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
HutchPJ77 (talk | contribs)
18 edits
No edit summary
Line 506: Line 506:
This is for Debasish Mridha article. Just want to know if foreign-language references are allowed and how that works. Subject article was rejected because all I had was English-language references. He has many, many more in Bengali. If I post the English translation of the title, are these allowed? [[User:JasonMIIPH|JasonMIIPH]] ([[User talk:JasonMIIPH|talk]]) 16:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This is for Debasish Mridha article. Just want to know if foreign-language references are allowed and how that works. Subject article was rejected because all I had was English-language references. He has many, many more in Bengali. If I post the English translation of the title, are these allowed? [[User:JasonMIIPH|JasonMIIPH]] ([[User talk:JasonMIIPH|talk]]) 16:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|JasonMIIPH}} I assume this is about the draft in your sandbox. See [[WP:NOENG|this page]], but in short, sources are not required to be in English. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|JasonMIIPH}} I assume this is about the draft in your sandbox. See [[WP:NOENG|this page]], but in short, sources are not required to be in English. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

== 18:30:11, 11 February 2022 review of submission by WikiJazzHub ==
{{Lafc|username=WikiJazzHub|ts=18:30:11, 11 February 2022|page=
Draft:Skinny Hightower
}}
Hello fellow '''Wikipedians''',

I have created a draft for a jazz artist. I believe this draft falls under the guidelines elucidated within [[WP:Music]] ''(Please see Criteria for musicians and ensembles points #2 and #5, questionable yet possible #7)''. However, my belief does not move the pen here, hence my need for professional opinion/action. Been a Wikipedian for a long time, but new to making actual articles. Your help is greatly appreciated.

'''In addition and as a courtesy:'''

* I am in no way connected to the subject
* Nor am I paid to edit.
* I am but a mere jazz aficionado seeking a little guidance. Looking to finally make an article contribution to the Wikiverse. More to follow.

Salutations, [[User:WikiJazzHub|WikiJazzHub]] ([[User talk:WikiJazzHub|talk]]) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:30, 11 February 2022

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


February 5

11:27:26, 5 February 2022 review of submission by Jomokhowa


I am requesting how i can better improve the article. what i should delete. Thanks Jomokhowa (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire draft was deleted, as it was essentially a resume. An article should not just document the existence of a person and their accomplishments; it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:49, 5 February 2022 review of submission by M.h.a1363


M.h.a1363 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Toomaj Danesh Behzadi is unsourced. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:56, 5 February 2022 review of submission by Kittensbykittens

Hi! I am a preservation professor and am trying to learn how to make wikipedia articles for historic buildings. I am totally new at this, so please forgive errors! I submitted this draft article on a building on the Tulane University campus as a first attempt. I included several references, including the Tulane official website, an architectural historian society's description of the building, information about the history from a book, and newspaper articles about a recent controversy. However, my draft was still declined requiring more resources.

I agree that additional resources from entirely independent parties would be preferable, however, for historic buildings this is rarely the case. I would love any suggestions on ways to submit pages for this type of subject, as I feel that, provided the information is public/the site or building is public (to an extent at least, such as a university building) that wikipedia would be a great way to both save and share this information.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. If the topic is the problem- I.e. it isn't considered significant enough or is just not what wikipedia is about- I understand.

Thank you!

Kittensbykittens (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:03:50, 5 February 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:4083:20C0:D00B:5A68:8BFD:4F03


New sources for this subject have been discovered.

2600:1700:4083:20C0:D00B:5A68:8BFD:4F03 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they're a lot better than the single-paragraph stories and attempts at generating hype that're currently cited, this dog ain't hunting. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

05:58:09, 6 February 2022 review of submission by Jennamaree


Jennamaree (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello I am an Australian actress and am trying to get my wikipedia page can you please help me

Jennamaree, Wikipedia is not social media. It's not a place for you to promote yourself, provide your resume or otherwise write an autobiography. As it stands your article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, provides no sources and gives zero indication that subject would meet WP:NACTOR.14:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Given the flowery prose of the article and the link to the subject's Instagram profile, this qualifies for deletion via WP:CSD#G11 for blatant self-promotion. --Kinu t/c 06:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:24, 6 February 2022 review of draft by Tariqarafa1


Tariqarafa1 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'd like to know why my submission on Connected Kerb has been removed. I've deliberately tried not to write it as a promotional advert. Please explain why.

