

22:23, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Dalex247

• Dalex247 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joanne Westwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm using similar references to other similar published wikipedia pages. Why is this declined? Dalex247 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dalex247: you can't really say you're using "similar references". The English-language Wikipedia has nearly 7m articles, ranging from completely unreferenced to far stronger referencing than in your draft, therefore "similar" becomes meaningless. In any case, comparing yours to other articles, aka. the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach, is not how we assess drafts. We compare them to what is required by the applicable policies and guidelines.

The sources in this draft are mostly primary, and the couple of secondary ones provide only passing mentions. One source is an interview, published in a blog. None of these contribute towards notability per the general WP:GNG guideline for notability. (Hockey has no special guideline, hence why GNG applies. Cricket does have one, and having played internationally could make a player notable, but only for countries with test status, which Wales isn't.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Ok, fair enough... the question was vague, but thanks for the feedback regardless. Now I've got you, I've added a more detailed question on the talk page of the draft but will summarise here. Any help would be much appreciated.

I have updated my Draft to include more references from reliable sources and have taken inspiration from similar pages that have been accepted, notably Phoebe Richards - Wikipedia and Sarah Jones (field hockey) - Wikipedia (Eloise Laity - Wikipedia and Rose Thomas (field hockey) - Wikipedia) who played alongside Joanne Westwood. Firstly, I mistakenly removed the AfD template as the declined template from my first draft was still showing. Will this template be updated after review or should I change it to the original draft template again so its picked up again?

Secondly, and this may come up when its reviewed, but any advice as to how I can improve this draft? I'm not sure what I'm doing differently to the pages for other Welsh field hockey players with similar careers.

Following your feedback, finding secondary references that are more than passing mentions from reputable sources would be the way to go? Can this include video interviews? and appreciate the "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach" is not how drafts are assessed but is there any inspiration I can take from the pages I mentioned above? as they all played together, they will likely have similar references available. Dalex247 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Interviews do not establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.

If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dalex247: the GNG guideline, which is what you need to be working towards, requires multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of each other, and of the subject), and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.

As 331dot notes, interviews may have some limited use in verifying non-contentious information, but they are not independent (they are the subject talking, usually about themselves), and not necessarily reliable either (since no fact-checking or editorial oversight is applied), and cannot therefore be used to establish notability.

I haven't looked at the other articles you mention, but just to say that not every article that exists has been 'accepted', nor would they necessarily be acceptable. Some pre-date the AfC review process. Some were created when referencing and notability requirements were more relaxed than they are today. Some were published by authors who have user permissions allowing them to bypass article reviews. And due to the large number of articles in the 'pedia, these issues simply haven't been picked up yet.

Finally, yes, I saw that you had removed the earlier review template, and I replaced it. The templates need to stay there until the draft is accepted, as they form an audit trail of the review process. They will just continue to pile up, until they are all automatically removed upon acceptance. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@331dot@DoubleGrazing Thank you both thats really helpful. I'll find a few more references Dalex247 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

August 1

02:24, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Ss6928

• Ss6928 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ian Paulsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page was declined and needs to be rewritten but I need more specific advice for why they believe it reads like an advertisement. I thought I provided third party sources. Ss6928 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ss6928 I fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion). Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The draft reads much like a resume, it documents his work and accomplishments, but does not describe what independent reliable sources say makes him a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my link! And for your advice. Let me try again. Ss6928 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

06:41, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Sonatondash920

• Sonatondash920 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Noritan Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please approve mu article page... Sonatondash920 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sonatondash920 Fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion) but your draft was thorougly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves like social media is, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

11:35, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Tsurielsdomi

• Tsurielsdomi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Tsurielsdomi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I created a profile for Tsuriel Sdomi with many citations and references, but it was not accepted. He is a very important person in his city and country.

What can I do to get it accepted?

Thank you. Tsurielsdomi (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tsurielsdomi: have you read the decline notice? It gives the reasons why I declined this, which therefore are the things you need to work on.

Similarly, have you read any of the messages posted on your talk page User talk:Tsurielsdomi, starting with why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, and why copying content from other sources is not allowed? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

14:34, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Editorialalex

• Editorialalex (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have made some changes to this article with the help of Nnev66‬, and I would like to get a second opinion before I submit it for review a second time. Does the article as it stands now contain enough in-depth, reliable, independent secondary sources? Editorialalex (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Editorialalex, we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You will get a full assessment of your draft when you submit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you. Editorialalex (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

14:43, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Xeimen129

• Xeimen129 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Xeimen129/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My wikipedia article about age of history games keeps getting declined only because i dont have enough primary review sources and i cant find any because no one has made a serious review of the game so i resort to using steam reviews please help. IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Xeimen129: you have resubmitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment sooner or later. In the meantime, did you have a question you wanted to ask?

If there aren't sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability, then that most likely means that the subject simply isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I used mutable steam reviews on one statement to try to state the majority opinion of the bugs and criticisms in the game IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Steam reviews are utterly unusable (no editorial oversight), just like any other sort of user review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

15:30, 1 August 2024 review of submission by RebeccaM226

• RebeccaM226 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Henri Struck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Regarding reliable sources for a musician, which are the sites are considered as reliable sources for music release ? Because the reviewer said that discogs.com neither imdb are accepted. The proof of work of Henri Scars Struck is on many of these places. Otherwise the only thing left is screen capture the records ? RebeccaM226 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@RebeccaM226: user-generated sources are not regarded as reliable. This includes IMDB, Discogs, Vimeo and YouTube (depending on the channel/publisher), and indeed Wikipedia itself. Nearly half of your draft's citations are to such sources.

You also have a lot of content that isn't supported by any sources, which is a problem in itself, especially in articles on living people (WP:BLP).

If you cannot find reliable sources to support the information, then it must be removed.

Having said all that, I will slightly qualify this by saying that the reverse of the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that if you're making completely non-contentious (and purely factual) statements, such as the title and year of release of an album, you may get away with supporting them with the likes of Discogs. But that's only in very limited cases, and otherwise your referencing needs to be pretty much faultless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

15:39, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Greghenderson2006

• Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lewis Josselyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User SafariScribe has declined my article saying "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, he does not say what sources are not reliable. The history says: "Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" I have no idea what to change or do. I've sent SafariScribe a message but there has been no reply. It is very frustrating to have an article rejected for a vague reason. Do you agree? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and some editors like occasionally to do other things in their life. Given that SafariScribe declined this less than 24 hrs ago, maybe give them a bit more time to respond? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, after all.

