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
Mferree (talk | contribs)
30 edits
No edit summary
Line 655: Line 655:
:{{ping|Maywebeforgiven}} Your offline citations are all missing page numbers. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|a little blue Bori]]</small></sup> 19:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Maywebeforgiven}} Your offline citations are all missing page numbers. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|a little blue Bori]]</small></sup> 19:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:Maywebeforgiven|Maywebeforgiven]] I'm looking up Baker in the [[WP:Library]] and I'm getting some hits, so let me add those too. [[User:Alyo|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Alyo</span>]] ''([[User talk:Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>]])'' 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:Maywebeforgiven|Maywebeforgiven]] I'm looking up Baker in the [[WP:Library]] and I'm getting some hits, so let me add those too. [[User:Alyo|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Alyo</span>]] ''([[User talk:Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Alyo|<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>]])'' 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

== 21:11:10, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Mferree ==
{{Lafc|username=Mferree|ts=21:11:10, 28 September 2022|draft=Draft:Duran_Ferree}}


I am not clear why my page submission for Duran Ferree, who is a professional soccer player for the San Diego Loyal, is being rejected. I am providing solid references.


[[User:Mferree|mferree]] ([[User talk:Mferree|talk]]) 21:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:11, 28 September 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


September 22

09:08:14, 22 September 2022 review of draft by Philip Torchinsky


The article in question meets notability requirements. A reason to publish it is that the main product of this company is a well-known Liberica JDK, mentioned on the OpenJDK page. The latter is an essential part of Wikipedia and a source of basic knowledge for millions of Java developers, including those who have just started studying software engineering. OpenJDK page mentions all companies developing various JDKs, and BellSoft does not have its page, while others do. It seems to be essential to fill this gap. There is no specific reason to exclude BellSoft from the list.

What I already ensured to make the article better: 1. The sources I used in the article are NOT only the publications made by the article's subject. 2. The article has a neutral tone. It describes facts. It does not encourage anyone to use any of the mentioned products. 3. The article helps people unfamiliar with the topic navigate the ocean of terms and products. As a software developer, I think it is important to provide people with information that helps them to choose the correct version of whatever they need, based on their requirements.

I also disagree with a comment about WP:COI, because I have never been working for BellSoft, I don't benefit from their service anyhow, and I even don't use their products. The reason for me to create this article is to contribute to better understanding of JDK landscape.

Please help to make the article better. I appreciate your advice very much.

Philip Torchinsky (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Torchinsky Please see other stuff exists. That other companies have articles does not mean this company gets one too.
An article is not for merely telling about the topic and what it does. It 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. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends.on the sources.
The customers section should be completely removed, unless you have sources that discuss the importance of a company using this company's product. Most of the rest seems to be about the company's products and not the company itself. If no independent reliable sources give this company significant coverage, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Torchinsky: this draft was declined for being promotional, not for lack of notability. But since you bring that up, I would very much argue that it doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, at least not in light of the sources cited. Can you explain how you see notability being demonstrated here? (And having a 'well-known' product etc. is not it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:07:00, 22 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BookNerdPBS


I have reviewed the criteria for notability several times for a draft article I have submitted R P Anand. The entry meets at least two criteria for notability of an academic: That he was President of a significant society and that he influenced a significant movement in the field. I included five sources for the latter and two sources for the former point.

Reviewers claim, without specifying, that the sources aren't independent. I've reviewed the criteria for independence and cannot find an issue with the sources. They are other academics and jurists that are notable in the field that he created. If you are trying to demonstrate influence, you are going to have to cite sources that were influenced by his work. That is how academic writing works. This does not make them non-independent according to wikipedia criteria.

At this point, it feels like bullying by reviewers who are disregarding the independence and quality of the sources without explanation. The sources cited are the leading journals in international law, renowned scholars, and distinguished judges.

I started writing this entry bc I am a scholar of international law. Third World Approaches to International Law is an important academic movement of critical legal approaches to the study of international law. It felt like this was a significant scholar who needed a page. I am an academic, trained to find sources to support each and every sentence I write. I stand behind the quality and independence of the sources included in this article to demonstrate the veracity of each sentence included.


BookNerdPBS (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BookNerdPBS: firstly, I would ask you not to make baseless accusations of bullying etc.; those will not be appreciated by anyone.
Secondly, I wish you had first presented the draft as it currently stands, not the earlier version I reviewed a week ago, because this is clearly an improvement in many respects. I might have accepted this on sight (minus some peacockery, perhaps), and we wouldn't be here now.
Another way to look at this would be to say that because you have received feedback — one might say, pushback! — on your draft, it is now in a better shape than it perhaps would have been without going through this review process.
Anyway, I have an IRL commitment starting soon, but if no one has looked into this in more detail by the time I'm finished, I will review the draft again when I'm back. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing
I appreciate the second review. You are correct, the draft is much improved from the original you reviewed. That is why I was surprised that it kept being rejected by additional reviewers after adding lots of additional details and sources. The only things I added after the third rejection was additional sources of reviews of his books. But these sources honestly seem excessive. Hence my impression that subsequent reviewers were rejecting without evaluating the merits of the piece, claiming without evidence that it did meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability with multiple independent sources to back up those specific points when it clearly did.
Thanks BookNerdPBS (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
I'm replying here as well as in response to your comment. It looks like the article was accepted, so thank you.
Just a quick follow-up note as I hope this will help your review of entries in the future. The vast majority of sources cited are academic journal articles. They are pieces of scholarship, not the personal recounting of the author. These are secondary sources as commonly understood and as described by Wikipedia, quote below with language in bold that describes the type of sources I cited here. So I don't really agree with your assessment that all but one of the sources are primary sources.
"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." BookNerdPBS (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for educating me on the degrees of sourcing, as pertains to Wikipedia's concept of notability. I really do mean it.
Now, can we drop this? I've accepted your draft; what more do you want? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:34, 22 September 2022 review of submission by 2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9


This post is meant to be informational. I was careful not to use any promotional language. Let me know if this description could be edited to reach a higher standard. Thank you. 2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an investor-fishing brochure at best. It'd need to be rewritten from scratch, based on in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:55:29, 22 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by LouisRedfern7


This is my first time creating a Wikipedia page and I am trying to sort this out for my father who owns the business. I have done all I needed to do in terms of claiming I am related to the business. However, I believe I am struggling with inputting correct citations and everything. Please may someone help me with this to be able to make the page public. I am more than happy to answer as many questions as needed and to do as told to get this Wikipedia page up and running. Kind regards.