Tariqarafa1, The article is an ad. Founders, Products, Awards... all things the company wants to tell the world about themselves without any indication of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Routine business annoucements and press releases do not contribute to notability.Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:28, 6 February 2022 review of submission by Wikiwizard1225

I really nee to expedite getting this article approved... can you help in this area? Wikiwizard1225 (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwizard1225 First, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. There is no way to ensure a speedy review; we have no interest in any deadline you may be under. Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can, in no particular order.
Please review the comments left by the reviewer on the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why did you deline my submission please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.26.121 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Untitled Bad Moms project
Hi IP user, the draft you created and submitted does not show that the upcoming TV show meets any notability criteria, and almost none of the info in the draft has a source. There is one single source from 2018 which talks about "early development stages" of the show, and doesn't mention the "ensemble cast" (from what I can tell, it says that Kunis, Bell, and Hahn are not going to be in this show, but it's all super vague, and the other names you've listed aren't in the source at all). The director/writer info is also unsupported by the source. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:29, 6 February 2022 review of draft by CrustyBurgerhead


Hello, I have some questions about getting "Klairmont Kollections" published. Is the lack of notability because I only have four or so references to the museum, are the sources not reputable enough (Chicago Tribune and Chicago Magazine,) or is it how I'm citing them in the article? Would it help if I put "cite web" in? I'm comparing it with the published "Volo Auto Museum" page which is a very similar museum. Thank you.

CrustyBurgerhead (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CrustyBurgerhead It is not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. (some of them are not cited properly but that is not the main issue; you may see Referencing for Beginners to fix that) The sources are either not independent(the museum website), are just announcements, or tell us more about the founder of the museum rather than the museum itself(it could be that the founder of the museum merits an article and not the museum itself). Please see Your First Article.
Be wary in using other articles as a model for yours, unless it is classified as a good article(Volo Auto Museum is not and has some of the same issues, and I have marked that article as such) 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:03, 6 February 2022 review of draft by Sabine Hagmann


I don't know what else I can do. I created an article that keeps getting declined for lack of citations. But I have added so many citations, many more than I can detect in other articles that have been approved. I am at a loss on what to do. Can you help? Thank you, Sabine Hagmann (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Sabine Hagmann (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Hagmann That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. Only new users and IP users are required to use this process(though it's a good idea for all without experience), and it has not existed for the entire time Wikipedia has existed; those are just two ways that an inappropriate article could get by us. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and there are over 6 million articles, it's possible to get things by us- and we can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify other probematic articles you have seen for possible action.
Please read other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. Otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Each article is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles.
Regarding your draft, it's not more sources that we need- it's higher quality sources. A Wikipedia article about an artist must not just tell us about the artist and that their work exists- it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. "Significant coverage" is the key here; the coverage must do more than just document the existence of the artist or their work; the coverage must tell us in its voice(i.e. not an interview or other primary source) how the artist is significant. Please read Your First Article.
My suggestion is to take the three best sources that you have and summarize what those say- leaving everything else out. All that is needed to pass this process is three sources with significant coverage. Other stuff, if needed, can come later. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:58:35, 6 February 2022 review of submission by 95.162.161.211


95.162.161.211 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

08:41:12, 7 February 2022 review of draft by Heerajaat


Heerajaat (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarise what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable topic. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:52, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jacobariel91


Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Promotional language has been even further removed (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The draft was rejected based on false accusations on my account and inadequate explanation as to how the text is promotional. There are sufficient sources to the article text, and guidelines were followed to update the article according to the previous comments. It is imperative that Wikipedia maintain consistent standard across its review of articles, as there have been other articles under the same area of the draft article that have been published that are far more promotional (see WiTricity). Articles should not be rejected based on unfounded claims against the submitter (i.e. that I have an COI) and where there is a claim of promotional language even though reviewers have failed to provide examples of such. This article must therefore be re-reviewed in accordance with Wikipedia's policies as it meets the reasons for content creation. I will need to raise the reasons for rejection to Wikipedia's Administrators to ensure you and other accounts are following consistent standards across your reviews (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 I am an administrator. I think that you misunderstand some things about Wikipedia; adminstrators have no more authority than any other editor, they just have extra buttons. Furthermore Wikipedia is a global project with tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. We do our best to be consistent, but as with any large organization differences can creep in. However, I don't think that is the case here.
If you are not paid, okay. If you have no conflict of interest, okay- though aggressive editing about a topic often indicates a stronger investment in it than mere personal interest. It is still possible to edit promotionally without having a COI. This is often the case with enthusiastic supporters of a particular topic, as you have stated you are. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about a topic. If you are more interested in telling the world about your particular topic(EVs) you will have a tough time here as we are interested in primarily summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about topics that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, the definition of a notable organization. All of the sources you offer seem to be the mere reporting of the business' activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Unfortunately, you are mistaken - all of the sources cited in the draft article are form independent sources researching the company's operations, cost, technology, and impacts. Trafikverket, Bloomberg, TRL, TASE, Green Car Reports are all independent agencies form the company and have significantly covered the topic of the draft article, as it is publicly operating company. In fact, the recent rejection of the draft had nothing to do about the sources, per the reviewer comments, but with "promotional" text, which itself was failed to be pointed out with specific examples. It is important that you understand the content you are reviewing or else you will not be able to make a fair assessment on the independent coverage of an article if you are not aware of the sources reputability and purpose of coverage. It is also important that Wikipedia administrators do not raise false COI reports about my account (as CNMall41 did) - reports which are baseless and unfounded and inaccurate. Further, EV's are not just "my topic" - they are millions of persons' topics and there is a growing need for access to information about electric vehicles and charging station companies, but you are failing to live up to Wikipedia's purpose of enabling access to information with significant presence and coverage (i.e. Electreon) due to your ignorance about the topic, sources, and inability to provide adequate feedback on promotional text. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 Wikipedia's purpose is very much not "enabling access to information". That purpose is what blogs, social media, and personal websites are for. As I said, it is summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Your sources are press release type stories or announcements of routine business activities. Please tell what the three best sources you have are. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Please do not quote out of context for your own convivence - the full sentence I wrote is "enabling access to information **with significant presence and coverage**." This is indeed Wikipedia's purpose. Please advise how other company's similar to the draft article in question are "significant" for coverage (i.e. WiTricity), but this submission is not. Further, you cannot keep changing your reasons for rejecting the article - first its too much promotional text, then it is because the article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia even though the reviewer themselves noted the topic was notable (exact quote: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way."), and then it is because there is not significant coverage/sources? Again, like your reviewing practices for publishing articles, you are being inconsistent. *This* is contrary to the goal of Wikipedia in order to be neutral and consistent. Some examples of main sources include:

1. Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Administration) - Swedish research report on EV charging technologies, including Electreon (was reviewed with translator for citing purposes): http://trafikverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/ATTACHMENT01.pdf 2. TRL research institute report of electric road charging technologies including assessment on Electreon's technology and projections of capabilities: https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf Archived 2020-08-03 at the Wayback Machine 3. New York Times report article on EV charging technologies (not a press release, these are an entirely different format and emanate form the company itself): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/business/energy-environment/electric-roads-cars-israel-sweden.html 4. EDN independent engineering research platform focused on electrical engineering technology and electronics: https://www.edn.com/power-transfer-for-wireless-charging-in-electric-vehicles/

These are just a few examples - they are not released from the company itself; they are not press releases; they are not marketing distributions from Electreon or paid promotions. Please do not make statements just for the sake of saying them without adequate justifications to your claims. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Please read other stuff exists Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. We can only address what we know about.
I cannot read Swedish, but the link you provided is only a single page and does not have the company name on it. The UK government link you provided gives me an error message. The NY Times piece might be okay, but I cannot examine it due to a paywall(it's fine that it is paywalled, just I can't read it). The final source you provide only briefly mentions the company. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Apologies, this is the correct link for the Swedish Transport Agency Report (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/FULLTEXT01.pdf) - it is not one page, and it was reviewed with a translator - the table on page 59 reviews Electreon's technology and associated costs. This is the correct link for the second source (it is a large report, takes time to load: https://web.archive.org/web/20200803034309/https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf. EDN is an example of an independent platform, which you asked to see sources for, it is just one of many sources used for the draft article. If you want more independent sources on the company with more significant coverage, which I had included in the draft text originally, here you go, there is reports from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and others which are **not** press releases or reports emanating form the company:

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-06/israel-s-electreon-charges-electric-car-batteries-on-the-go CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business/detroit-charging-road/index.html Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-companies-want-to-charge-your-electric-vehicle-as-you-drive-11610965800

I have addressed your original request, and you have yet to provide me sufficient reasons based non the above justifications and sources as to why this article remains rejected. Please, Wikipedia needs to work on the consistency of its reviewers - the reviewers cannot submit inconsistent claims for as to why an article can not be published/is rejected (exact quote from recent review: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way.") - and yet there is no explanation as to what constitutes promotional text in the article.

I have provided you with examples of several independent sources, as you requested. Please provide your reply on each. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  1. The Bloomberg source is largely an interview with the founder of the company, who is not an independent source about his own company. Leaving that aside, it mentions the company only briefly.
  2. The CNN piece only tells about how the company works in the field of wireless EV charging and wants to test its technology in Michigan- a routine business activity(a company testing its product) It also contains an interview with a vice president of the company who is not an independent source about their own company.
  3. I cannot examine the WSJ as it is paywalled but just based on the title it would seem to only briefly mention the company. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot You asked for significant coverage from independent publishing sources that are not direct from the company's marketing or paid promotional outlets (i.e. Business Wire)- you cannot keep changing your definition of what constitutes independent sources with significant coverage. I have read the Wikipedia's page on this and added the sources in direct accordance to what satisfies an appropriate source. You are also in direct contradiction with your fellow reviewer who stated "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way." Reviewers need to be consistent in how they review articles - you are detracting from the merits of Wikipedia.

You asked for articles that are not press releases or emanating from the company itself - that's exact what these sources are - not press releases and from independent publishing platforms who have researched and written about the company to showcase that it is indeed a covered topic. If there was just one source from one year mentioning the company once or twice, I can agree to your point - but it is multiple articles from multiple years on multiple platforms mentioning the company in the context of a growing EV charging industry, which you clearly know very little about and for some reason, want to prevent access to information for. You are only verifying the validity of all these sources, which together constitute a broad range of coverage on Electreon as a public company.

Further, what about the NYT piece? And the TRL piece, and the EDW piece? And the Trafikverket/Swedish Transport Administration piece you conveniently did not address here after I provided you with the updated links? You asked for three sources, and I provided you with more.