And yes, I get how it may be frustrating that we have to use templates when processing drafts, but there's no way around that, really. With thousands of pending drafts in the system, things would grind to a halt completely if we had to write each decline reason individually. But I get your point that it's difficult to improve your referencing if you're not sure which bit of it requires improvement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 Let's look at some of your sources, but not in huge quantity or detail. I'll take the first few:

• https://museum.nps.gov/ParkORet.aspx?pS=Lewis%20Josselyn%26db%3Dobjects%26dir%3DCR%20SAFR# verifies that he exists, not that he has notability. That's ok if others verify notability
• https://collections.montereyart.org/objects-1/info/3187?sort=0 is one of his pictures. Please consider why you have used this as a reference
• http://pgmuseum.pastperfectonline.com/photo/30032540-9C66-4217-B0E8-772168441572 is a 404 error
• http://www.adc-exhibits.museum.ucsb.edu/items/show/914 is a photograph. Please consider why you have used this as a reference

I'll stop after the first four. What I see is a slew of references that do not verify notability. This starts to explain "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." and shows thaty tyhe calibre of referencing you are using is illustrative rather that for verification of notabilityy. Granted, you may have improved on this lower down the list.

Let me remind you as many of us have explained to you more than once:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. 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 referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

What you need to do is to go down 100% of your references and compare them with the indented paragraph. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, thanks for your comments! Below is my reply to your comments:

• Collection at the San Francisco Maritime Museum
• Collection at the Monterey Museum of Art
• Collection at Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, which is temporallary offline. I have contacted the webstie and it should be up soon.
• Collection at the Art, Design & Architecture Museum

The reason for this list of collections is to show notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, Josselyn has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Three of the Secondary reliable sources include:

• Jennie V. Cannon. "Lewis Josselyn (1883-1964)" (PDF). Traditional Fine Arts Organization: Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists. p. 460. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
• Hiller, Peter (April 20, 2021). The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith. pp. viii, xi, 144, 186, 193–196, 203, 294, 305. ISBN 978-0-692-05342-3. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
• "Back to the Drawing Board with Artist Jo Mora" (PDF). Monterey History and Art Association. LII (3). Monterey, California. 2003. Retrieved 2023-11-13..

I appreciate your help and will review my references again. I would be happy to remove any uncessary sources to get this to pass the review process. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 The picture collections show that the subject is a photographer. They might be useful to demonstrate that fact because it is not susceptible to challenge, but they cannot be said to demonstrate not verify notability. I would minimise the use of those, using the fewest and best.

Why?

Because you need to major on what is recorded as being said by others in multiple reliable sources independent of him and about him.

What I think you have done is started with what you wish to say and struggles to make references fit. This phenomenon is called WP:BACKWARDS, is an easy trap to fall into and it to be avoided.

Instead, look at references and what they say. Marshall what they say into a storyboard, and, using your own words entirely, craft the draft from the storyboard. The references then fall into place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This is something that was deleted by community consensus after an extensive AfD discussion and a good example of WP:AMOUNT and in my opinion, it's a recreation of an article deleted by consensus. Graywalls (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls It is clear that this draft, as written and referenced, cannot pass. I have examined further references though not all and they are useless in verifying notability. A reference search by @Greghenderson2006, and a total rewrite based only of refs that stand up to scrutiny might prove notability and might pass. This draft has no future, and is in danger of becoming a time sink. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A rewrite is underway based on reliable sources. There are several secondary sources that pass WP:BASIC and demonstrate the contributions he made. His work is held in several museums and online collections. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This is suggestive that perhaps Greg's interpretation of notability doesn't quite line up with general consensus. "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 28.6% of AfD's were matches and 71.4% of AfD's were not." Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

16:32, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Harrytone

• Harrytone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Motor Rifle Troops (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My AFC was rejected for the reason "submission is improperly sourced". Without specific guidance I don't know how to fix this, as I feel it meets the standards as the basis for an article to be expanded on, and that the sources provided are reliable for the information given. Harrytone (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Harrytone: As a fair warning, this draft falls into a contentious topic (Eastern Europe and the Balkans). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afsheen_(musician)

Hi! We had a discussion with an editor about the category to use for this individual. Thinking either it should be the general notability, or #musician. I later found he was nominated for latin grammy so it could meet WP:NMUSICIAN #8. Can you take a look? The individual is in many charts, made music for many big figures, but mostly behind the scenes, so was hard to find any coverage. J2009j (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@J2009j: NMUSICIAN refers to musicians (individual or ensemble), whereas you describe this person as "music producer, songwriter, and DJ". I also don't know if that Latin Grammy nomination satisfies #8. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1. 8 - Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions. J2009j (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

   Added category 8 here, for people to read. I believe Latin Grammy and Grammy are two main grammy awards there are. The songs he producer received Grammys, and have been nominated for Grammys- but I assume that would be a different thing.

   Or perhaps, we can go with the general notability in this case? J2009j (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

   My point was that Latin Grammy != Grammy. And for clarity, I'm not saying this doesn't satisfy #8; only that I don't know if it does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

   Me too. So that is why I am asking here. This is what I found on wikipedia.

   The concept of a separate Grammy Awards for Latin music began in 1989. According to organizers, the Latin Grammy Awards was established as the Latin music universe was deemed too large to fit on the Grammy Awards. The Latin Recording Academy defines Latin music as music in Spanish or Portuguese.Latin Grammy Awards#:~:text=The concept of a separate,music in Spanish or Portuguese. J2009j (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

   Also adding criteria #2 with his song on the Billboard Chart ( #1 on Billboard K-Pop Hot 100). https://www.festground.com/articles/afsheen-min-jiryuh/534 J2009j (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

   @SafariScribe Can you take a look? You were among those who declined it. J2009j (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

17:32, 1 August 2024 review of submission by GreenAppleClimber

• GreenAppleClimber (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DraftSight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am having trouble getting this draft published. It has been rewritten and resourced multiple times. I believe it to be well sourced, from independent parties, and the firm itself is notable and of similar importance to many current live articles - but I understand that this is not agreed upon.

Is there someone I can submit this draft to get active help from the community rather than yes or no approvals. Thank you very much for your time. GreenAppleClimber (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreenAppleClimber: this software being published by a notable developer doesn't mean anything, as notability is not inherited by association. And as for comparing this to other articles that may be out there (the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), this isn't how drafts are assessed; we evaluate them with reference to the relevant policies and guidelines.