LouisRedfern7 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:08, 22 September 2022 review of draft by Spesshot


I h Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

e re-assembled the draft entry (title: Richard Novick) and the text is now complete, with references cited at the appropriate points in the text, in my sandbox. I am still not sure whether the referencing is adequate, and do not know which, if any, statements still need referencing. Thanks for your help, Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Spesshot[reply]

@Spesshot: in answer to your question whether the referencing is adequate — no, it emphatically is not. Firstly, in articles on living people, inline citations are required, whereas this draft has none; see ILC and REFB for advice.
Secondly, as to what needs to be referenced, the answer is pretty much everything! Every material statement, anything potentially contentions, and all private personal details such as DOB and family members, must be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

00:55:05, 23 September 2022 review of draft by Addingcontentagain


I'm trying the enter details about a research conference, following the template for similar conferences, e.g. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. I'm using the same type of sources that are used for articles about other conference (see the one linked above), but my new entry gets rejected claiming my sources aren't independent enough.

It seems that the article I'm trying to add is getting inconsistent rejections when compared to other articles about similar events.

It would be helpful to know what this inconsistency is due to, and what I need to do in order to get my entry accepted.

Addingcontentagain (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Addingcontentagain: you shouldn't compare your draft to other articles which may exist out there; see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (And thank you for flagging up the ACM article, I have tagged it accordingly.)
We assess notability according to the relevant guidelines, in this case the general WP:GNG one. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites only primary sources, and fairly close ones (close to the subject, that is) at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is every conference that takes place considered notable? That's a lot of articles. David10244 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:39:59, 23 September 2022 review of draft by Taras1818


Taras1818 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Taras1818 You don't ask a question, but I've looked at your draft and declined it. I will also propose it for deletion, because of the copyvios in it. Should it survive that, and you plan on resubmitting it, I would suggest that you first comprehensively address the reasons why this has been declined several times, because I don't think this will otherwise be given many more opportunities. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taras1818 The draft was deleted as a copyright infringement. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:36, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Chiranthchirusira

please some one publish this page Chiranthchirusira (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiranthchirusira: this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again, let alone published. I will nominate it for deletion, however. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:41, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Krishna essase

This content belongs to Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. The content on this page is valid, real and very much important for the visibility and the credibility of the organization Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Krishna essase (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna essase: you don't ask a question, but suffice to say this draft has been rejected, and speedy deletion has been requested. The draft is purely promotional, referenced only with the company's own website, with no indication of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna essase Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't exist for the visibility and credibility of organizations. It exists for the education and knowledge of its readers. Articles must be on notable subjects, with proper referencing to independent, reliable sources. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:08, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Danny895


Hi, this article has been updated but I cannot see how to actually publish it.

At the original time of rejection in 2020, this person was not elected. The person in question has now become an elected official with relevance to the general public, so it should warrant inclusion.

I believe it does satisfy the criteria for notability, but would appreciate any help.

Thanks

Danny895 (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danny895: to what has he been elected? Local government, which a quick glance suggests this refers to, does not qualify for automatic notability per WP:NPOL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danny895 "Holme Valley North Ward"?? What continent, country, state, county, community, canton, shire, parish, etc. is this in? David10244 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:53, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Dundee7476

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rahman Mustafayev

Hello,

It's been more than 2 months since I sent you my modified version and I still haven't heard back.

Is there anything delaying this check?

FYI, this page was created on Wikipedia France and there was no problem.

Thank you for your return.

Best regards. Dundee7476 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dundee7476: there was no delay, it was just in the pool awaiting review. I have now declined it, for lack of inline referencing (several paragraphs unsupported), and added some links to advice on referencing.
The fact that this was accepted to the French-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as every language version is their own project with their own rules and requirements as to notability, referencing, etc. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing It looks like it has been submitted again. David10244 (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:06, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Johnessone


Hi! Please help us understand better why our recent request was rejected.

We included similar references to other companies active in our industry who have pages on Wikipedia (such as Elastic Path and commercetools).

Any detailed guidance would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Johnessone (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnessone: this was rejected, because there is no indication that the subject is notable. The content mainly just states that this business exists, without giving any real reason why they should be included in a global encyclopaedia. The sources cited are mostly, if not only, routine business reporting.
You should not model your article on any existing ones, as they may suffer from problems that you don't want to replicate. You should instead familiarise yourself with the relevant guidelines for article creation, in this case WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT, and ensure that your content and referencing comply with those. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Johnessone (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnessone Please see wp:OtherStuffExists. David10244 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Johnessone (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:43, 23 September 2022 review of submission by AwesomeAlex261


AwesomeAlex261 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, then, @AwesomeAlex261 — what's your question? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:17, 23 September 2022 review of draft by LubnaAmin


I do not understand why my work which is written in my own words is considered a violation of copyrights, I have linked any sources I have used however, the editing box on Wikipedia is not an easy tool to use. I wish you could highlight which areas that needs fixing. I want to become a part of Wikipedia's editing team, so I will only understand if you explain to me.

Please note, I had another account a few years ago and I did not face this issue.

LubnaAmin (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LubnaAmin If you wrote something on another website, it is subject to that websites copyright and you can't simply copy it to here, you must properly donate it, please see WP:DCP. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a specific "editing team", you are an "editor" merely through your participation. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 24

01:32:14, 24 September 2022 review of submission by Ginger Rocky

In addition to playing 3 Professional Seasons in Puerto Rico's top Pro League, Kylan Guerra was also an NCAA Division 2 first team All-American. Ginger Rocky (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which matter for notability. Playing a professional-level game in a top league does not confer notability anymore. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:13, 24 September 2022 review of submission by Readyon


I am talking about a new music genre here which comes out once in a decade why is this not important mate ?

