Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 450: Line 450:


{{u|TheTechRobo3641}}, Agreed, [[Linux Format]] is one of the longest standing and most respected Linux publications in the UK. I'm not sure if two dedicated articles from years ago, plus a few passing mentions is sufficient to be able to make a comprehensive article, and there are so many Linux distributions (IMHO far too many) that trying to create an article for each one may be problematic. It might be easier to flesh out [[List of Linux distributions]] or a related spin-off list. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
{{u|TheTechRobo3641}}, Agreed, [[Linux Format]] is one of the longest standing and most respected Linux publications in the UK. I'm not sure if two dedicated articles from years ago, plus a few passing mentions is sufficient to be able to make a comprehensive article, and there are so many Linux distributions (IMHO far too many) that trying to create an article for each one may be problematic. It might be easier to flesh out [[List of Linux distributions]] or a related spin-off list. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

:> It might be easier to flesh out List of linux disributions or a related spin-off list.
:I highly agree, but unfortunately if I remember correctly when that was tried, Elive's listing was removed because it didn't have an article.
:Bit of a catch-22 there. [[User:TheTechRobo3641|TheTechRobo]] ([[User talk:TheTechRobo3641|talk]]) 16:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


== 05:28:48, 6 November 2021 review of submission by JOHN(TheHeretic) ==
== 05:28:48, 6 November 2021 review of submission by JOHN(TheHeretic) ==

Revision as of 16:58, 6 November 2021

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

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


October 31

06:53:19, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Parantak.yadav


Parantak.yadav (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parantak.yadav You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As you were told by the reviewer, you should add to the article about the entire university, as it appears this portion of it does not merit a standalone Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:26, 31 October 2021 review of submission by IWrite007

My article written about a living person named Anna Chybisova has been declined. What can I do? IWrite007 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IWrite007 Your sole contribution to date has been this post
Draft:Anna‌ ‌Chybisova‌ ‌exists but you have not edited it, it has not been declined and it has not been submitted for review. Thus I am confused. Please help my confusion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: according to the user talkpage, he had a G7'ed draft at Draft:Anna Chybisova (don't ask me where the difference in the titles is) that was declined for being an advetisement and not establishing notability as well as already G11'ed once. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt How impenetrable. It will all come out in the wash FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were invisible characters on either side of the space in the title. The draft has been moved to remedy that. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:11, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Numiri


My article was rejected for being "not adequately supported by reliable sources." The sources I cited were from the top experts in the field, so how can they not be "reliable"?

Numiri (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numiri I believe that it is the "adequately" more so than the "reliable" that is at issue. You only have two sources, most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:28, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Hartoo


Since all I wanted to do was add Mr. Bates to the "notable members of the Kiowa Tribe" I found myself forced to create a Wikipedia page from scratch -- because of your infinite red-tape..

I am now informed that Mr. Bates was not notable and that all citations are un reliable.

Setting aside for moment the fundamental racism of deciding to place a Native American author of regional and national note, as "not notable" and thus consigning his life to the cyber-ether, (Redacted)

Hartoo (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted screed. Will look at sources. Would offer link to my review comments page, but I expect it will go unread as the user evidently has their mind made up. Nevertheless, I will deep-dive the sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hartoo::
I am inclined to say the other two sources are fine, having read them, but since you have five sources and half of them are dodgy, that weighs in favour of a decline. One or two more in-depth sources with editorial oversight and no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates should be enough to meet WP:Notability. Your draft was not declined out of racism, it was declined because most of the sources you cite are not very good at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:14, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Chantern15


Hi, I'd like to request assistance in making this draft suitable for resubmission. Thank you.