You can ask questions about the AfC review process right here at the help desk, or general editing questions at the Teahouse or the Help desk. You can of course also ask directly the individual reviewers who declined this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing thanks for the clarification on this! I appreciate your attention to detail and polite response. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a great reference, thanks for clearing that up. The reason the article was declined was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

I guess I would ask @SafariScribe, could you point out a few sources and the problems they possess? I'm trying my best to find independent sources, and believe the ones I've provided to have more than mere passing mention, third-party separation, and verifiable content. (I don't expect you to list all of them, and want to be considerate of your time- but I'm struggling to find the reason for rejection). I could use some help with this article. Thanks everyone! GreenAppleClimber (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

22:47, 1 August 2024 review of submission by BWHY

• BWHY (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Misha Charoudin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected as the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I understand that a lot of my references are from the subject themself, but I have also included a lot of external references from other companies and news sources. Is someone able to help highlight where it may that I should find more external sources for a particular area for my article to be more likely to be approved, please? BWHY (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@BWHY: it's debatable whether this is "your article"; it's not an article at all, only a draft, and it seems to have been created and extensively worked on by someone else, until you took over some ten days ago. How did that come about, just out of curiosity?

When you did take it over and edited it, you left a comment saying "Re-write of the page, including better citations from Misha himself rather than news outlets". That's pretty much the exact opposite of what we want. We have no interest in the subject telling the world about themselves, and instead very much want to hear what neutral and disinterested third parties have to say. Up to that point the draft had a few questionable sources like YouTube etc., but mostly it seemed reasonably well referenced. Now I'm struggling to find any good ones at all.

And no, it's not a case of "finding more external sources", it's rather a case of getting rid of a lot of the ones that are there already. Firstly, we don't want 48 (!) mostly flaky sources (see WP:REFBOMB), we want a small number of solid ones. We also don't want poor-quality sources supporting anything, because any content allegedly supported by poor sources isn't actually supported at all.

You need to find a few sources that clearly and unquestionably meet the WP:GNG standard, namely reliable and independent secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that have provided significant coverage of the subject. You summarise (in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things) what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided. And that's about it, no need for those countless YouTube links, or peacocky nonsense like the 'Personal Philosophy' section. And please write in a neutral, factual manner, this is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine.

You have a lot of work to do. I can't promise that will get this approved, but it will at least make it more likely to be approved, which is what you asked for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

N Deleted G11. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2

05:45, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Apples&oranges1

• Apples&oranges1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Apples&oranges1/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article Creation for Jay Doctora page. Apples&oranges1 (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Apples&oranges1: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved your draft to Draft:Josef Doctora, and declined it for insufficient sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

07:07, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Muam7861

• Muam7861 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MUAM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to change my draft name Muam7861 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muam7861: I've moved it to Draft:Hudutsuz Sevda. Not that it matters, since drafts are moved to their correct title anyway, if/when they are accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muam7861: please do not submit the redirect which was left behind when I moved your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

...and don't add redirect templates into content pages, that is not how you move the page or change the title. Please ask for advice, if you don't know how something is done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

08:59, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Debora at Digital WK

• Debora at Digital WK (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Debora at Digital WK/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We would like to understand what else could we do to submit this related content. We don't consider it spam, since we even tried to list competition as an evaluation of the market with reliable sources. we present the company later on the page but we do not use commercial "talk", we just present dates and features. without categorizing them as an ad would. thanks! Debora at Digital WK (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Debora at Digital WK: whether you consider it spam is not really the point; we do, and that's why the draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road.

Going forward, as you're paid to create this content, I'm going to largely leave it for you to figure out how it's done (after all, I don't ask you to do my job for me, right?). I'll give you this one tip, though: Wikipedia articles are based on summaries of what independent and reliable third parties (ideally secondary sources) have said about a subject, not what the subject itself wants to tell the world about itself. See WP:42 and WP:BACKWARD for more on this, and WP:NCORP for the guideline your draft needs to meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

I'll also put this standard comment in here: (I know that paid editors often don't want to hear it, but why would you expect to take on a task without appropriate training?) 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) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

09:21, 2 August 2024 review of submission by OxygenToxicity

• OxygenToxicity (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:OxygenToxicity/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey guys, this my first attempt at creating an article. Keen for your advice and what help you can give :) The submission was declined because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources" and it needs more in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

The sources I've cited to my understanding meet that criteria. In particular, the main documents from the heritage listing are secondary and independent government sources, thoroughly in-depth, and generally considered to be reliable. I have used one source from the church diocese to show that the building is still in active use, and that's it. What am I missing? Cheers! OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@OxygenToxicity: actually, the sources don't meet that standard, as they're all primary. However, given that this building is in the heritage register, that probably makes it notable per WP:GEOFEAT. Pinging the reviewer SafariScribe for their comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing. So documentation such as the heritage assessment is independent, but still considered a primary source? I took it to be secondary because it provided an analysis and evaluation of the building and its history to determine its significance community/state. OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@OxygenToxicity: gov't and judicial documents are usually primary, yes. I didn't look at these particular ones, I guess it's not inconceivable that they might have included secondary analysis and commentary, in which case it might count as secondary. But the WA gov't is just a single source, so still wouldn't amount to notability per WP:GNG. (Having said which, there may well be other sources out there, whether online or in print, which could satisfy the GNG requirements, so I'm not saying this subject isn't notable.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Yeah okay, cheers. And thanks for your time, I'm trying to do this all by the book but there's a lot to learn! I'm happy to keep plugging away in the sandbox and will do some more research, and see what @SafariScribe says. OxygenToxicity (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

14:58, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Hzt0208042508415531 tw

• Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Zhao Fuqiang Case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was rejected triple by a same user, but there were no specific suggestions for improvement. He said that my draft is not neutral. However, this article is originally in Chinese wikipedia and there is no problem in neutrality perspective. I also think so and just translate it honestly. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: I don't know what "rejected triple" means, but from the edit history it seems this draft has been declined (not rejected) once, nearly six months ago. If you wish to query that decline, you should probably ask the reviewer directly.

Whether the corresponding article has been accepted into the Chinese-language Wikipedia is immaterial, as every language version is completely separate. To be accepted here, the draft will have to comply with our rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw I see it declined once only, looking at the history, with one prior comment, and no work since it was declined.