Readyon (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Readyon: thanks for flagging that up; I've requested deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:10, 24 September 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Hi, I created this draft but now I want to delete it whole please help. Billapartygang123 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billapartygang123: you can place the G7 speedy deletion tag {{Db-author}} on the draft, which tells the administrators that the author has requested deletion. I can't promise this will work, as other editors have also contributed to it, but it's worth a try since most, maybe even all, of the substantive edits seem to be yours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

02:44:35, 25 September 2022 review of draft by StevenMichaelson


I wanted to include this page, but I noticed that it has been decline, is there any way you can help me figure out what needs to be done to keep it from being decline.

StevenMichaelson (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenMichaelson: did you read the chain of drafting comments going back six or so months? The central argument seems to be that an article on a film series needs at least three films , whereas this only has two. Looks to me like this is awaiting the release of the third instalment, and will be resubmitted then (hence the tag on it saying it shouldn't be deleted as stale, even if it goes unedited for longer than six months). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, for I am very new at this. I just recently sign-up. I don't intend cause trouble. I'm just learning as I go along. StevenMichaelson (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, you did nothing wrong. I just wasn't sure if you had read the comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. StevenMichaelson (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:13, 25 September 2022 review of submission by Jagratyuva


 Courtesy link: Draft:National Educated Youth Union

why my article has been declined? The organisation NEYU is raising voice of lakhs of youth of India.

Jagratyuva (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagratyuva: this had been declined, and I have done so again, because it is not written in the neutral, factual manner required for an encyclopaedia; please rewrite it, without trying to promote the organisation, and without offering your own opinions or commentary.
The referencing also has issues. I've posted a comment with some advice; please take it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:11, 25 September 2022 review of draft by Javan81


Javan81 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Javan81: you need to read and understand the rules regarding referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP) using inline citations (WP:ILC). I have just declined this draft again, because there isn't a single inline citation in it. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB must be directly supported by reliable sources.
And please, don't just resubmit a declined draft without making any attempt to address the reasons why it was declined. It is unhelpful, and disrespectful to the reviewer. Not to mention that this draft has now been declined six times, and considering its lack of progress, I'd say it is fast approaching an outright rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget outright rejection - six declines with no effort to fix the article is WP:Miscellany for deletion fodder. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:05, 25 September 2022 review of submission by Dhumik929192

Hello, i will improved my article. please review the article. Dhumik929192 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhumik929192 your draft has been deleted as purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:14, 25 September 2022 review of submission by KingKong30


We need Gimkit to be moved into Artcle spaceKingKong30 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KingKong30, who is we? please see WP:PAID and WP:COI. Also the article has been rejected as you have failed to address any of the concerns raised by previous reviewers. Slywriter (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KingKong30: You're better off showing news articles to the social media websites. (If they're demanding a Wikipedia article, they are lying to you; pretty much all of them will accept news stories.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 26

Request on 00:10:20, 26 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2401:4900:3316:9FE6:1:1:B48B:F717


Help me in doing the necessary changes and get this page published. I will be really thankful to you.

2401:4900:3316:9FE6:1:1:B48B:F717 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is deleted, and you're not logged in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:12, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Fourseasonsoflife


Hi there, i have edited and resubmitted with the new edits from the draft page. Please do take a look and let me know if i have written more closely to wiki's pillars.


Fourseasonsoflife (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourseasonsoflife The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:22, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Mainawagioko


Hello,

I wrote an article, and a literature review and cited and referenced all the work I used.

I would like to know why the article was rejected by a reviewer named DEB,

Secondly, I need guidance on what is to be written here as I have written in many journals but I am new here.

Your support is highly appreciated

Mainawagioko (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainawagioko Your draft was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. Text may not be simply copied here from elsewhere; what you write must be in your own words. You may have a misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It isn't like a journal. This is an encyclopedia, and as an an encyclopedia an article should summarize in its own words what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia; it is also a good idea to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mainawagioko: I assume you're referring to your sandbox draft from a few days ago? I declined it and requested deletion because it was a copyright violation. (Deb was the administrator who then deleted, not 'rejected', it.) If I'm not mistaken, this wasn't your first attempt, either. You really must read and understand WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:54, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Irfan2411


Irfan2411 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan2411 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was moved to mainspace anyway. I reckon the subject is actually notable per NPOL as an elected MLA, so in that sense the rejection doesn't seem justified. That said, the article is highly promotional and quite poorly written, almost to the point of needing TNT, as well as insufficiently referenced for a BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:49, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Illyrian.preveza

Hello, this draft has been rejected and I would like to know why so I can make the necessary changes required. Thanks. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Illyrian.preveza: it hasn't been rejected, it has only been declined, meaning that it can be resubmitted (as indeed it has been). The reason for declining was, as it says in the decline notice, that the sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Please note that Instagram, Linkedin.com and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, yes I meant declined.
There were some reliable sources, but I have increased this. Instagram was used but this was direct substantive posts by established and verified accounts such as the account of the prime minister and the football federation of the country, which are secondary sources written by third parties to a topic that they have no vested interest in. The youtube video was created and published by the biggest media organisation in Kosova (for example being posted on CNN in the US or BBC in the UK), is this not suitable?
Regardless, included are mainstream newspaper articles that have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking which should solve the previous issue.
I hope that resolves that issue, if not let me know what else is required and I will strive to do this. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can wikiholic provide a reasoning as to why he believes the sources do not show significant coverage of the subject?
I have provided sources such as newspaper articles which show significant coverage in reliable sources which are centred around the topic (it is not a passing mention). These articles show significant coverage, as does the video interview of the club founder with Klan Kosova, which means no original research is needed to extract the content. Reliability is present as there is editorial integrity from the journalists' and media organisation. Nearly all sources are secondary sources. This is in addition to the public statement the Prime Minister has dedicated to the club which is entered around the subject and goes into significant detail as does the statement of the football federation. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Illyrian.preveza: You would have to ask TheWikiholic that. In the meantime, I can tell you my opinions, which are that interviews are considered primary sources. Directory listings and the like do not provide significant coverage. LinkedIn and Instagram are completely useless; you might as well not bother citing them. What that leaves you with is several sources reporting on the same topic, namely a visit to the president, which is not enough to establish notability (whether those sources are fully reliable and independent or not, which isn't something I can comment on). FWIW, I suspect this subject is inherently non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:06, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Valleyboy2


Hello, I have been making many edits and never had a problem, but both times I've tried to create a page from scratch it has been rejected. This one says there aren't enough independent links, but I worked really hard to find them - and I really believe there are. I chose this company as I found a link to a person in it ie it would link to another wikipedia page. Please help, as I feel like giving up. Many thanks.