Chantern15 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


if it is notable enough, of course. Chantern15 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
I'd like to withdraw my request for help, it does not seem that Richard Katzmayr is notable enough. Thank you for your time.Chantern15 (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

21:17:00, 31 October 2021 review of submission by 45.49.9.109

Fix the the page of Miss Asia USA. Don’t be lazy and evils. Get to work. 45.49.9.109 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In today's lesson, you learn you aren't our boss. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:23, 31 October 2021 review of submission by 45.49.9.109


Please help in fixing and expanding Miss Asia USA. Thanks

45.49.9.109 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:22, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Stephen Entreprenuer

I have added a citation confirming information. What else do I need for this article to be published? Stephen Entreprenuer (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiography has one source which is a press release and not reliable or independent, it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

00:25:04, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Missbellanash

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Your people are lying, why??? Missbellanash (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missbellanash: Please stop, calm yourself down, and actually take on-board what you are being told by everyone who's interacted with you. Insisting you know best does you absolutely no good and damns the draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about, nothing of import happened. Certainly nothing that conforms to that type of comment. Did you even read my (brief) question? Missbellanash (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See? Nothing at all, as expected. Missbellanash (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:14:16, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Mrnamnam


I need help because my boss has asked me to create a page on wikipedia. It's a brand new page. I've done that but now it is declined. Is there some way I can escape the deletion. Draft:National Mathematics Summer School


Mrnamnam (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. Tell your boss to read WP:PSCOI. If he refuses, resign and find work at a workplace that isn't going to assign you an impossible task. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:20:44, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Gogysimper


The reason for the page GeorgeNotFound being denied was due to not being Notable enough but there are plenty of streamers + youtubers which currently have existing pages and could be arguably less notable (I also have edited the page recently and added an awards section as the the page subject has been recently nominated to the streamies awards by YouTube) I just want to have an idea of what do the other content creator pages have done to move forward, if you have any advise I would really appreciate it, thank you


Gogysimper (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the existence, absence, or status of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and there's a good chance most of those pages predate AfC in the first place or were otherwise never drafted. Statistics websites are never worth citing, as they cannot provide the in-depth details we're looking for in a source. Social media can only be cited to verify someone said (foo) and don't help for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). YouTube itself is generally not usable as a source (unknown provenance). The bulk of your sources fall into one of these three categories. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:15, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Ourbag

Previously the article was declined as direct mention of the movie director was not present. However, because of his new work, 2 or more articles has been published as below which talks about direct reference with the director. I hope it helps to solve and iron out the issue. Kindly help https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/tollywood-movies-angsuman-banerji-psycho-drama-web-series-large-peg-has-anindya-pulak-banerjee-sayantani-guha-thakurata-pbd-661362.html and https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/tollywood-movies-angsuman-banerji-psycho-drama-web-series-large-peg-has-anindya-pulak-banerjee-sayantani-guha-thakurata-pbd-661362.html


Ourbag (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:02, 1 November 2021 review of submission by And Adoil Descended

I was confused about the statement that my article's contents "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I was under the impression that all of the sources I cited are reliable and independent (including Bloomberg, Detroit Free Press and Toronto Globe & Mail -- all major news outlets) and all of the sources are specifically about the subject itself and not passing menion (its creation, the early Dan Gilbert investment, the major brokerages using it and the recent majority stake purchase from a private equity firm). I feel so dumb because I thought I did this correctly, but where am I going wrong? I really want to get it right this time. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Adoil Descended The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. They just tell about the routine business activities of the company- this does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. This coverage must go beyond merely telling what the company does. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try it again, bringing in more coverage as you requested. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@And Adoil Descended: make sure to look through WP:CORPDEPTH and the lists of examples of trivial and significant coverage to help decide if a source is usable to establish notability. The trivial sources are ok to support information but we need to see some sources that have taken the time to write about the company as a whole. This particular topic will be scrutinized fairly heavily as it already had an AFD and is currently protected against creation in the main space. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter:@331dot: I am giving it another go. I appreciate your patience and insight on how to improve the article - or, really, a stub. I've broken the text out to detail what the company does and added mention of some prominent people who were involved in its launch and current contents. I will point out that the company has been the central subject of independent coverage by Bloomberg, Columbia Journalism Review, Detroit Free Press and Toronto's Globe and Mail, which I hope will get it over the line. But, I am willing to re-edit it if more is required. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:30, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Anwar Shakir Wazir

Since I Am a Journalist for the last 20 years. I gave my blood for Journalism, Free speech, etc and I have a lot of contributions to Pakistani Journalism, so I think I should appear on Wikipedia.kindly only Type my name in Google or any search engine you will see my profile and my work.Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be successful, you must set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources. That's usually very difficult for people to do. Keep in mind that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:57, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Winifredwhelan


I would like to upload three pictures on my page for Marie Pauline Brenner. Is there a form to fill out for obtaining copyright permissions?