Please understand that the English Language and the Chinese Language versions of Wikipedia are independent and have different criteria.

First, I think you need a native speaker of English to solve the prose issues, and second use {{Translated page}} to attribute it to the source article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

16:11, 2 August 2024 review of submission by 11mohammadahmedpk

• 11mohammadahmedpk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Haseeb Ahmed (Director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey my page request has been declined what does it mean

11mohammadahmedpk (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@11mohammadahmedpk: it means that it hasn't been accepted for publication at this time, because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are having a very common experience for new editors who plunge straight into the very challenging task of trying to create a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary sklils. 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) 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

18:43, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Έλαναφάμε2024

• Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:GiannisTheCat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What went well, what should I do better, please give me some advice so I can resubmit my page and correct it. Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Έλαναφάμε2024: Unfortunately your draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmited. I hate to break it to you but a YouTube channel with 500 subscribers is not going to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I suggest you try some smaller edits first, like the task center lists, to get a hang of how Wikipedia works before submitting another article. C F A 💬 20:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Sir, tell me what I should do better, I understand it doesn’t meet the criteria, but at least tell me how to improve, or find the information yourself.

I do not like when people tell me I’m wrong and don’t point out, I would appreciate if you give me advice. Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There simply isn't anything you can do the topic is not notable. see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Έλαναφάμε2024: the earlier comment referred, and in fact linked, to our notability requirements, and more specifically the general notability guideline. I suggest you study that carefully. Every subject must demonstrate notability in order to be accepted for publication here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok i understand Έλαναφάμε2024 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Rejected article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afsheen_(musician)

Hi guys! I had discussions with others editors about this draft on the help page. Nobody additional left their opinion, so I wanted to ask you. Maybe there are some new editors, with experience with music articles - Draft:Afsheen (musician) J2009j (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This user and I had a long dicussion about this on my talk page here.

To @J2009j: Volunteers at the AfC help desk are not going to review your draft. If it is submitted, it has been added to the category of unreviewed drafts and another reviewer will find it eventually. Because of how many there are, it could be days, weeks, or months until that happens, unfortunately. C F A 💬 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will waiting, maybe someone knows if we can apply category musician or general notability. J2009j (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

20:35, 2 August 2024 review of submission by Danny8384535

• Danny8384535 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lake Butler Bus Crash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i added sources but it still said i needed to add them Danny8384535 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Danny8384535: The topic may be notable (though I suggest you read WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS), but many of the sources you have listed are not reliable. Findagrave.com is not a reliable source and should be replaced with reliable, secondary sources. C F A 💬 20:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

if find a grave isnt reliable, then what obituary website is? find a grave is the only one im aware of Danny8384535 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

None of them. The only type of obituary that would be reliable would be those published in independent, reliable sources, like the NYT obituaries. C F A 💬 14:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually requested speedy deletion on this, but the request went stale. My concerns are outlined in the comments I left there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Danny8384535, I encourage you to read WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPCRIME before doing anything else with this article. C F A 💬 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

ok ty Danny8384535 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

August 3

02:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Brentonlons

• Brentonlons (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Boom Boom (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what is required. I first used a link to the Boom Boom album's info & artwork on discogs and was told Discogs is NOT a reliable/acceptable reference. Then added references from the book Boogie Man and still was not accepted. Brentonlons (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Brentonlons: what is required is that you demonstrate notability, either by citing multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, or by showing (with reliable evidence) how this album satisfies one or more of the seven criteria in the WP:NALBUM guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

02:47, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Magistracraig

• Magistracraig (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Memnun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I responded to the reviewer in talk about why the Etruscan art and archaeological evidence for the god the unique culture of the Etruscans called "Memnun" is not the same God as the Greeks (and Romans) called Μέμνων/ Memnon in their art. Etruscan art and culture predates that the Romans and is distinct from that of Greek culture. In addition there are plenty wikipedia pages for Etruscan gods - including Memnun's mother (called Eos in Greek, called Aurora in Latin) and called Thesan in Etruscan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesan. Etruscan knowledge is very limited so why would Wikipedia limit knowledge even further when distinct archeological evidence exists? I'm sure just thinking that Memnun is a typo for Memnon which is a bit superficial from a research/information perspective. :) Magistracraig (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Magistracraig: you don't really ask a question, as such – was there something you wanted help with?

To my entirely non-expert eye it seems there is at least an overlap between your draft and the Memnon article, so that decline wasn't an unreasonable one, IMO. Is there a reason why salient content from your draft couldn't be merged into the existing article? That article could do with some further work in any case, and this seems like an opportunity to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing - I am simply asking for a review of the newly submitted page because yes, there is a misunderstanding based on a knowledge base of ETRUSCAN and not GREEK mythology. No judgement because I am learning too.

At first when I noted Memnun in research I also thought it was a typo but then I learned that the Etruscan culture has it's own extensive history and collection of artifacts. There are plenty of other Etruscan mythology pages, artifacts and valid research which I added an updated. IMHO it seems that someone just quickly made a non expert decision. I tried to provide Wikipedia with a lot of research and support. I'm a credentialed high school teacher (in various states). I understanding the need to back up statements with evidence and I have- not sure why this is such a big deal as there is already an Etruscan page about Thesan (who the Greeks called Eos) but not son who she is regularly depicted in art with. It would be like Wikipedia approving a page about "Miriam" but not "Moses" in Judeo-Christian texts.

The Etruscans were there own people and it's just simply something Wikipedia editors should not flag based on their own historical, art history, linguistic knowledge (which the original reviewer even wrote!) Magistracraig (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - Just so this page can be approved:

This is what the reviewer understood about the reviewer's own knowledge of an entire culture, collection of artifacts and mythological tradition: "I don't know enough about the mythology to understand, but is this the same myth as Memnon?" The answer is sort-of - like is Coke- Pepsi-Tab? Is Burger King the exact same as McDonalds? -Sort -of... Magistracraig (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Magistracraig: okay, well, you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed again at some point; we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk.

I certainly don't feel qualified to comment on the matter. I can flag it up on the WikiProject Mythology talk page, in case anyone there cares to opine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

15:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Mysteriouslucifer

• Mysteriouslucifer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mera Baba Nanak (2023) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get a help to edit it so I can learn how to keep my articles neutral. It would be benefitting me in the future articles if any of the mentor can guide me through this Mysteriouslucifer (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For a released film, you need to establish that the film meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. That's typically done with reviews from professional reviewers or other coverage beyond routine coverage/announcements(like release dates, casting, announcing the commencement of production, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mysteriouslucifer: this draft was declined (at least in part) for being promotional.