Valleyboy2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valleyboy2 Your draft just tells about the subject and what it does. You do that well- but that's not what is being looked for. A Wikipedia article about a 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. "Significant coverage " goes beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities, and goes into detail about what is significant about the company. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments.I still don't really understand, as all the references I've used are from independent journalists, like TechCrunch etc and I've never used anything from the company's own website? Can you explain what you mean about what is significant about the company, because as an English English speaker (as opposed to an American English speaker - and this is not in any way a criticism it's an observation) I really feel I've done that.The wikipedia portal is quite tricky/clunky to navigate, so when I click on examples it takes me to a specific page, therefore not answering my questions. Thanks in advance. Valleyboy2 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valleyboy2 The issue is not necessarily the outlets themselves, but their content. In examining them,
  1. is just a basic profile, not significant coverage
  2. is another profile type page
  3. is another profile type page
  4. is an announcement of a routine business transaction(the hiring of staff) and contains an interview with them, which is not an independent source
  5. is an announcement of a routine business transaction(the raising of capital)
  6. is a piece written by the co-founder of the company, which seems to just document that he does just that, not significant coverage of the company
  7. is an interview with a company staff memeber, not an independent source
  8. is another interview with a staff person
  9. is another interview
  10. is an announcement of a routine business transaction(that the company invested in another company)
  11. seems to be a summary of company information
  12. is another announcement of the company investing in another company
Some of these sources may be useful for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the company(or its staff) says about itself, in the mere reporting of its activities, or what those associated with it say about it. "Significant coverage" goes beyond these things and goes into detail about why the company is significant or influential. For example, the Microsoft article does not just tell us that it has bought other companies, or produces various products, but goes into detail about how those outisde the company see those things as influential and significant. Ford Motor Company does the same; it doesn't just tell us that it produces cars, it goes into detail about the historical significance of the company(i.e. pioneering the assembly line). If the only sources out there merely report on the activities or the company, or are interviews with company personnel, the company likely would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:25, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Champollion


Champollion (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, can someone please try to give some advice considering the draft (article) about Hrvoje Spajić. All the best. R

@Champollion: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news or scholarly source written by an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
Your first reference isn't properly cited (and I'm sceptical it can be cited; we generally don't treat anything spoken as "published" unless it's been recorded/transcribed somewhere). The PressReader cite needs to be converted to an offline newspaper citation (use {{cite news}}). For the record we do accept offline sources if enough bibliographical information about the source is provided to allow someone to look it up in a library or archive; for newspapers this is publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline (who wrote it), and the page(s) the article is on. The citation template does have a link parametre, so you *can* keep the PressReader link. No comment on the PDF. I should also note that you should also be indicating what language these sources are in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:57, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Rotidiap


When Onel5969 reviewed Welcome Homes and moved it to Draft:Welcome Homes, citing WP:DRAFTIFY in the edit summary, with WP:UPE and WP:COI on my talk page, a disclosure was already done and declared in edit summary and talk page of the article, with WP:PAID also complied with on my user page, and since I could not find any other reasons for the move to draft, I simply submitted it for review. Greenman declined my submission also citing WP:COI, but with WP:ADV in the edit summary and WP:ARTSPAM on my talk page, so I have tried to address these concerns and resubmitted for review about a month ago. Please, I am here to seek help on what else needs to be done. Rotidiap (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft reads like an advert and you have not correctly disclosed your paid editing status as required. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong, please, what would you suggest that would make the contents of the draft not to read like an advert, and what have I left out in disclosing my paid editing status, following the guidelines at WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use? And please can you remove the undisclosed paid editing tag that you placed on the draft, as a disclosure was already made by me (as required) in the edit summary and on the talk page of the draft. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The disclosure should be on your userpage. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already disclosed my Upwork account on my userpage as required by WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, and as for every paid contribution itself, the terms of use says "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.", which I have done on the edit summary and talk page of the draft. And from your review comment, with all the citations in the draft, are you still disputing the notability of the subject? Please can you suggest, with examples from the contents of the draft, on how I can make the draft not to read like an advert. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, Since you declined the draft after seeing this request, you have gone back to replace a wrong tag with the right one and also to make comments twice; your last comment says "Please do your client the courtesy of learning how Wikipedia works before charging them money to create an article that other users would do for free." Does this mean that you only hurriedly declined my submission, because it is created by a disclosed paid contributor? Please can you focus on the contents. Rotidiap (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotidiap I'll interject and say the entire draft is promotional(not necessarily an "advertisement"). Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and what it does. That's considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. Your draft is almost exclusively sourced to announcements of routine business activities or interviews, which does not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. There must be significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources, coverage that goes beyond merely telling about what the company does and goes into detail about the significance or influence of the company. Niche industry "awards" should not be mentioned unless the award itself merits an article(such as Tony Award or Academy Award). "Startups" almost never merit articles; a company typically must be established and recognized in its field before meriting an article. I'm afraid that your clients have given you a difficult if not impossible task. My suggestion would be that you return their money. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I focused entirely on the content and you still have not made the mandatory disclosure on your user page as required by the terms and conditions of paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And yes, you should make a specific disclosure on your user page. Linking to your Upwork account helps, but is insufficient by itself. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, is this what WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require? Please I want to know, because I followed them. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason you are declining to post a statement on your user page and trying to wikilawyer out of it? You should be as open as possible with paid editing. That's the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, There must be good reasons why the guidelines and the terms of use left it optional. And for the record, I have not received any payments yet, my edit summary was clear that it is in expectation of payment. Please, are all of the following references trivial or announcements: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16? Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rotidiap I decline to give you advice beyond what I have said until you are prepared to make a disclosure on your user page. I'm not expecting any payments for my contributions here and I only have time to help people willing to be fully open with us even if the letter of the policy says disclosures buried in edit summaries are sufficient. If someone else wishes to help you, that's up to them. Good day. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 331dot, please look at my user page now. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will examine the sources and explain in some moments. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sources you list here:
  1. I cannot examine this due to a paywall(it's fine to use paywalled sources, though) but just from the headline it sounds like it's just describing what the company does, and doesn't say why this is significant.
  2. This is based on an interview with the company VP, and as such is not an independent source
  3. based on an interview with the company marketing officer, and as such is not an independent source
  4. paywalled, but from the headline this seems like a brief mention of the fact that the company has gotten investors, which is a normal business activity
  5. describes how the founders of the company raised capital, a normal business activity
  6. is a piece that quotes company staff and doesn't seem to be about the company in particular
  7. based on a press release and interview, describing a routine business activity(the launch of a product)
  8. interview with the company VP
  9. interview with the company VP
  10. interview with the company VP. He gets around.
  11. interview with another company VP
  12. a routine business activity, the opening of an office
  13. interview with a co founder of the company
  14. another interview with the co founder
  15. interview with the CEO
  16. announcement of the launch of a product
We don't want to know what the company says about itself(or summaries of what they say about themselves). We want to know what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company. This rarely occurs with startups, which is why they almost never merit articles until they are well established in their field. Every startup claims to have a new business technique- what we want to know is how others wholly independent of the company take note of that and write about how it is important or significant. I hope this is helpful. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The essay User:ColinFine/What Wikipedia doesn't care about is my opinion, but I think most experienced editors will, agree with me, and it might be helpful to you. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rotidiap No, that's not how it works. You should be acceding to our requested accomodations, not the other way around. Paid editors should be as open as possible if they want to increase the chances that they are successful. I already conceded that you met the letter of the policy by disclosing in an edit summary, but this is not always visible to other editors. The spirit of the policy demands full openness. Instead of wikilawyering your way out of something, consider if there is a good reason for doing it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:49, 26 September 2022 review of draft by 193.32.56.90