Winifredwhelan (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winifredwhelan You may want to ask this at the general Help Desk, this one is for asking for help with drafts. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


November 2

02:04:31, 2 November 2021 review of submission by MichaelT1956


what di need to make my article wiki approved and published? The article is on a note worthy person MichaelT1956 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being a mess as far as grammar and punctuation, there is nothing whatsoever to even begin to hint that this person is in any way notable. This planet is a-crawl with people with delusions of "notability" because they put up a couple of TikToks and call themselves "influencers" (the prime a**hole word now, exceeding "artisanal" and even "curated"). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your references are grossly malformed and generally missing the bibliographical information and/or URLs required to actually look them up. The three URLs present are Wikipedia and two press releases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:08, 2 November 2021 review of submission by 197.98.201.78

How can I report a wiki page? The person has written it themselves and is not notable. It shouldn't be on wikipedia.

I didn't receive a response. How can I report a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.98.201.89 (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

197.98.201.78 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is pure advertising/promotion, you can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{Db-spam}} to the top of the page. Otherwise you can propose deletion with {{subst:prod|reason}} but the article creator is allowed to remove that template if they disagree with your reasoning. An alternative method, which doesn't let them remove the template, is a little more involved and is described at WP:AFDHOWTO. WaggersTALK 10:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:18, 2 November 2021 review of draft by ThyWhy


I would like to enquire about my article. All the sources used are reliable and independent. I did include the company’s own website as one of the 19 in total sources. I researched other similar articles/companies and saw that they also use either the company website, 3rd party sources or a combination. So why is mine excluded but the others approved?

Examples of similar articles approved, per type of sources:

Similar Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology

Less sources and not as independent as the one’s I’ve used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medisafe_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_(company)

Only uses 2 references, has a few issues, but it is published(!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacube_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GetFEM%2B%2B


Sources used in my article:

Scientific Journal articles (Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology)

Independent website articles/intervews - European Society For Medical Oncology website oncologypro.esmo.org - Springer magazine - Other industry websites: www.oncorelief.eu, MIT Technology Review, www.pwc.co.uk, www.masschallenge.org (also cited with other articles on Wikipedia)

Company’s own website (as seen referenced in other Wikipedia articles too, for some additional information not references elsewhere)

All the sources, other than the company website, are independent and are being used similarly in other published Wikipedia articles.

So, what can I change for it to get approved?


ThyWhy (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThyWhy That an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. Only new accounts and IP users are not allowed to directly create articles. It is possible, though inadvisable, to create articles without going through this process. Only experienced editors should do that.. The article you cite is already tagged as problematic.
Your draft just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Brief mentions, press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability.
To link to another Wikipedia article or page, you may simply place the title of the page in double brackets like this [[Page name here]], the whole URL is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. That is usually very difficult for those in your position to do. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:16, 2 November 2021 review of draft by Alien 4791


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ettore_Salati#References

I edited references on this draft. After publishing, I was told that some links land to blogs and it could be a problem. But many music reviewer, fanzine, music magazines are hosted out there, so I think it should be acceptable. These references are solely international album reviews, one example each release


Alien 4791 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:11, 2 November 2021 review of submission by 2409:4042:E89:42E1:1651:7E9F:CD88:A0CC


2409:4042:E89:42E1:1651:7E9F:CD88:A0CC (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The results of a Google search are not reliable or notability-supporting sourcing; his own LinkedIn is not reliable or notability-supporting sourcing. You have already been told four times what you need to do: show evidence that he has media coverage, in reliable sources independent of his own self-published web presence, in the context of having achieved something significant. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:36, 2 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Radhihudijan


Thank you for reviewing my article, I got the article declined due to the reason that it looks like an advertisement. I got advice from other experienced editors in the live chat. but I still did not know what part makes it look like ads ... I extremely appreciate the help.

Thank you.

Radhihudijan (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radhihudijan It is an ad because it just tells about the person. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

01:04:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by CardistryExpert

I am an avid fan of specialty card tricks and when I found that wikipedia had articles about it I was surprised to find that they didn't have a profile for one of my very favorite magicians. How does Lee Asher, Chris Kenner, Daniel and David Buck - Dan and Dave who all worked with him have pages, yet he does not?