"Mera Baba Nanak is not just a film; it's a heartfelt journey that encapsulates the essence of faith and family ties. Set against the backdrop of Punjab, this Punjabi cinematic gem weaves together a poignant family drama, where the central theme revolves around the enduring power of belief in the teachings of Baba Nanak. Through its narrative, the film explores the intricate dynamics of familial relationships while celebrating the spiritual legacy that resonates deeply with audiences. Film promises to be a captivating ode to faith, love, and the timeless wisdom that guides generations."

I trust it's clear from that choice excerpt why that was?

Your job is to describe the subject, not to 'sell' it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

18:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Aurodea108

• Aurodea108 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Josephine Semmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was rejected because I had cited a FInd A Grave entry as the source of the birth and death dates in this biography of a deceased person, Josephine Semmes. (I read the photo of the headstone there, and did not reference any user-edited text.) I am not able to find any obituaries. I also went through the Wikipedia Library link to search Ancestry.com, which did not have any record of Semmes either. If I simply delete the dates and the reference to Find A Grave, can I resubmit? In the meantime I also added information to the draft from an additional secondary source (a journal article). Aurodea108 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aurodea108: no, your draft was declined (not 'rejected') for lack of notability. The comment about Findagrave was just that; an additional comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I have added additional information from the additional secondary source, that should clarify notability. However, before resubmitting, should I also delete the Find A Grave entry and the information sourced from it? Aurodea108 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

20:06, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

• Takeru Watanabe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mara-Daria Cojocaru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Recently, user Safari Scribe declined my Draft:Mara-Daria Cojocaru. I asked Safari Scribe for advice in order to optimise the article but they didn't get back to me yet. The reason given for declining the draft was the following: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." My problem is that I can't find any peacock words or phrases in the draft that conflict with a neutral point of view. Also, I can't identify passages not encyclopedic. I have already written several articles for the English Wikipedia and never got a similar negative feedback concerning my writing or tone. Therefore I'm quite surprised about this evaluation of my work. Actually, I tend to think that there has been some kind of mistake or mix-up. Anyway, I would be glad if you could help me out and give me some advice. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Takeru Watanabe: I've read through your draft, and TBH, I can't find anything wrong with the text, either. Normally at this point I would ping the reviewer for comments, but as you've already approached them and haven't heard back, there's probably no point. The draft seems fine to me, so I'll just go ahead and accept it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing! Thank you very much for reading through my draft and for helping me out! Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

August 4

Help change the (booking agent)

Hi! The article I made has (booking agent) added to the name. I did not add that, it is wrong. I wanted to change that to (producer or talent producer), but have no idea how to do it. Christopher McDonald (booking agent) I would appreciate your help a lot. It was added by somebody else. Booking agent is a completely different thing from talent booker. J2009j (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This page is for drafts, not completed articles, but see Help:Moving a page for how to rename a page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@J2009j: Your comment brought my attention to the article. It seems his only claim to notability is winning an Emmy, which is not a problem in itself. In the article, however, it claims he "won a daytime Emmy as a Talent Producer and Talent Booker for the "The Kelly Clarkson Show" in 2024", which I wasn't sure was even possible. And sure enough, the citation attached is not only for the 2022 Emmys, but is also for the actor Christopher McDonald, a completely different person, for his role in Hacks. Unless you have some reasonable explanation for this, I will be nominating it for deletion. Also, you seem to have some sort of connection with the subject that you have not disclosed, because his picture has been uploaded as "Your own work" which implies you know him personally. C F A 💬 02:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

To the point- won a daytime Emmy as a Talent Producer for the "The Kelly Clarkson Show"- that is possible. I mentioned it is an Emmy in 2024. You added a different year. You can open page 9 https://theemmys.tv/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Daytime-Noms-w-Credits-ao-5-3.pdf It is from 2024. Chris McDonald- talent producer.

Also, he and the actor with the same name - are not the same person. This Christopher McDonald will act in - Superman 2025.

I also disagree- "his only claim to notability is winning an Emmy". He is a talent producer of a multiple famous shows.

I also added for the picture a comment that is is my own work, and that I work in entertainment, and I have pictures of many people I take for events. I was in audience at one of the show episodes, with 100 other people. It is available to everyone. J2009j (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@J2009j: Being a talent producer for multiple shows does astonishingly very little to help for notability, and in fact may be an active hindrance. "Backstage" personnel are far less likely to receive any sort of press relative to the actors themselves. If the Emmy is all you have then writing any article of substance is virtually impossible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. That document is the citation you cited to the claim that he won an Emmy as a talent producer in 2024. On page 31 it reads:

Hacks • The One, The Only • HBO/HBO Max • Universal Television in association with Paulilu, First Thought Productions, Fremulon Productions, 3 Arts Entertainment Christopher McDonald as Marty

This Christopher McDonald has never won an Emmy award. He is listed as a minor credit, as a "talent producer", on a show that won an Emmy. Being a "talent producer" on multiple shows does not show notability through any applicable guideline, so they must meet the general notability guideline instead. I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove that is the case. C F A 💬 03:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a minor credit. We had a long discussion somewhere about this. He is the talent producer of all 5 seasons of the Kelly Clarkson. Talent producer bringing all the guest to the show, all the celebrities is not exactly a "Backstage" personnel. I also disagree- "has never won an Emmy award". There are usually a few hundred people working on shows.

Only main figures are listed for awards and nominations. Plus, it is an actor for a major upcoming superhero film. I am personally a comic book fan in the past.