All roads lead to the significant coverage of this article from independent, non press release sources, and you have failed to prove or provide explanation otherwise. And there is no word yet from your fellow reviewer who you are contradiction to as to why constitutes promotional text in this article (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 As I said I cannot read Swedish, and I don't think it a good use of my time to examine a lengthy Swedish government report for name drops of the company when it's pretty clear you won't be persuaded by what I would say about it. I can't access sources behind paywalls. I've explained the problems with your sources, but you seem to not want to hear what those are. You are very invested in this for someone with no connection to this company, perhaps too much so. This is the longest discussion I have seen on this page in some time. I would suggest taking a step back for a bit. I have no additional comment here; perhaps others will respond and tell you something else. I certainly am not the last or only word. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I and external reviewers (not connected to the company) are passionate about the EV charging industry, and you - and your fellow administrators - have yet to provide adequate reason as to why this company's draft page does not constitute adequate coverage.

Adequate coverage indicates there are multiple sources discussing the topic - I have provided you wit numerous examples. Again, if there was just one source which briefly mentions the topic, I concur your point, but that is not the case. Regarding the Swedish report, it discusses Electreon's technology in full. And Google Translate is something everyone can use. I myself reviewed the report with a translator. Regarding the TRL report, you said you could not access the link, I provided you with the correct link. No comment there. Regarding the EDW report, it is an example of an ind. platform, which you requested. Regarding the NYT and WSJ reports - it is not my fault you don't have access to those articles via paywall, its easy to bypass a paywall and many who rely on this topic for information have access to these sites. Regarding CNN, Axios, Bloomberg, Forbes - they are ind. planforms that are not press releases or emanating from the company covering the topic.

Every request you have asked for, I have addressed. And you have failed to provide adequate reasoning still as to why there is not sufficient coverage on this article from ind. sources that do no emanate from the company.

Further, you have failed to address the inconsistency of review comments that you and fellow admins are providing to articles that are reviewed, which detracts from the authenticity of Wikipedia.

I ask that in the meantime, the draft page be put back into the circulation for review so that other editors/administrators can have their say on the matter - bc as you said, you are not, and should not, be the final word. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Sigh. I have addressed inconsistency already. We do our best, but as with any large organization it creeps in. If I suggested that the company is not notable contrary to what one reviewer said, I apolgize- but the sources do not demonstrate that notability. It may very well be notable but the sources do not show it for the reasons I have stated. Not all reviewers are administrators. I agree with the rejection and if you want it reversed you must appeal to the reviewer that rejected it, or hope that your ANI discussion results in a consensus to allow its submission. I don't think that's going to happen, but those are your options.
Wikipedia does not claim to be authentic, in fact Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't want readers to trust Wikipedia blindly; we want them to examine the sources provided and decide for themselves. If you just want to tell the world about the wonders of EVs and related technology, you should do that on a blog or personal website. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot May I ask, why the sources do not show notability? CNN, NYT, WSJ, independent research firms - all writing about the topic are not notable? If there is one source which is an interview - fine I can remove that, but Trafikverekt, TRL, EDW, and the rest - you have not provided any reason as to why those sources do not show notability - other than the company is not mentioned thousands of times. That's not the point of the source. The point of these sources is to showcase adequate coverage from non press release or company emanating sources. You are mistaken, and I ask that you provide adequate reasoning as to why this company does not satisfy sufficient coverage. How can we ensure adequate coordination between yourself and CNMall41 who rejected the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs)
Jacobariel91 The mere fact that a source writes about a topic does not confer notability on the topic. Sources must write about the topic with significant coverage which I have yet to see in this case(from what I can actually examine). They seem to be name drops of the company or just tell what they do. Have you reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a notable company? You can request that CNMall41 comment and they may (depending on their time zone) or may not. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and volunteers do what they wish to when they wish to do it. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and Jacobariel91: The NYT would constitute significant coverage, however the source is being cherry-picked and only being used to support one rather inconsequential line of text. NYT discusses the technology, recent pilots and challenges including viability of the product in comparison to other options. COI has been denied but doesn't change what reviewer said, subject is notable, article is promotional. I have not reviewed sources beyond NYT nor looked at article beyond skimming to see if concern of overly promotional was valid. If I have a chance later, I will do a deeper dive.Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Slywriter I have discussed your points above in detail here

Subject is notable, article is non-promotional is the accurate conclusion. The reviewer was incorrect in their assessment for reasons I have stated in the linked page and below.

As I have explained there, the text is all factual, it is non-promotional. It does not paint the company in a positive light - the company's high costs compared to other technologies, the energy power distribution loss at higher speeds of vehicles, and structure of the company's recent commercial deal are all factually written and from published research reports, and if anything, paint the company in a slightly negative light. The pilot projects are fact based as well - there is no promotion of technology in these texts that, for example, highlight the company's technology benefits, impacts, and advantages over other technologies or competitors - this would indeed be examples of promotional text and none of that appears in this draft.