193.32.56.90 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a draft, and your IP hasn't edited any drafts, so I'm not sure what you would like help with. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:21:28, 26 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by DrPMO


Someone deleted the draft responding it wasn't adequate. Why wasn't I given any explanation or support in improving it? All my work is gone. No time to respond. My work was deleted with no time to copy and keep the work elsewhere. Where is it? I had extensive links to the original music sources, Wikipedia references, and government documents. Insufficient time was dedicated to checking the references if the document was deleted. Too fast and too disrespectful. I am an experienced researcher and writer. I gave my doctoral students much more respect than this. Please slow down and respect the work of those that spent time contributing to this system.

DrPMO (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrPMO The draft was declined, not deleted. Resubmission is possible. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do. Any article about this musician must summarize 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 musician. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

04:42:49, 27 September 2022 review of draft by 2001:4455:1DD:6F00:A9A9:7DF1:7C87:7C16


2001:4455:1DD:6F00:A9A9:7DF1:7C87:7C16 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Gerhard Habarta has a reliable sources and he is a art historian from Lexikon Surreal Edtion One & Two see this link ..And take note Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed this art world book as a notable-- https://www.lexikon-surreal.com/k%C3%BCnstler-l%C3%A4nder/?fbclid=IwAR2ji4i6i0VVciTEACn-nvVrU8uvviFcGMevA-BSQ01TxmJWyMLGgJfs-m4 And here another KUNSTHERZ by Prof Gerhard Habarta is a considered the "RELIABLE SOURCES" Forever In Our Memories and Forever In Art World of Prof Gerhard Habarta and notability strongly believes in our three core values, representation matters, diversity matters and equality matters. Thus in doing so we can encourage greatness, foster inclusion, and explore the beauty of the diaspora and that is the reasons why we should thanks again and notable books on Lexikon Surreal Edition One and Two, & the new published 2021″KunstHerz”, and other important art books as a notable museum galleries in the world. If you want to see more information on the art biographies in KunstHerz by Gerhard Habarta: Including Pablo Picasso, Beksinski, Henry Moore, Ernst Fuchs, Salvador Dali, Brigid Marlin, Otto Rapp, Peter Gric and TAKE NOTE THIS NAME LISTED-- "Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr." listed on the German version of KUNSTHERZ the notable art world book and reliable source from Prof Gerhard Habarta.

We should thanks from Prof Gerhard Habarta and this is very informative and interesting subject area: Biographies, Literature, Literary studies-Non Fiction. & Genre: Non-Fiction / Politics, Society, & Economic Gerhard Habarta https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2jZPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA573&lpg=PA573&dq=bienvenido%20bones%20banez%20jr%20KunstHerz%20Gerhard%20Habarta&source=bl&ots=jQqXN8QN44&sig=ACfU3U3xnGxpofJHmHklaJdInxTQ41DO6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwkrmzi7j4AhWVSmwGHQPMD9EQ6AF6BAgWEAI&fbclid=IwAR27BXMwMcuDns688LYjgVdTno8x2uiai6YzOIC3CIYtWD85Gr-cuYmt4Xg#v=onepage&q=bienvenido%20bones%20banez%20jr%20KunstHerz%20Gerhard%20Habarta&f=false

09:42:08, 27 September 2022 review of draft by Addingcontentagain


I'm attempting to create an article for an event. I've added a set of sources which according to Wikipedia:Independent sources are regarded as independent, e.g. sources 8 through 16 in the article. The majority of them come from news sites and news papers, e.g. Forbes (sources 15 and 16 describing key publications at the conference in a broader machine learning context), Le Monde (source 12 describing recommender systems), etc. While I agree that not all sources are independent, there are significant sources to independent news outlets, whereas the non independent sources are added for completeness.

I would be grateful for more specific feedback as to why the sources in the article are not deemed independent. Thanks!