Page 9 https://theemmys.tv/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Daytime-Noms-w-Credits-ao-5-3.pdf If this is not in the article, I'll replace it. J2009j (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, you can say what you want, but he doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. He has not won an Emmy. He was a talent producer for an Emmy-awarded show. The other Chris McDonald, on the other hand, would be presumed notable because of his Emmy win as it was actually awarded to him. I assume the reviewer only accepted it because the article claims he won an Emmy award with an incorrect citation attached to it. C F A 💬 03:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@J2009j: Unless his name specifically is on the Emmy, he cannot be assumed to have won it. And yes, a talent producer is "backstage" personnel, no matter how important they are to the show's operation. (The phrase implies they do practically no work while out in front of the camera, and thus their work and efforts would ultimately not be commented on by reviewers barring egregious faults.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

04:49, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

• Leemhwiki12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Justin Kenardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I have added in references to the Draft article as recommended by Wiki editors and would like to know if the page is now considered suitable for submission. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Leemhwiki12: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will get a full assessment of your draft when you submit it for another review. If you have a more specific question, you're welcome to ask that, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

07:26, 4 August 2024 review of submission by WikiLoreKeeper

• WikiLoreKeeper (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • How to attach a link to texts within a template? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need some help to create a wiki entry WikiLoreKeeper (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@WikiLoreKeeper: sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. In any case, this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. If you have general questions about how to edit Wikipedia, you can ask them at the Teahouse or Help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

10:48, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Abhiramakella

• Abhiramakella (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Human Kinetics (publisher) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance on this article. Abhiramakella (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Abhiramakella: can you be more specific; what assistance do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

How can I write this article in a encyclopedia format? Abhiramakella (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Abhiramakella: you need to find a few (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise (in your own words, but without any additional commentary or embellishment) what they have said about this subject, citing each source against the information it has provided; see the WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

12:09, 4 August 2024 review of submission by 72.92.37.34

• 72.92.37.34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Altron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I improve this page? 72.92.37.34 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a little bit harsh. @DoubleGrazing Even your questioning my relationship to the singer. Why is that? If you feel that you do not want us to write here. It's okay. Too direct and not considered further. I was planning to write more about other subjects but since this is how you communicate to other new writers. Then we will not continue. Thank you for your reply. IannaOPM (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The draft has literally been rejected. It cannot be resubmitted. There's no point in writing anything more because there's nothing they can do to get it accepted. C F A 💬 15:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@IannaOPM: what does your comment have to do with Draft:Altron? Are you saying you're its author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@IannaOPM: Even your questioning my relationship to the singer. Unless my eyes very much deceive me, the draft is about a video game developer/publisher (and one that was rejected due to failure to accept reviewers' criticisms). If you have any alternative accounts, I strongly encourage you to identify them here, because what you wrote is otherwise very likely to get you blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

13:07, 4 August 2024 review of submission by IannaOPM

• IannaOPM (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cye Soriano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, what else to we need to do to enhance or correct the wikipedia entry? IannaOPM (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@IannaOPM: you need to show that the person is notable, either by the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline.

You also need to support the information with reliable sources throughout.

And finally, you must write in a neutral and factual, non-promotional manner.

Who is "we" in your question?

And what is your relationship with this subject? (I've posted a query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Im just one of the fans. Writing for the artist. There are sources I have submitted. I appreciate your feedback. I will re-write then. Thank you. IannaOPM (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@IannaOPM: you must be a really dedicated fan, given that 100% of your edits have to do with her, and you seem to follow her around taking photos.

And who is "we"? Your question was "what else to we need to do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We means im one of the fans. Yes we followed her music. Anyways, if this is not going to continue. It's okay. we will not continue publishing it. IannaOPM (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@IannaOPM: I will look at your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• The Business Mirror source needs to be done as an offline cite (using {{cite news}}); it is presently incomplete and missing article title, article byline, and page numbers.
• We can't use https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/111872/kelvin-miranda-hannah-precillas-faith-da-silva-other-kapuso-shine-at-5th-philippine-faces-of-success-2024/story (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with role/no bylines because they're frequently used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.)
• https://pinoynewschannel.com/2023/12/06/ice-is-coming-to-clowns/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. As a note, an article that says someone will appear at a future event cannot be used for claims they actually attended, as any number of things can cause someone to no-show (failed riders, injuries, committing pater familicide, etc.)
• We can't use https://www.pinoyaksyonnews.com/cye-soriano-receives-best-awards-2023-recognition-sets-sights-on-musical-legacy-in-2024/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• We can't use https://www.pinoyaksyonnews.com/experience-cye-sorianos-angelic-voice-at-flashback-musical-concert-and-5th-ph-faces-of-success-2024/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?

None of your sources are any good. For an article on a living person this is completely unacceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

14:46, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites

• Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my article got declined? Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites: because it's pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And you can expect to be blocked imminently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

15:48, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Manghrat123

• Manghrat123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdul Mazid Photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon to whomever it may concern. I submitted my draft and I made sure to include the appropriate amount of references and speak from an unbiased historical point of view, what is the issue? Manghrat123 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Manghrat123: please don't ask the same question in several places, I've just replied to this on my talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

k, thanks. Manghrat123 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

16:10, 4 August 2024 review of submission by OldPlanetMedia

• OldPlanetMedia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Beat Cops (TV pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beat_Cops_(TV_pilot)

Greetings, I'd like to see if there's anything else I can do to get this Beat Cops pilot entry published. I understand that there's not a ton of in-depth sources available online but it was a project produced for a major network (FOX) and features several well-known actors that were just starting out back in the early 2000s (Benjamin, Seder, Mandvi).

I've added a dozen citations and put a good amount of effort into ensuring the legitimacy and thouroughness of the article. I believe that this will help the entry serve as the main online hub for any future web searches regarding Beat Cops.

Thanks for your time, have a great day! OldPlanetMedia (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We accept offline sources, if properly cited. (For periodicals, use {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} and provide the name of the outlet, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), the article name, the article byline, and the pages the article is on.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@OldPlanetMedia: Just a heads up: You're going to get blocked unless you change your username because it represents a company and you are editing promotionally. You have not disclosed your presumably financial relationship with this company either, which is a violation of Wikimedia's terms of use. C F A 💬 16:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And indeed they have been blocked; but their name doesn't show as struck through for me, because their rename request went through about an hour later. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

20:10, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Mlondon101

• Mlondon101 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Malcolm Puckering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This review was denied due to references not being reliable and the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia. He is a magician who has been featured on America's Got Talent season seven, which is even linked to that Wikipedia page where he is listed. He's performed on Penn & Teller and the YouTube video link is included. He's been on other talk shows, which I tried to include before, but were denied, since they aren't his videos. I see other living person biographies using LinkedIn as references for education/work. He gives speeches to troubled youth, drawing inspiration from his youth. His father is a famous Jazz musician, which is linked to another Wikipedia page. What is the problem with current references? I've seen the people who have been included in Category:Living people, and don't buy it that he is not suitable for a Wikipedia page compared to what I see that has already been accepted, with similar references. Malcolm Puckering has a lot of reference sources, many of which are video of him on famous shows, which should count a reliable source, since he's right there performing in front of your very eyes. I'm going to need some definitive reasons for why the page and references aren't acceptable. ? Mlondon101 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mlondon101: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"), and note that EVERYTHING that a reasonable person could challenge MUST be sourced:

• https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2005/01/02/to-become-a-magician-it-helps-to-be-obsessed/ is okay.
• We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4kB8yqCKlM (unknown provenance). We can only use YouTube as a source if (1) the video is produced by an outlet we would consider to have editorial oversight (such as The Grauniad) and (2) the video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. The subject's own channel - or anything else they control - is also by default useless for notability and for biographical claims.
• We can't use LinkedIn (connexion to subject/no editorial oversight). LinkedIn as a source would only be usable for content no reasonable person could challenge (primarily identity-related claims).
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/09/30/mal-waldron-jazz-piano-grenoble/ is a non-sequitur.

Only one of your sources is any good - fatal for any subject but actively problematic for articles on living persons where the sourcing requirements are much stricter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mlondon101: I can't comment on the first source, because it's not available in my region, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it's okay. The second source is primary, as is the third, and the fourth one doesn't even mention Puckering. We require 3+ source meeting the WP:GNG standard to establish notability.

Not to mention that articles on living people need to be comprehensively supported by inline citations reliable published sources, whereas your draft is almost entirely unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

August 5

13:50, 5 August 2024 review of submission by 0ctopusKn1ght

• 0ctopusKn1ght (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chaparral High School (Texas) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am attempting to create a new article, but I am struggling with how to place citations into the Infobox school template. 0ctopusKn1ght (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

17:07, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Zeus678

• Zeus678 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cult Never Dies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, It would be much appreciated if you could help me with this draft submission. I've tried to include the most important secondary sources I could find regarding the topic - they're all either interviews or news stories that relate to the company. All the sources are mainstream heavy metal publications which are reliable and are not self-published press releases or otherwise.

This is an important record label/publisher in the heavy metal world. Similar Wikipedia pages already exist for similar companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season_of_Mist, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_House, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazillion_Points) - and they arguably have less reliable secondary sources.

Any help or pointers would be much appreciated. Thanks! Zeus678 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zeus678: In order for a company to be eligible for an article on Wikipedia, they must meet the notability guidelines for companies. That boils down to having significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. The references in your draft do not show that those guidelines are met.

• https://www.musicjournalisminsider.com/archive/dayal-patterson-interview/ is a random blog (not reliable)
• https://blabbermouth.net/news/u-k-version-of-official-paradise-lost-biography-to-be-released-in-march only offers a trivial name drop of the subject (not significant)
• https://www.loudersound.com/features/doom-metal-gets-the-super-heavyweight-tome-it-deserves is more trivial mentions
• https://www.bardomethodology.com/articles/2019/12/12/dayal-patterson-cult-never-dies-interview/ is an interview (no significant independent coverage)
• https://www.rocking.gr/rockculture/dayal-patterson/42461 is another interview
• https://ramzine.co.uk/news/black-metal-evolution-of-the-cult-the-definitive-edition/ is about a book, not the publishing house
• https://v13.net/2024/01/dayal-patterson-interview-black-metal-evolution-of-the-cult-book/ is another interview

You need coverage about the company in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 20:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

17:12, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Phiestine

• Phiestine (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Douglas Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page was recently declined after submission. I would like to know in which areas the sources can be improved because I cited many reliable sources. Phiestine (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phiestine: You cannot just slap sources on the end of a paragraph. You need to be citing sources at the spot of the claim, and anything that your sources cannot explicitly support MUST be removed. You have a lot of unsourced content here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

20:04, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Juan Antonio Godoy

• Juan Antonio Godoy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin Strauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, dates I gave and everything can be checked on the instagram and Facebook profile, from the artists, pictures from events and music discography in every store in the planet. ¿What is wrong? Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Juan Antonio Godoy: We can't cite Instagram, Facebook, or any other social media website (no editorial oversight), and anything from the subject themselves is useless for notability and biographical claims (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

ok now you can check all pages with info about Martin Strauts verified from another people, Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Juan Antonio Godoy: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• We can't cite iTunes/Apple Music (online storefront) or Soundcloud (streaming service).
• We can't use https://www.audiometrica.com/en/record-label/ (website homepage). If this is Strauts' record label, then anything on this domain is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://spacemedia.uk/stats/artist/6QOOlTkmgdyANY3zGEGWVC/Martin-Strauts (unknown provenance, too sparse). Profile site with uncredited text.
• We can't use https://djpoolrecords.com/beatport-top-100-afro-house-june-2020/ (too sparse). Beatport is not an acceptable chart due to being retailer-specific; see WP:CHARTS for what charts we find acceptable for notability claims.
• I can't assess https://www.woutick.es/evento/57315/entradas-martin-strauts--friends (language barrier), but if this is an events website, those are generally useless for notability and useless for biographical claims (connexion to subject) on account of just regurgitating info the event organisers give them.
• https://www.viralagenda.com/es/events/1448574/martin-strauts-friends is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Events website.
• We can't use https://agenda.hoymalaga.app/event/dj-godoy/_524000a121f2903e1ae5b3315c65be88cc65fa99a8d60a12095fd88057a3357f (too sparse).

None of your sources that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

20:05, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Dmrichards26

• Dmrichards26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:717 Credit Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've recently started a draft for a local credit union, but as I work to submit it to send to the article space, I'm getting declined.

I've tried looking at other comparable organizations in the List of credit unions in the United States, including those that are objectively less notable, and I struggle to see what their articles have that this one does not. For example, this article.

Would certainly appreciate any advise on how I can work to demonstrate notability for this organization!

Dmrichards26 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmrichards26: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other, tangentially-related, articles to argue for your own. Anything from the subject themselves is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jéské - Thanks for the reply! My understanding from reading Wikipedia's pages on primary sources was that they are acceptable for limited use, but as you noted, they are useless for notability. I thought by including numerous secondary sources, I was meeting the notability requirements, and just adding limited additional background through the primary sources.

Are you saying that the primary sources almost count as a negative towards the article, not a neutral, and I should remove them? Dmrichards26 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmrichards26: That is exactly what I am saying. I would also have a close look at WP:CORPDEPTH and have another look at your sources after doing so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

21:09, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Juan Antonio Godoy

• Juan Antonio Godoy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin Strauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can you review all the new references? Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The draft has now been rejected, and will not be looked at again.