It is imperative that consistent review standards be applied when Wikipedia editors/administrators are assessing draft articles. It's also imperative that articles be published in accordance to fair assessment of promotional language by editors who are familiar with the content of the article's submission, otherwise they cannot be fair arbiters of fact vs. promotion, as well as assessors on the article's sources and notability. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobarie91I have left comments at ANI as no reason to have this conversation in multiple venues.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:51, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Binod Acharya 2001

can i publish my personal Wikipedia article ? Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Acharya 2001 No, the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:41, 7 February 2022 review of draft by 100.33.75.99


100.33.75.99 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Wikipedia Tue, Feb 1, 2022 11:57 pm

Its the original Wikipedia. Draft:Dick Lopez

February 7, 2022

In reviewing Wikipedia’s comments, I am trying to figure out what their specific concerns and objections are. After spending a day preparing additional information for references, I realize that I really don’t understand their issues, thus making it impossible to respond to Wikipedia communications. Can someone at Wikipedia help.?

Dick

Your draft has no sources to support its content. In articles about living people, every substantive fact must have a citation to an independent reliable source. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you are the subject, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:23, 7 February 2022 review of draft by KnucklesTheTigger


I am not sure exactly what is a reliable source that can get this page approved. I mean, I've seen other pages use kidscreen.com as their one and only source why is it wrong when I use that site? What type of source does it take to get this page approved?

KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KnucklesTheTigger, any reviews of the show? That's probably the best indication of notability. TV listings just tell us that something exists and existence isn't sufficient for inclusion.Slywriter (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter, I will try to look for review, but it might be hard because i do not live in france, the UK, or any other country the show orgins.KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:11, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jess.jerome2000


Jess.jerome2000 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit my work so it does not read as an advertisement?

Jess.jerome2000 I assume this is about your sandbox draft(I've placed a link above). You summarize what independent reliable sources say about the product, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You only offer the company's website as a source- this is not acceptable. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. Please read Your First Article. If you are an employee of Fischer Medical, you must declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:32:40, 7 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwells91



Mwells91 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwells91, no question asked but Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Nor is it social media. Until and unless reliable independent secondary sources cover the subject, there is zero chance for having an article. In particular, subject needs to meet WP:NMUSIC, which right now there is no indication can happen.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:47, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Xplicitcoding

Hello! I'm new to Wiki editing. I mainly do web management and social media management. One of my clients reached out about creating a page for him and I'm doing the best I can. I keep getting denied and I was looking for some guidance. It's currently in draft, but I was referred here. Any help would be appreciated!

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

Xplicitcoding (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xplicitcoding, you need references that meet WP:NBIO. The draft's current references don't do that. As a paid editor, you are expected to educate yourself on our guidelines rather than having us as volunteers hold your hand and teach you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 8

17:37:51, 8 February 2022 review of submission by Sammyy07

Hello, I have read about notability bombing and how you shouldn't include lots of references for sources where there isn't significant coverage, however if I have used information from that source don't I have to reference it? How should I go about it Sammyy07 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:13, 8 February 2022 review of submission by 45levi123

45levi123 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC) I just want a Wikipidea page about myself, please just let this one pass, thanks dude.[reply]

Please do not use Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Kinu t/c 06:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:11:40, 8 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Liza Zimmerman



Liza Zimmerman (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Greetings. I would like some help to improve my Tor Wines draft. Liza Zimmerman (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks![reply]


February 9

00:08:06, 9 February 2022 review of draft by Dgregory4


To Whom It May Concern,

I have a question about notability. While I recognize that my draft has deficiencies with respect to secondary source material, I am not sure why the subject's notability is in question. In the Wikipedia notability guidelines it states that "The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses." My professor did have a Festschrift written in his honor (published by Wipf and Stock) which I listed under his writings. Why does this not satisfy the notability requirement?

I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Dgregory4 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dgregory4, comment left by reviewer was too much unsourced content and please read WP:REFB(→) for help with correcctly formatting sources. The notability issue isn't about having Festschrift or not. But rather, much of the text isn't backed by secondary sources, which you acknowledged, thus notability is questioned. Additionally, you had placed Festschrift under the Writings section, which is usually selected writings by the subject, not about the subject or for the subject. I would have skipped evaluating the list myself if the prose isn't sourced properly. Instead, it should be integrated into prose, i.e. "a Festschift about/for <topic>/<person> was complied by person(s) in <year>.", or simply listed in a section on its own (usually Honours and awards).
Do take note that as the subject is living still, the standards at WP:BLP is pretty much applicable. Thus you are required to find secondary source materials for every possible contentious statement made in the article. – robertsky (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Theroadislong: just to bring attention of request for review to you. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:11:07, 9 February 2022 review of submission by ABHIMI

ABHIMI (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is an encyclopedia, not a place for somebody to whine about how they want to become rich and famous. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:48, 9 February 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국

Please re-review it 고양이 발자국 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the replies you received here on 27 January, 28 January, and 4 February; meanwhile, you have not edited the draft at all since it was rejected on 26 January, except for one attempt to remove the "rejected" template. Asking for a new review without addressing any of that is a waste of your own time, and the time of the volunteer reviewers. --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:54, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Bishalkarkinp