He is mentioned in several articles as the creator of the genre:

[[1]] (Multiple mentions) [[2]] [[3]]

The authority on card flourishes, Jerry Cestkowski said in his book, Tudor had "very, very good flourish cuts and some unbelievable false flourish cuts." (http://docshare.tips/the-encyclopedia-of-playing-card-flourishes_587545e9b6d87f86848b49f5.html )

This is the single most prolific producer of card flourishing publications, how does that still not make him notable?

I was asked for more independent sources to confirm his notability, the article lists that he is cited as notable by:

1. Vanity Fair 2. Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes 3. Urban Dictionary 4. Genii Magazine 5. Magic Magazine 6. DecemberBoys.com.ua 7. Bicycle Playing Card website 8. "Flash Cards with Jerry Cestkowski" podcast

There are 27 total references. I was told I needed seven, and now I have plenty more, how many do I need to satisfy you? Chris Kenner has much fewer and has his own article.

I am in contact with the cited noble contributors such as David Copperfield, Chris Kenner, and Dave and Dan, but they all don't understand why the draft would be rejected.

Do you have any tips to help me accomplish this? CardistryExpert (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CardistryExpert Please read other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also problematic. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. I would note that Chris Kenner (magician) has been proposed for deletion.
A reviewer provided a good breakdown of why the sources you offered were inappropriate. The opinions of others in the field help, but are not significant coverage of the subject. You also seem to have a conflict of interest as you say you are in contact with the people involved. Fewer high quality sources are better than a large number of low quality sources. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:03:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by 27.6.149.34


27.6.149.34 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:33:38, 3 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anwar Shakir Wazir


Dear,Sir/Madam. As a journalist for last 20 years and have given my blood to Journalism /free speech, I would like to post my biography on Wikipedia. this is my 1st chance to publish and post my Bio , but its not acceptable to Wikipedia,so could you please help me in this regards --> -->Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shakir Wazir First, please read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable journalist. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you- that is usually difficult for people to do.
You may also wish to review how to write references. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:37:27, 3 November 2021 review of submission by Yusuf khan books


Respected sir, my name is Yusuf Khan and I'm a self-publishing author from India and I have authored more than 3 books and I fear that people may try to copy my content and even try to portrait as me online. I request you to plz approve my page. Thank you.

Yusuf khan books (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf khan books Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you would need to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. As it seems that you don't have such coverage and do not meet that definition, your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Self-published authors rarely merit articles, because typically independent reliable sources do not write about such works. Unless it occurs on Wikipedia itself, we cannot help you with others impersonating you and copying your work across the internet. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:51, 3 November 2021 review of draft by Gennidebič69


Gennidebič69 (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know what exactly is to be changed in the draft? As the major (and most reliable) reference is the web page of the institution itself (which is of course mentioned), I wonder what else to offer as a reference. Thank you!

Gennidebič69 Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject says about itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. The organization itself can only be used as a source for certain information, and cannot be used to establish notability, see WP:PRIMARY. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:04, 3 November 2021 review of submission by GMC2020


The review notes say, "This draft makes excessive use of primary sources." I edited to delete the author's own popular press writings, but the draft as rejected also includes examples of many reliable secondary sources that conducted interviews with the subject. I added a couple more of these but would appreciate advice on anything else I can do to align this with guidelines, as it does seem clear that the subject is a noteworthy international expert in her area (per #7 here).

GMC2020 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are also primary sources, as they're the subject being given a platform to talk about themselves. Interviews are worthless regardless of whether they were conducted by a New York Times journalist or Borat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--GMC2020 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jéské, but this response suggests unfamiliarity with the draft on which I am requesting support and with the concept of expert interviews as per the guidelines for notability. The interviews do not feature the subject talking about herself: Every interview is the subject talking about her area of expertise. I would appreciate additional advice from a volunteer who is perhaps better informed about the guidelines for notability in academics, as detailed (in #7 here)
GMC2020 This person's views on their area of expertise would be relevant to an article on that area, but not to an article about her. An article about her should only discuss her personally. I removed your duplicate posting; further comments should be made here. It won't be archived as long as it gets further discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot. So how does one establish that an academic is a notable expert in their field, if not by numerous substantive interviews with her about her work and her expertise? The guidelines for academics state that a person is notable "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." These interviews and the articles the subject has published in major newspapers (which I deleted based on the initial feedback) document this. As #7 here states:
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [...] Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The subject has been cited frequently in conventional media, not at the local level, but nationally and internationally: New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC, NPR, etc. I think there's a disconnect or misunderstanding at play and want to do what I can to help ensure the entry is reviewed under the correct set guidelines (i.e. for academics' standards of notability). Thank you.
--GMC2020 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

00:19:56, 4 November 2021 review of submission by 24.207.110.137


The subject of this entry has been covered in five different mainstream media publications. I am wondering why that doesn't meet the threshold for notoriety and what I can do about it.