Addingcontentagain (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Addingcontentagain: Forbes is often unusable, as they publish sponsored content, churnalism, etc. non-independent material, pretending to be proper journalism (see WP:FORBESCON). And the Le Monde piece "describing recommender systems" might contribute towards the concept of recommender systems being notable, but it doesn't seem to provide significant coverage of the conference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:04, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Mocha c jp


"Work management" is not the same as "project management". As described in the following link, it does not refer to managing a specific project, but rather to managing work flow on a broader scale (e.g., department-wide or company-wide). It is something to do. 

  https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/work-management
  https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/what-is-work-management
  https://www.scoro.com/blog/what-is-work-management/
  https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/work-management

Mocha c jp (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha c jp That seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but I'm certainly not an expert. I would suggest that you nevertheless expand the existing article and then build a case on the article talk page as to why this topic should be a separate article. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work management and project management may sound similar, but they’re two different things.
Work management focuses on creating a central platform for your team where you can organize workflows and bring clarity to team members across all levels.
Successful work management will help your team achieve their goals faster.
Project management, on the other hand, is confined to a single project at a time.
It’s a subset of work management, designed to help you manage tasks, delegate responsibilities, and hit your deadlines.
Mocha c jp (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mocha c jp: be that as it may, this draft as it stands amounts to little more than a DICDEF; only cites one source; and appears to be a copypaste of that source, to boot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the contents.Please consider it. Mocha c jp (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:40:51, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Evie.rr


When can I submit for re-review after having a first draft of my article rejected?

Evie.rr (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evie.rr Rejection means resubmission is not possible. If something has dramatically changed since the rejection, you should first appeal to the reviewer.
I see you declared a COI. If you are a company employee, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Evie.rr (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:57, 27 September 2022 review of submission by EmuFan

Many notable publications like Kotaku, PC Gamer, Linus Tech Tips, and others have published articles & videos about Ryujinx within the last 2 years. There is also a new Wikipedia article mentioning Ryujinx as a Nintendo Switch emulator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulators_of_Nintendo_Switch#Ryujinx I believe this software to be sufficiently notable as to warrant a re-review. Thanks! EmuFan (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EmuFan: in that case, please contact the reviewer who rejected this draft, to make your case; I believe they are something of an expert in video games and related technology, so should be well placed to take a view on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've done that! EmuFan (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:35, 27 September 2022 review of submission by MaxMedia123


MaxMedia123 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MaxMedia123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I am being attacked for pronouns. What question can we ask? How can he be removed from the team? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaxMedia123 There is no team to remove anyone from, nor has anyone done anything to warrant removal. I don't see where you were "attacked", only where you were asked simple questions about your use of "we" if you don't represent a business. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot And we clarified we is a pronouns and I am not a company. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dotAnd we clarified we is a pronoun and I am not a company. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So that takes care of that. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dotYes, it does but it still shows "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". This is false. Can you or someone who is not prejudices like @Theroadislongfix it? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Yes, it does but it still shows "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". This is false. Can you or someone who is not prejudiced like @Theroadislongfix it? Sounds like he is a bigoted individual. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaxMedia123 I strongly advise you to retract your accusations of bigotry(we don't know with any certainty what your race/nationality/gender are) and prejudice, unless you have hard evidence of this. Please consider that Theroadislong is an experienced, knowledgeable reviewer who just may know what they are doing, while you have just arrived and probably aren't intimately familiar with guidelines and policies. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I consider he is experienced. Experience does not free someone from bias or bigotry. He is the one who started saying I am being paid. That is a lie no matter how much experience he has. He acts like a gate keeper against diversity and must stop. This is not a false accusation the note says "undisclosed payment". MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot And you are an enabler. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you only seem interested in personal attacks, I have nothing else to say, and will advise you that further attacks will result in a block. When you are ready to constructively engage with us, we will be willing to work with you. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I constructively engaged with you clarifying "we" is a pronoun. Why is the not still saying I am paid? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dotI constructively engaged with you clarifying "we" is a pronoun. Why is the note still saying I am paid? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot You seem interested in personal attacks and enabling prejudice. You have done nothing to rectify the false note. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know your race/gender/nationality/anything else. You are not constructively engaging when you make personal attacks. As the draft was rejected, and won't be considered further, I wouldn't be concerned with the tags on it. How did you come to edit about that person? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot The draft was rejected due to "undisclosed payments". How is that valid? I chose to edit about that person to increase diversity in this free platform. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why it was rejected. Why did you pick him to edit about, I assume it wasn't at random. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of people (6 - 4 males, 2 females) in a list in their category. They were selected based on the need for diversity in this platform. There are many notable community leaders and entrepreneurs not covered. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I have a couple of people (6 - 4 males, 2 females) in a list in their category. They were selected based on the need for diversity in this platform. There are many notable community leaders and entrepreneurs not covered. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which category? A category of realtors? Your draft was rejected because it was a single line that does not indicate how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of people where mere existence warrants inclusion. Is there a particular reason you are duplicating some of your posts? I am following this discussion, you don't need to ping me. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Realtors is one of the categories not all. It shows that @Ingenuity and @Theroadislong just edited it 2 seconds ago to remove the other citations. This is not a personal attack agains the,. It exposes their lac of professionalism. Also The "paid" edits are still there. You can't make this up. Hilarious. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:53, 27 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7


Hello

Could you please take a look at my recently created article about astronomer/journalist Steve Kates? The reason why I’m asking for you to do so is due to the fact that it was rejected two weeks ago and the rejecting administrator mentioned that I needed to garner support/approval before he would resubmit it.

If you do read the article, please read this short explanation as to why this particular article was rejected. First of all, this article was originally reviewed and approved in one day, several months ago. It was on main space for about one month and then was placed into the draft section.

I must admit, even though the article was well composed, I used a few questionable references. Well, I didn’t have a lot of time to rewrite the article at the time, so I worked on it only for a short while before resubmitting it again. (I’ve only been editing for about a year now, so I blame the problem with Kates’ article on my lack of experience.)