You have not, as far as I can see, got a single independent source.

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) 22:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

August 6

05:12, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Dogliepop

• Dogliepop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Umarjaum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I used a reputable sources to cite the draft. Such as dawn news.In case only one reliable reference is enough to be inclusion of article on wikipedia. please explain soi can do on you suggestion,you suggestion matters for me. Dogliepop (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dogliepop: the subject is not notable, time to drop it and move on. And blocked users aren't allowed to edit under any user name, or logged-out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dogliepop: One source is not enough, and the cites to various useless sources (Wikidata, Google, Discogs, Vasya, YouTube, VeryHappyBirthday, Bandcamp, Amazon, Spotify) would kill the draft even if one source were good. Your Dawn News source doesn't even mention Jaum at all; we do have to actually read the sources in order to properly assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

11:35, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Ariyamettakula

• Ariyamettakula (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ariyamettakula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit typo requested. Ariyamettakula (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ariyamettakula: pardon? We don't provide copy editing services here at the help desk, in case that's what you meant. I will decline your draft, though, as it's completely unreferenced, among other problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

13:35, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Alexmargate

• Alexmargate (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Tracey Emin Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, The article was created without 'advertising' in mind. I edited it based on similar organisations, and now, after working on it all day, I find it has been completely deleted. Alexmargate (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Alexmargate First, if you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID(note that "paid editing" includes employment or any form of compensation, even if it isn't money).

It is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate articles to exist, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are considered good articles, which have received community vetting. If you want to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen for possible action. We need the help.

Regarding your draft, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles about organizations must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear 331dot,

Thank you for your feedback regarding my draft article on the Tracey Emin Foundation. I would like to clarify that I am not associated with the foundation. My intention was to contribute to Wikipedia with accurate and neutral information based on reliable and respected sources, such as well-known art publications and leading UK newspapers, excluding tabloids.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and would like the opportunity to revise and improve the article. Could the draft be returned to my drafts space rather than being deleted completely? This would allow me to address any issues and ensure the content meets the necessary standards for notability and reliability. Alexmargate (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Alexmargate You didn't pick this topic at random to edit about. How did you come to edit about it?

The original draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. I can view it as an admin, and I agree that it was. There is nothing there worth salvaging that could become part of an article. If you want to try again, you should start fresh. We usually recommend that new editors not dive right in to creating new articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that they start out editing existing articles, to gain experience and knowledge. Using the new user tutorial helps people as well.

Your sources were just documentation of the existence of the Foundation, and annoucements of its activities- not significant coverage that goes into detail about what the sources/sources see as important/significant/influential about the Foundation- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please review the definition carefully. What are the three best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this organization? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

15:37, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Yevvvah

• Yevvvah (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yevvvah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you tell me what needs to be changed in my article in order to have it on Wikipedia? Arshak Khachatrian is very famous here in our city and I want to add his information here. Please let me know, thank you! Yevvvah (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The references are all from valid and trustworthy sources, there is no social media link for you to mark it as a promotion. What's wrong? Yevvvah (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yevvvah: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You cannot just slap all your sources on the end of the article; they need to be cited at claims within the article itself, specifically ones those sources can explicitly support. This is not negotiable. I will look at your sources shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have cited the refs in the article, all of them are there. Please recheck and come back to me. 🙏 Thanks @Jéské Couriano! Yevvvah (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yevvvah: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://tumo.org/the-tumo-path-to-disqo is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes, no discussion of Khachatrian.
• We can't use https://portfolio.tumo.org/nep56xkyg/ (too sparse). Content-free timeline.
• We can't use https://theorg.com/org/wirestock/org-chart/arshak-khachatrian (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
• We can't use https://www.awwwards.com/jury-member/dreammmr (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We don't cite Google (no editorial oversight).
• https://boon.am/socio-political/society/generation-xyz-the-big-it-world-and-more/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Podcast he spoke on, based on a translated synopsis.

None of your sources are actually usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské CourianoExcuse me, but your rejection reasons don't make sense. None of the sources was written by Arshak Khachatrian / Khachatryan.

• https://tumo.org/the-tumo-path-to-disqo - this link only is expressing his notability in the article
• https://theorg.com/org/wirestock/org-chart/arshak-khachatrian (unknown provenance). This was written by The Org about overall his experiences and paths. This was again no connection to Arshak.
• He wrote "Getting Started with Polymer" book and is the author of the book, there are million of sources of the book available on Amazon, Ebay, Wallmart or anywhere else. Why is it a problem? It's his book info. https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Started-Polymer-Arshak-Khachatrian/dp/1785889370 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Getting-Started-with-Polymer-Paperback-9781785889370/609825719 https://www.ebay.com/itm/186398313131 https://books.apple.com/ca/book/getting-started-with-polymer/id6443677296
• https://boon.am/socio-political/society/generation-xyz-the-big-it-world-and-more/ how is this connected to him? It's an interview not a podcast, and BoonTV is famous TV channel in Armenia. None of the sources is connected to the subject, because all of the sources are independent and famous organizations in Armenia and worldwide.

Yevvvah (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Look: Your draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. There's no point in trying to convince people otherwise. You're just wasting time. If you're looking for something else to do, the task center has a list of tasks that you can help with. C F A 💬 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yevvvah: all your sources are primary and/or non-independent, and therefore don't contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yevvyah, 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) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yevvvah: You're mis-interpreting what I'm saying.

• Tumo grants no notability because the article merely quotes him and does not actually discuss him. The article is practically a listicle and doesn't really devote any space to anyone mentioned in it.
• TheOrg has no credited author. We're very leery of uncredited articles, or articles credited to a role ("News Desk", etc.) because of how frequently they're used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.
• Google only ever regurgitates whatever the publisher says (or in the case of the Knowledge Panel, whatever nonsense they scrape from random, disparate sources) and so nothing Google presents is usable for notability since they don't actually subject it to editorial oversight.
• Interview vs. podcast is a distinction without a difference. Anything Khachatrian writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability by dint of his direct involvement in it. The same applies to anything written, said, filmed, commissioned, semaphored, interpretive-danced, etc. by any entity closely linked to him. You cannot seriously be arguing that an interview of him isn't him speaking about himself.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)