24.207.110.137 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's notability, not notoriety (which has a negative connotation). The reviewer left you a detailed answer on the draft, that should answer your questions. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:20:21, 4 November 2021 review of submission by Robinowit


Robinowit (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my apologies but I am new here and when I created my first page yesterday I accidentally clicked that I had a close personal relationship with the subject. This isn't the case. I tried to undo it, but I couldn't figure out how. Thank you for any help. Robinowit (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Robinowit[reply]

Hi @Robinowit, you can undo it by going to your user page User:Robinowit, clicking "edit" and removing the userbox code. Then, go to the article Seth Shipman and remove the {{COI|date=November 2021}} code from there too. – SD0001 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:54:39, 4 November 2021 review of submission by Leoraholistic

Hi, I submitted a page for Wikipedia but it has been rejected. The page is already in existence in a different language (hebrew), I was merely translating it which is why I am confused why it has been rejected. You can see the original here https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8 I tried to add additional references in English so they weren't all hebrew, but perhaps that was the issue? I'm new to wiki so happy to learn more and gain insights.

Leoraholistic (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leoraholistic Your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning improvement is possible. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies, so what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version is usually more stringent than others. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:13, 4 November 2021 review of draft by TrickShotFinn


This is a prominent French martial scholar with limited information in English. His contributions in martial arts/combat sports has earned him (and his wife) the Prix de technique et de pédagogie sportives by French goverment in year 2000[1]. I do not know where to find information on him except for French sources and my French isn't that good. Most of the info I've gathered is through French and German versions of his wiki page - and it lacks citations as well. I can only verify that his writing work - regarding his books are real, and that his work is used as citations for martial arts in other language wikipedias. I kind of expected somebody who would know something to fill the blanks, but it got AfC'd before that would happen. Note that each language version of Wikipedia has its own standards and policies, so what is acceptable on one version is not necessary acceptable on another. You could ask for assistance

I *seriously* cannot handle this task alone and its not right to expect me to do so. TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrickShotFinn I will just note that sources do not need to be in English. It helps, but is not required. You could ask for assistance at the French translation WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ecrivains-sportifs.fr/les-prix-de-lassociation/prix-de-technique-et-de-pedagogie-sportives-prix-marie-therese-eyquem/

Alright. I've contacted the French Martial arts portal at fr:Discussion_Portail:Arts_martiaux_et_sports_de_combat#Roland_Habersetzer.TrickShotFinn (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:45, 4 November 2021 review of submission by Lavendermoomoo

Ivan Tai is a Malaysian actor and News Anchor with Malaysian Government owned TV Station. He's reading prime time news and he recently got shortlisted for the New Artist Award (Artis Baharu MeleTOP) on Astro’s “MeleTOP Era Awards (Anugerah MeleTOP ERA 2021)”! He's notable in the TV industry in the region. Lavendermoomoo (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Furthermore, it was twice deleted in article space. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aurit Zamir

== 20:15:29, 4 November 2021 review of submission by פונטיין ==Draft:Aurit Zamir

  • Username missing!

Hi I want to publish this page. What's wrong with it? It has full Biography References External links All is veryrelaiabke So why not?``

פונטיין (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All sreliable sources
IMDB and some others as can be seen in this draft page`` פונטיין (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user editable. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

03:45:51, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Glam101eyeshadow


Glam101eyeshadow (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:07:08, 5 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mtzau


Hi. I have received a rejection notice for the above page with the reason being "blatant advertising". This surprised me greatly as I based my submission on the Wikipedia pages for BHP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP) and General Electric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric). My submission simply contained facts about the company, trying to follow a similar layout to the previous 2 mentioned pages. So if my submission is "blatant advertising" I am at a loss as to why the pages for BHP and General Electric would be rejected for the same reason.