}} Bishalkarkinp (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishalkarkinp You don't ask a question, but please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Non-notable local journalist autobiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:15, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Jacobariel91


Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The draft (which you didn't read) had been modified from the original substantially - please provide some advise on the new draft, if you can. Thanks Jacobariel91 (talk)

It is never a good idea to create a new draft when a previous draft has been declined or rejected. The first draft is at Draft:ElectReon Wireless, the second one at Draft:Electreon, and now there is apparently a third one; please don't create new draft versions, it just wastes people's time. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will say one thing (which applies to all three draft versions, I think) : the two publications from the Swedish Transport Authority (a 78-page report and a single-page appendix) don't verify the claims that they are supposed to support, and don't serve to show notability for the company. --bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:38, 9 February 2022 review of draft by BABA IS YOU


I need help with finding more Peeps variations as well as adding references to the page. Additionally, I would like the article to be proofread, and see if there are any mistakes. BABA IS YOU (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would never be a viable topic for a standalone article. May be worth a mention at Peeps if deemed relevant or notable. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB How so? I believe the topic can have its own standalone article. Considering the wide variety of variations that Peeps has, as well as the popularity of it, I believe there can be an article listing the different Peeps variations. BABA IS YOU (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe and what you can prove are two very different things. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:50, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Mrwicked619


Mrwicked619 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Why was my article declined?[reply]

No draft specified, but last edited draft was Draft:Silencer (rapper). The reviewer who declined your draft was right in their decision. Go through the links in the decline rationale for more information on citing sources. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:31, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Gloriajjoz


Hello,

Please re-review as the sources listed are secondary and are true to the information listed in the page. We have been working hard on this please, so if this page still does not qualify for publishing, please advise on why the sources are not worthy and where specifically to improve. Please do not delete the page as it has been a lot to type up and gather. I truly appreciate your review.

Thank you!

Gloriajjoz (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloriajjoz: I see that the draft was rejected, but the editor who rejected it was actually not someone who should have been reviewing drafts at all, and the rejection rationale "This article is failed maximum times of submission" is not valid. So I won't give you the usual response to editors who ask about rejected drafts; it is possible that this could be reviewed again, but I'm afraid you would have to revise it a bit, first. There are three sources: one mention in GQ, in a list of artists and producers who appeared on an album. That is not something that shows notability. The second source is a trivial mention on something that looks like a music blog, and unlikely to be a reliable source. And the third source, which you added after the most recent decline of the draft, is three sentences in another list published by XXL Mag. Essentially, all that these sources say is that the producers have worked with a notable person – but there is very little about them. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the people themselves. In addition, please cut down the huge table that takes up most of the space in the draft. Don't include every single detail about each track, and don't add tracks unless there are sources for them (NOT YouTube or Spotify or other music streaming websites, nor commercial websites!)
You say We have been working hard on this – who are "we" in this context? --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just would added based on reading the XXL Mag source, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. They are on a path to notability, but not there yet.Slywriter (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. I said above that the draft would need to be revised, but I should add (so as not to give Gloriajjoz the impression that it'll be fine with a bit of revision) that no amount of editing can fix a lack of notability, and it seems pretty likely that these guys aren't notable just yet. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloriajjoz: The article contains almost no biographical info, info that when published in the media would tell us that the subjects are notable. Hopefully later on they will get more coverage and that can be used to build this up. Please also see WP:COI. Lastly, the long list of production credits are unsourced. Without proper sourcing (and maybe even with), it's not suitable for an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:37, 9 February 2022 review of submission by Brittanyfitzerald

I am submitting this page because it is a charter school district in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The article includes relevant information as well as primary and secondary references. All large school systems in the area have Wiki pages. What will help the article get approved? Brittanyfitzerald (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brittanyfitzerald: I made some structural changes to the article but it's still going to have challenges since it's poorly sourced. High schools are not inherently notable in Wikipedia's eyes, and there's no indication based on the references that these schools are notable. See WP:NHSCHOOL. You can't point to other articles as examples since there are so many that were created before anyone was applying notability standards. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:59:34, 9 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Fmik36


I want to understand how i can edit my current article to enable me to publish it. please give me more details on how my sources are not primary or significant Fmik36 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fmik36: I restructured the article to make it more conforming with our usual style. It's closer to being acceptable, but to be safe when you resubmit it, you'll want to go through and make sure that every single thing you've written is sourced with an independent, reliable source, and that you not add unencyclopedic phrases like "...is a proud honorary director..." or "...was educated at the prestigious High school...". The tone needs to be more formal. Also, if you are connected to the subject, please read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


thank you for your response. I have added a couple more sources from bloomberg and the national. how do I know if my sources are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmik36 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