Long story short, I recently spent many hours during the last few weeks and have basically redone the article quite extensively. I organized all of the pertinent points together so there’s less confusion regarding the myriad of facts in the article. The vast majority of references are from entities that are on Wikipedia themselves...so reliability is inherent from the get-go.

The bottom line is this: Steve Kates is known by millions of people worldwide. I basically took for granted that he’d be a shoe-in simply because of that fact, so my original article was lacking a lot of content. I just figured that I could add it in over time. Anyway, I admit my mistakes and am asking for a new opportunity to resubmit my “new” article for approval.

Thank you very much!

Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I am the reviewer who rejected the draft, and to my knowledge it has never previously been approved via AfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:43, 27 September 2022 review of draft by Kmoneymo1


Kmoneymo1 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


What is a reliable source? I'm the artist that the article is talking about, and if I include the only links that I have it's going to get flag for promotional content.

@Kmoneymo1: A reliable source:
  1. Discusses the subject at length, at least a couple of paragraphs;
  2. Isn't news that would be covered as a matter of course due to their profession or legal requirements;
  3. Has no connexion what-so-ever to the subject or anyone acting directly on their behalf (including contractors);
  4. Has a byline that represents a single person as opposed to a role ("Web desk", "Entertainment editor", "$publication"); and
  5. Has been subjected to an editorial process that discloses any conflicts of interest, fact-checks the article for accuracy, and issues retractions or corrections where necessary
We also strongly discourage writing about yourself due to the inherent conflict-of-interest when writing about oneself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not that much to talk about since I started my career 2 years ago.
  2. No, Im not famous the only article I got is the one that I created myself.
  3. I guess I can skip that one because I don't have a reliable source.
  4. None of that has been created.
  5. Do you want my own personal article because nobody really cares to much about me to make one about me.
I strongly encourage writing about myself due to the no one cares about me that much to even care. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a place for people to tell the world about themselves. The vast majority of people on this planet do not merit a Wikipedia article. If there are no independent reliable sources about you, it doesn't matter who writes it, you wouldn't merit an article. Social media is the place to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what about Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, and other artist, they have pages talking about themselves. And I agree with you, but vast majority of people ain't artists. I'm the main source, I give you an article that I made myself if that good enough for you. And for social media that's already a check in the box. So you can see that no one care about me to write extended articles about me. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of which were written by Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, etc. Each of which have a legion of sources that meet all of the criteria I explained above. You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and as I noted above, we're not interested in anything you or your surrogates have to say as far as notability is concerned. Wikipedia is not a billboard for you to promote yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so making a my page is that really going to hurt wikipedia. I'm not promotion nothing because i'm just stating my accomplishments. Not tell people to check out some song. So how is that promotion myself. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not promotion nothing because i'm just stating my accomplishments" is an argument by bizarre definition at best and a distinction with no difference at worst. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you saying I'm promoting, I say I'm stating. Nothing in my article has a promotional link to any of my music, so I would like it if you stop stating that I'm trying to promote myself. I am just make a page, so I can put all my accomplishments down later.
  1. Has no connexion what-so-ever to the subject or anyone acting directly on their behalf (including contractors);
Before you try to belittle me, learn how to spell. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that providing links is the only way to promote yourself. On Wikipedia, it is more likely to be promotion or advertizing written to appear to be an article. And I do know how to spell. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case individual people should not have a page, regardless who they are. I am doing the same thing that they are doing. So if you tell me that my page is promotion or advertising written, then check your website because I can give you some pages that is just like mine but has more information. And I can hardly tell the way you spelled advertising. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't. As I mentioned above, the articles about Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Ludacris, etc. aren't written by them or anyone associated with them. They had no hand in those articles and don't have a say in what those articles include, except for demanding to remove poorly-sourced claims, positive or negative. The lot of them are also heavily sourced to sources of the calibre described above. Also, have you literally never seen any form of Commonwealth English before? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what is different about my page other than I don't have a lot of links and less information? But apparently the person written these pages, know them well enough to make a page about them. I will just pay someone to make the page for me. It's not going to be written by me (even though I written it) or anyone associated with me. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be wasting your money if you try it, even if you go with someone who isn't a scammer or indefinitely blocked. (And by definition someone you hire has a direct connexion to you.) And what is different is that we need sources of the calibre I described above to even consider having an article in the first place. This is not a situation where you can do anything to improve the chances of an article about you being written. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tell me the minimum sources I need to have so I can make it happen? Kmoneymo1 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for multiple - three is a good rule of thumb - in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. I'm not seeing anything like that in a Google search (string: "edwin xaiver"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain wikipedia's meaning of in-depth?
Example: Like the source need to be over 1000 words and it needs to talk you me from the time I was born until now.
Also non-routine?
Who would be an identifiable author? I would just need a name for this question.
The most that you're going to get if you google my artist name is hopefully links to my songs. You won't find any source about who I am unless you visit my website. Kmoneymo1 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read literally anything I wrote in my first responce to you at the top of this thread, Kmoneymo1?
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's say someone made an article about me titled The Beginning of Edwin Xaiver and roughly about 6 paragraph. Will that work? So non-routine basically means it can't be in the news?
  • An identifiable author a byline that represents a single person - not a role ("Web desk", "Editor") or the name of the publication itself. Omitted bylines are right out. (Role bylines exist primarily to publish churnalism.)
Can you help me see an example of this?
But my website can be included in my infobox whenever I get this my page? Kmoneymo1 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of sources with identifiable authors? Here is one from Kendrick Lamar, here is one from Usher, and one from Ludacris. "Non-routine" doesn't mean "not in the news", it means that it can't be routine news. Have you followed the blue links in the previous responses? You keep referring to the article as "your page", but a Wikipedia article about a person is not that person's page or profile. There are other websites offering that kind of platform. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following on with what bonadea says, I will start reverting off responces from you if it's clear you're trying to find loopholes instead of actually taking criticisms on board. We are not obligated to help someone who refuses to accept good-faith answers and criticism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

00:09:27, 28 September 2022 review of submission by 98.186.55.18

This needs a another review because we are one week away from the postseason because team articles for the 2023 usally happen around this time. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC) 98.186.55.18 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace is not an appropriate place to draft templates; userspace is more suitable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:11:44, 28 September 2022 review of submission by 98.186.55.18

These Article need to be created because the 2022 Regular season is almost over 2023 MLB Team articles are suppose to begin now. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC) 98.186.55.18 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:06:40, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Copiri

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi,

I understand the intention behind the comment that my draft article received, "zero primary sources provided." However, this is intended to be the first step towards a documentation page about a company I am affiliated with, Copiri. How can one provide primary sources about one's existence, when your existence is the primary source? If I tell you my name, and you ask for a source to reference, who could you reference other than more people that I told my name to?