Looking forward to your response.

Mtzau (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mtzau. Your draft contains obviously promotional statements such as "pioneering intelligent control solutions in power electronics to help solve the most challenging problems in electrification" and "seeks to accelerate the global transition to clean energy by putting the intelligence into energy management" and "Sue had nine years of accomplishments at General Electric, acting as CCO and the CEO of GE’s Small Industrial Motors Division, overseeing the division’s North American and International markets" and "the most intelligent motor controller, optimizing electric motor performance and efficiency" and "to service the top automakers in the region that are pursuing aggressive electric vehicle goals". And so it goes on. None of these statements is sourced. In fact the draft lacks any reliable independent sources whatever. I suggest you read WP:YFA to get more of an idea of what is acceptable.--Shantavira|feed me 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:23, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Mtzau


My Employer is Cirrus Technologies in Sydney Australia which develops software for Financial Services. I a not paid directly or indirectly by Exro Technologies, based in Canada, which is the subject of my page. Exro Technologies has developed unique technology that could revolutionise electric vehicles, and I created this page when I was surprised that there was not existing page displaying information about this.

I cannot help that Wikipedia editors have formed the impression that this is advertising. But I am fairly certain Exro Technologies has no knowledge of my attempt to publish this page tolet Wikipedia users know that the technology Exro uses exists and is being developed as a product that has the potential to revolutionise electric vehicle engine performance.

I cannot declare this is a paid contribution because it is not. I seem to be in catch-22 situation here.

Mtzau (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mtzau If you are not paid, then you are not paid. Your draft, however, is clear advertising because it just tells about the company and its products, and is also sourced almost exclusively to the company itself. This is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia articles do more, an article about out company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company says about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose to say about it. The company website, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:41, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Sponhour


I am a new contributor. I do not really understand the basis for the rejection considering that my article cites numerous primary sources and draws upon a photo album taken by a worker at the plant in question that is being used as the basis for a museum exhibit in 2022. Thank you, Sponhour

Sponhour (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sponhour As noted by the reviewer, it was declined(not rejected, which would mean it could not be resubmitted) due to concerns about the tone of the draft. It is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I might suggest that you look at some existing articles about companies to get an idea of their structure and tone, especially articles classified as good articles. You may then rewrite and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:42, 5 November 2021 review of submission by TroyKFD

Draft:Ghost Drops


just wondering why my page Ghost Drops was denied because of references, when I used the exact same websites for references as Tokyo Smoke page on wiki.

TroyKFD (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:58, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Tokmakoglu deniz

Hello, I am ready to submit for review but I am getting the following error. Can you help? Thanks.

"An error occurred (unexpected-result). Please try again or refer to the help desk."

Tokmakoglu deniz (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tokmakoglu deniz: I'm not sure what the error is in the page but I can tell you right now the way the page was it would never be accepted. It was a long list of accomplishments with no real meaning or sourcing. This is not a CV site. Please read through WP:YFA to help understand what an encyclopedia article is and what we expect. This is one of the most difficult tasks to undertake. I have taken liberty of removing the list so you can start again after the lede. The criteria you need to be aware of is WP:PROF. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:25, 5 November 2021 review of draft by Robert J Nagle

I'm trying to figure out what to do after my submitted Clay Reynolds article on a living author has been rejected twice. After the first time, I made major corrections and resubmitted. After the second time, it was rejected for mostly superficial reasons. I made a few minor changes to address the specific examples, but from my perspective, I've done all I can do. I believe that the submission is certainly good enough to be approved (though I understand that a lot of articles undergo editing after being approved, and I'm fine with that). What should I do -- engage with the second rejector directly on his personal page and hope that he reconsiders the rejection? Or keep submitting and then hope another random editor will eventually approve it?

I've been editing and contributing for 14 years. I regularly come across articles that are nowhere near the quality of what I submitted. Even though the article probably has a legitimate issue about primary vs. secondary sources and reliable sources, I think my draft adequately addresses this. I've read the policy and compared against other similar kinds of articles which have already been approved. I think my article complies with the policy and have already written several paragraphs explaining why. I'd be happy to paste these reasons on the draft article's TALK section (or even here). But is there anything I can do to make sure the future approver will read it? For example, is it appropriate for the submitter to include a short note at the top of the article that says something like "See my notes in TALK section"? Update: I really feel that I should write a short note at the top explaining how I addressed each editor's concerns and refer them to a longer explanation on the TALK page. Unless someone here advises me NOT to do this, I shall be doing that.