15:08:17, 10 February 2022 review of draft by Thatnsukkaboy


Hello, I really feel like my last few articles on here have been reviewed by bots, and declined at every turn. My draft meets up with wikipedia's guidelines to the best of my knowledge and i ensured i ran it through tone checking softwares before submitting to ensure its neutrality but as sual its decline for the same thing. Sometimes, we write about people who are very notable here, people who are verifiable and it gets turned down for not being notable or for not having telaible sources. The sources we often use are our own reliable sources and they are very reliable here. If anyone would care to help, i will appreciate a list of sources that are reliable when it comes to news about Nigerians and Nigeria. Outrightly declining without advicing on how to make articles better can frustrate an editor. Help Us Please!! Thatnsukkaboy (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you say that you are a "Digital Marketer" please be sure to disclose any conflict of interest or paid editing that you may be involved with, per the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatnsukkaboy: As long as you have uncited biographical claims and rely too much on her own words, many of which are not properly attributed as quotes must be, this is going to keep being declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. I can't vouch for its being entirely up-to-date but it looks like a good place to start. But remember that even a reliable source is not always useful to support a particular fact. Make sure that you have read the info at the main Reliable sources guideline page.
Disclosing any conflict of interest you have takes priority over that, mind. I also wonder who "we" are when you say "we write about people [...] the sources we often use". --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:16, 10 February 2022 review of submission by Reddysim78


Hi, I would like to understand how is my draft an unambiguous promotional article? so that I can improve on it.

Please kindly advise.

Reddysim78 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reddysim78, probably because it is sourced to the subject and reads like a brochure for the subject. Wikipedia doesn't care what an organization has to say about itself, we do care what independent secondary reliable sources say.Slywriter (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was rejected and has previously been deleted 5 times, it won't be reviewed again so it is pointless to improve it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:51, 10 February 2022 review of submission by BrickBelltower

I am entering language for an article and the template will no longer accept additional language. How can I paste in the additional article language to complete the draft AfC? BrickBelltower (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link(the url is not needed). There should be no limitations on the content you can put in a draft. What is the message you get when you try to edit? 331dot (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:05:44, 10 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Keithduross


Hello,

I've been tasked to pick up where many before me have not been able to get approval on the owner of my company's profile (Michael Amini), to be considered for Wikipedia. The latest message back (after being denied), was for - 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. The thing is that the sources include WSJ and LA Times and just about every single Furniture-focused trade publication. I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to teh best practices on getting approval when receiving this sort of message. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Keith

Keithduross (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) — Draft:Michael Amini (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

 Not done For eight months, you have been trying to push this advertisement for your obscure boss of an obscure company. In that time, you have still refused to post any of the mandatory disclosures of your blatant and obvious conflict of interest, which makes you an undisclosed paid editor. --20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Keithduross: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Any biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, third-party source with strong editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing content about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. In addition, disclosure is MANDATORY. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 11

02:59:25, 11 February 2022 review of submission by ProGaming683562

I was wondering why my article declined? I put in some links in for our members as well as I had some references and cited my sources to give credit

ProGaming683562 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 03:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:41:56, 11 February 2022 review of submission by ProGaming683562

I am wondering why my article got declined. I am talking about a real life hockey esports team. I don't get how it is notable for the platform even though people want to know more about it ProGaming683562 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything Electronic Arts writes in a presser isn't acceptable as a source. You'd want to look for actual eSports news sources that discuss Merles On Top at length (they exist, but are few and far between). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:06, 11 February 2022 review of submission by Madiad

I wonder why my recent article was rejected. How can I submit a new article? What should we pay attention to? Madiad (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft you created consisted of copied and pasted text from a couple of different websites advertising an upcoming "game" (actually a cryptocurrency scheme, though that was not mentioned in the draft.) Do you not see how that's rather incompatible with an encyclopedia built to share actual knowledge and facts? --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:19, 11 February 2022 review of draft by Avindigni


Dear Editors,

among other comments I received for the draft I submitted on Jordi Bascompte, one concerns the image copyright, which - for my ignorance - I have declared as "own work". This photo was commissioned by the University of Zurich (to a professional photograph called Frank Bruederli) for promotion of new hired professors, at the time Prof. Bascompte joined that Institute. Jordi Bascompte was given the authorization to employ this image for professional uses (like webpages, seminars, press releases, etc.) and passed it directly to me upon request. Therefore, I have Jordi Bascompte's authorization to use it and he has the authorization from his Institution to make that image available on the web. How should I declare the copyright for this image in Wikimedia Commons? Once I know how to declare it, should I restart from scratch with the Wizard or is there a way to update the metadata of the uploaded image?

Another comment sounds: "[the page] requires (...) the addition of relevant WP:IRS—which NONE of the current sources meet." As the subject is a faculty person, the currently cited sources are peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work, which - from the perspective of academics - are the most reliable sources. However, I understand Wikipedia is not for academics only and, probably, it is not in line with Wikipedia’s policy to cite only sources authored by the subject of the Wipkipedia page itself. Should I rather refer to independent sources speaking about Jordi Bascompte’s work, such as reviews, press releases or newspapers?

Thank you for the attention you will give to this pair of questions.