Part of the challenge is that the company is focused on its first product right now (as mentioned on the draft page). That project could have its own page -- and will -- but I thought that starting with its creator would make the most sense. Should I go about this backwards and document Amity (the product) first? And even with that, does a FB page with 7,000+ followers and hundreds of posts not count as a primary source since it's the product's own page?

In either case, this is a company that generally works with organizations behind the scenes. Are we just stuck not having a wiki page because we provide back-end support for our customers?

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. I've waited almost 6 years to set up this page because I figured we needed a track record, and I'm struggling to understand how to show it to you.

All the best!

Copiri (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Copiri: the reviewer wasn't saying this needs primary sources, but this only cites primary sources. To be included in Wikipedia, you need to show that the subject is notable, and in most cases that means citing secondary sources (newspapers, TV programmes, books, etc.) that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. If you can find such sources, great; if you cannot, then you cannot have an article — not because of what the company does, but because the company isn't notable in Wikipedia terms.
Before you do anything else, however, you need to a) change your user name (user names are not allowed to be names of organisations or anything else that implies there is more than one person behind them), and b) formally disclose your conflict of interest and paid editing. I will post messages on your talk page with instructions. Please note, these are hard requirements, not optional extras, so please attend to these ASAP. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:10, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Emkaykay


Hi, I just resubmitted the article. However, I am unsure what is wrong with the inline citations and the rules do not really clarify the issue. I would highly appreciate any clarification. Thank you very much!

Emkaykay (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the draft includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations there are 8 paragraphs with no citations at all. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:06, 28 September 2022 review of submission by Brbs.kh


Brbs.kh (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brbs.kh You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is one line that does not show how the business meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every business merits a Wikipedia article. Please read Your First Article- as writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:31:13, 28 September 2022 review of submission by Testdrivevroom

The article created was rejected basis the person's age citing that since she is around 30 years old, she is not notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. This is illogical. The article on her has relevant references added plus additional websites to help in the credibility. She works in the public eye and is a credible figure. Please help in having the article on her approved. Testdrivevroom (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testdrivevroom Do you have a connection with this person? Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a person 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 person. It may sound odd, but you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Your sources seem to just document her activities. That's now what Wikipedia is looking for- sources must on their own- without prompting by the person- discuss her and explain why she is significant. Please read Your First Article- writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- diving right in without experience editing existing articles and knowledge can lead to problems. To pass this process, only three sources need to be summarized. What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:18, 28 September 2022 review of submission by SwetaReporter


SwetaReporter (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I have added information in Aurangabad page Notable people from News Jawaharlal Darda Rajendra Darda[reply]

and after big research also added few names why only two names showing what about other

@SwetaReporter: this help desk is for AfC drafts, whereas the Aurangabad article isn't one. Maybe you could ask at the TEAHOUSE instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:57, 28 September 2022 review of submission by 60.60.181.197


60.60.181.197 (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, so it is difficult to help you. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:06:06, 28 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by NadiaZ602


I would like suggestions on how to update the article for it to be of a more neutral standpoint. I do not want it to appear promotional and thus be disapproved. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Thank you!

NadiaZ602 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:24, 28 September 2022 review of submission by MCharles123

Good day. My submission for this bio has been rejected. Initially, as a new contributor, I had made mistakes of not providing sufficient references as required. I managed to clean up the bio over a period of time and the bio has been rejected again, reason being cited as "The article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia".

The subject is a prominent person who deserves noting in current-day politics and his business efforts. The bio is not for self-promotion as the subject (Zareef) already is quite popular as he speaks around Universities in the country and other public events. I humbly request that you review the submission and if anything needs to be amended, kindly indicate. A simple Google search will show many results on the subject on multiple, reputable Media House articles. Looking forward to a favourable outcome of this submission. Thank you. MCharles123 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

14:48:54, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Danielsuraqui


Hi, I have completed my article draft ‘The Soup Kitchen’ (SP) and I am ready to submit it. As you can see the article deals with an organization for poor children founded by my father Elias Suraqui 80 years ago and which ceased its activities in 1964. Hundreds of documents mention the soup kitchen mainly originated from very reliable sources mainly from JDC archives but not only. I was extremely careful about the autobiographical risk and I refrained from mentioning my father's name. I have done that only on two occasions, at the very beginning to mention he was the SP founder, which is an unavoidable statement, and at the very end to say he got the ‘legion d’honneur’ from the French government on the basis of his humanitarian activities in Morocco. I have done that because the official French document mentions explicitly the SP creation and the corresponding source is highly trustworthy. I am sure that if somebody else not related to my family had written the same article, my father's name would have been mentioned many more times since it is quoted very often in the JDC archives. Most of the article's secondary sources are books, which mainly use the same primary sources JDC and AIU archives that I equally quote. Most of those books or articles praise the high quality of the above archives. Furthermore, hundreds of Wikipedia articles refer to JDC archives .Please let me know your comments before the article submission.

Danielsuraqui (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:38, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Maywebeforgiven


I received feedback that my article needed reliable sources. There are 5 citations from newspapers and magazines; I do not know if I need more citations or if the ones provided are somehow not satisfactory.

Maywebeforgiven (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maywebeforgiven: Your offline citations are all missing page numbers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maywebeforgiven I'm looking up Baker in the WP:Library and I'm getting some hits, so let me add those too. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:10, 28 September 2022 review of draft by Mferree


I am not clear why my page submission for Duran Ferree, who is a professional soccer player for the San Diego Loyal, is being rejected. I am providing solid references.


mferree (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1112932097"