I've made as many changes to make the article Wiki-ready. After my second round, I really don't think I am capable of making more changes. Perhaps I am too close to the subject -- but for heaven's sake, I expected to work 2-3 hours on this article. Then it turned into a 20 hour job. I'm afraid I'm running out of patience with this slow-moving approval machine. I know the queue is very long and I see that other submissions have issues. But I have already addressed most of the major issues, and all that is left are minor issues. From my perspective, it would be much easier for editors (i.e., not me!) to deal with these issues AFTER approval rather than BEFORE as a condition of approval. Thanks for your help. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected. Content like “Although considered a "city boy," by Quanah's residents” “Reynolds did a fair amount of farm and ranch work during the hot summers and "lived in the public library” “Looking back, Reynolds came to appreciate growing up in Quanah” “Rey.nolds was eager to leave town to go to the university” etc etc etc is very chatty and informal, articles need to be written in a dry neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. By the way, differentiating between "decline" and "rejected" is not meaningful here. In both cases, these words mean 1)not approved and 2)not currently being considered for approval unless the submitter takes additional action. I'll re-examine the wording you highlighted, but keep in mind that this language was a careful paraphrase of a quote in an interview. Normally the NPOV policy should not include anything about intent or motivation, but if it's paraphrasing a statement, it could still be acceptable. (But I'll try to come up with something better).Robert J Nagle (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:47, 5 November 2021 review of submission by 2405:204:9712:ADBC:0:0:B45:D8A1


2405:204:9712:ADBC:0:0:B45:D8A1 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:40, 5 November 2021 review of submission by Noahpdoty

Hi, I'm hoping to have my draft reviewed. It was denied a couple months ago, and I believe I made all the requested changes, but I haven't been able to get someone to look at it since. I just made some updates to the page and added some more sources, so I'm hoping someone can help me out and let me know if I need to make more changes or what I should do to get it reviewed/accepted. Thank you!Noahpdoty (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Noahpdoty (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

02:00:24, 6 November 2021 review of submission by Buddy011


Buddy011 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:37:01, 6 November 2021 review of submission by TheTechRobo3641

> I'm just not seeing the in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources for this. The https://www.theregister.com/ source is pretty much the only source which meets the criteria in my eyes.

I'm a bit confused. What is the definition of a reliable source?? LinuxFormat is highly recognised as a good source about Linux news.

Thank you!

TheTechRobo (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechRobo3641, Agreed, Linux Format is one of the longest standing and most respected Linux publications in the UK. I'm not sure if two dedicated articles from years ago, plus a few passing mentions is sufficient to be able to make a comprehensive article, and there are so many Linux distributions (IMHO far too many) that trying to create an article for each one may be problematic. It might be easier to flesh out List of Linux distributions or a related spin-off list. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

> It might be easier to flesh out List of linux disributions or a related spin-off list.
I highly agree, but unfortunately if I remember correctly when that was tried, Elive's listing was removed because it didn't have an article.
Bit of a catch-22 there. TheTechRobo (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:48, 6 November 2021 review of submission by JOHN(TheHeretic)

Adding this data to previous submission proves beyond all doubt that gravitation cannot exist between stars and planets. ALL previous 'Wicki' gravity support is in error and needs to be removed. JOHN(TheHeretic) JOHN(TheHeretic) (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Wikipedia has zero interest in your original research, we only have articles about topics that have been covered in reliable published sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:59, 6 November 2021 review of submission by Sspringett


CycloneDX is one of only three formats allowed to fulfill the requirements in Executive Order 14028 in the United States. There are an estimated 100K organizations using it in production, is supported by many security vendors, recommended by multiple world governments, and is supported by over 80 tools, both commercial and open source. I have added a lot more text and public citations that elevate the fact that the standard is relevant.

Sspringett (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sspringett The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As noted by the reviewer, it does not meet the definition of notable software that Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a connection with this software, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1053879708"