Best regards,

A. V.

Avindigni (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avindingi In terms of the image, the best thing to do would be to have the person who took the image with their camera upload it and claim it as their own work(while being aware of the consequences of doing so, that it could be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial). Usually the photographer, not the person depicted in the image, holds the copyright(unless Dr. Bascompte has a contract assigning him copyright) Note that images are not necessary in terms of getting a draft approved, so there is no rush in that regard(only "free" images with no copyright issues can be in drafts)
Yes, the draft should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about Dr. Bascompte. He does seem to be notable, so you are partially there- you just need to summarize independent sources instead of merely documenting his accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:27, 11 February 2022 review of draft by HutchPJ77


Hi, my submission for a page about Bedford Independent has been rejected (Draft:Bedford Independent) it seems that the references are not suitable as they are not independent, because they are trade media. I am confused as to why trade media (in particular in the journalism sector) is not considered independent. These are genuine editorial articles, not paid for, and the sources are regulated and independent in their editorial standards.

Can someone please help me to understand what sources are suitable and/or if the articles I have suggested are in fact suitable and the rejection is perhaps an oversight?

Thank you so much, I look forward to your reoly.

HutchPJ77 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HutchPJ77 The issue is not that trade media is used, it is that the specific pieces are based on interviews, or are announcements of routine business activities. These things do not establish notability as they come from the topic itself. What is needed are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this publication- coverage that goes beyond merely confirming its existence or its routine activities. Interviews are a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability. Please review WP:ORG, the definition of a notable organization on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Hi, 331dot, I really do appreciate your quick reply and explanation. This helps a lot. I am a little confused as to why this is the case, surely third party sources, regardless of the content do establish the existence of the subject matter and so, therefore, provide evidence that what is contained is accurate. As a journalist myself, I find this a little odd. However, if this is the practice for Wikipedia, I respect that it's the way it is and will follow it accordingly. Do you have then, please, any advice on how I need to edit the draft so we have a page for the Bedford Independent on Wikipedia. This is vital for us for a number of reasons, not least of all to make sure Wikipedia is up to date too. Your support is appreciated.
HutchPJ77 Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say with significant coverage; not just those that merely documents the existence of the topic. I might suggest using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what is expected of article content. I greatly apologize for being frank with you- and I really intend this as trying to help you- but I must say that Wikipedia has no interest in how the presence (or lack of) a Wikipedia article about your organization may benefit it, or in your organization's online presence. Any benefits are on the side, and not our primary goal. We are only interested in summarizing independent reliable sources.
This admittedly can be hard for media organizations outside of large ones like the New York Times, NBC News, the BBC, etc., as they don't always write about each other- but this is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you and no worries for being frank. What you say is slightly contradictory though in that we're not just seeking a presence for our sake but also to show the evolution of media in the local sphere, this is not just important in our area but the world over. You'll see that two other titles in our area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_%26_Citizen) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedfordshire_on_Sunday) exist on Wikipedia and the draft for the Bedford Independent doesn't seem to be very different from their content and sources. Please be assured I'm not asking for you or anyone else to just allow our Wikipedia article as it is. However, support in editing the draft so it will be accepted would be important. I believe the inclusion gives a genuine record of how local media is evolving and to say Wikipedia would not benefit from that, even in a small way, is not entirely accurate - and I have used independent, reliable sources. I will indeed use the new user tutorial, but if you have any further thoughts that would be a great help, thank you.

13:45:58, 11 February 2022 review of submission by RolandBacon

The proposed article was refused by the editor with the following justification: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

But the proposed article is a direct translation of the same article published since a few years in the French wikipedia pages (after a number of revision to add references). Then I do not understand why it cannot be published in the English wikipedia version. May be you can give me more information. Thanks in advance. RolandBacon (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RolandBacon Each langauge version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. Any article about you on the English Wikipedia must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you. The draft currently just documents your (significant) accomplishments. Please read Your First Article.
Note that you may wish to review the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is discouraged. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:55, 11 February 2022 review of submission by JasonMIIPH


my god, i just want to ask a question, not code an entire encyclopediaJasonMIIPH (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) JasonMIIPH (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Debasish Mridha article. Just want to know if foreign-language references are allowed and how that works. Subject article was rejected because all I had was English-language references. He has many, many more in Bengali. If I post the English translation of the title, are these allowed? JasonMIIPH (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JasonMIIPH I assume this is about the draft in your sandbox. See this page, but in short, sources are not required to be in English. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:11, 11 February 2022 review of submission by WikiJazzHub

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have created a draft for a jazz artist. I believe this draft falls under the guidelines elucidated within WP:Music (Please see Criteria for musicians and ensembles points #2 and #5, questionable yet possible #7). However, my belief does not move the pen here, hence my need for professional opinion/action. Been a Wikipedian for a long time, but new to making actual articles. Your help is greatly appreciated.

In addition and as a courtesy:

  • I am in no way connected to the subject
  • Nor am I paid to edit.
  • I am but a mere jazz aficionado seeking a little guidance. Looking to finally make an article contribution to the Wikiverse. More to follow.

Salutations, WikiJazzHub (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1071267952"