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
Sutakku 1 (talk | contribs)
76 edits
Hhbowie (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Line 255: Line 255:
::I understand that GitHub does not qualify as a secondary source. But Wikipedia's guidelines state that "'Primary' is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'. While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality [and] accurate.... I believe that my references to GitHub are valid, since I am only using them to establish a historical record showing the history of the application. [[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
::I understand that GitHub does not qualify as a secondary source. But Wikipedia's guidelines state that "'Primary' is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'. While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality [and] accurate.... I believe that my references to GitHub are valid, since I am only using them to establish a historical record showing the history of the application. [[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] That's fine for Github, but there need to be enough additional secondary sources to establish that the software is "worthy of note" to a broad audience: that it's not just ordinary software. It is in the pile to be re-reviewed now. [[User:David10244|David10244]] ([[User talk:David10244|talk]]) 13:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] That's fine for Github, but there need to be enough additional secondary sources to establish that the software is "worthy of note" to a broad audience: that it's not just ordinary software. It is in the pile to be re-reviewed now. [[User:David10244|David10244]] ([[User talk:David10244|talk]]) 13:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your help! [[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 16:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


= February 1 =
= February 1 =

Revision as of 16:11, 2 February 2023

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


January 27

Request on 08:08:38, 27 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DPRK Strategic Research Center


My recent draft page "DPRK Strategic Research Center" has been rejected by its assessor. This is of course disappointing, but may nevertheless be considered appropriate by other Wikipedia volunteers. First of all, there seemed to be no information available beyond the topic being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". While I am aware of the page explaining what qualifies as notable or not, it would be useful to no what aspect of notability is lacking. Secondly, as there are various Wikipedia pages which cover individual research centers, showing that the category to which the page could belong is legitimate, I wonder whether the content of the page would be appropriate to be placed on another, larger page; perhaps the North Korean Studies page, for example. Thank you very much for your help, DPRK Strategic Research Center

DPRK Strategic Research Center (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We don't want to know what the organization says about itself, only what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it and its importance or influence. Your draft doesn't do that, which is why it was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste facility is not available.

Facility not available. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Narain Mishra I'm not sure what you are asking about. Are you attempting to place your draft in the encyclopedia? You have submitted it for review, which is what you should do. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My AFC, namely "Advent of Aryans in India" is rejected. There are many views on the topic which are mostly baseless. If there is anything irrelevant in my article, I want to know that. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@kashi narain mishra: this is not appropriate for wikipedia. you wrote it to push your point of view. wikipedia requires all articles to be neutral. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:21, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Naija Today

Hello! Could you please help me understand what exactly the mistakes are? I understand that there is a lack of reliable sources but what resources would be considered reliable then? The links I attached are leading to reliable media. Also, are there any other issues aside from links? Thank you. Naija Today (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:15, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Iotraffordsubaqua


Iotraffordsubaqua (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:15, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Iotraffordsubaqua

If I remove the dive training links will this remove the problem you see?

15:08:17, 27 January 2023 review of submission by JMShore

Following the decline of my draft, I'm looking for some help making sure that I understand the decline reasons so that any future submission addresses all the concerns. The first reason given is that it reads like advertising content; it would be good to have some specific pointers on this. I tried to keep the information very straightforward and non-promotional, and all of the references are independent sources; there are no references that are press releases or Shore Capital materials. Can editors point me to any details in the text that I should rewrite or remove?

The second reason was around the sourcing itself, and stated that it wasn't sufficient. I'd included multiple Wall Street Journal, Crain's, PE Hub and Business Journal articles that discussed the firm's milestones, as well PitchBook sources showing that Shore is the most active PE firm by deal volume. These are independent sources, so is the concern that they are not in-depth enough?

Thanks for your time!

JMShore (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMShore Awards are generally not mentioned and do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). I'm not seeing sources indicating that PitchBook is recognized as an authority on PE firms or their activities. The article about them actually has similar issues as your draft.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. An article about a business 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 just telling what the company does, and goes into detail about its importance or influence as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:331dot. I can remove the PitchBook and Inc. awards. My goal by including them was to highlight that Shore has been recognized for the number of its deals, but I understand you're saying that PitchBook can't be considered a notable source for that information.
For the sourcing, I appreciate the extra color on this issue. Are you saying that the sources themselves don't provide significant coverage? The reason I ask is that the draft does aim to summarize the main information from the sources.
Thanks again. JMShore (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMShore Yes, that's what I'm saying. The sources just document the activities of the company. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:45, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Kjharcombe

20:42:45, 27 January 2023 review of draft by Kjharcombe


I've requested assistance as I am not sure if this article meets the various standards for publishing. Some guidance would be much appreciated.

Kjharcombe (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, with zero references? Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:24, 27 January 2023 review of draft by ClareNoI


I am updating and replacing references so that my article will be accepted and I noticed one of the references said "Cite warning <ref> Firefox Flicks cannot be previewed because it is defined outside of the current selection or not defined at all" What does this mean and how can I fix it? Thank you.

ClareNoI (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@clarenoi: i don't see this error. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ClareNoI: Were you editing the Awards and nominations section? There is a reference there called "Firefox Flicks Competition Winners 2013", which is defined in a different section – what the warning means is that the preview can't check if the reference exists. Since it does exist and is correctly formatted higher up in the article, it's nothing to be concerned about. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much. I appreciate the feedback. ClareNoI (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

18:35:09, 28 January 2023 review of draft by JvDuijn


JvDuijn (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get an English article published about one key European player in semiconductor history called Arthur del Prado. This is in particular importance regarding ongoing debates about export controles to China on semiconductor technology by companies this person has founded.

Yet time and time again it is seen as being too much of an advertisement article. Yet no positively flavoring words are used, it is factual and consistently I refer to public peer reviewed articles. Even more, it is written in line with the articles of his (industry) peers like Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, etc. If my draft is problematic, so should be those. Moreover, my draft relies for a major part upon a PhD dissertation (how much very peer-reviewed, would you like to have it!). Very frustrating. Now I removed the parts stating his public recognition (Dutch and international honorary titles, etc.), as otherwise I really don't see where else the 'advertisement' feeling comes from. Even though, these titles are facts as well. Hope somebody can help me in improving the article to the Wiki-standards, because I am lost here.

20:13:11, 28 January 2023 review of submission by Herosaal


Herosaal (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)there was someone before me editing this article with no permission and it got denied every time I'm back with notabe sources.[reply]

20:25:12, 28 January 2023 review of submission by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES

I was just looking at the submission and saw this tag was added

{{Undisclosed paid|date=January

I think you are saying that I'm being paid to create this article but I am not.

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@solidstatebatteries: are you connected with the company? if not, remove the tag and say in the edit sumamry why. if you are, then disclose it, following the instructions here. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES I remember seeing a discussion about this a while back. Maybe a couple of months ago. IIRC, the OP is related to the subject of the draft--even if not being specifically "paid to write the article". I could be remembering wrong, though. I'll do a search after while, unless I go to bed first... David10244 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

03:06:45, 29 January 2023 review of submission by Dcdan4

Hi, I could use some help with how to establish the Notability for the subject band. I recognize that it may be a challenge in this case meeting the high bar Wikipedia has. Nevertheless I'd like to get advice on how best to incorporate the necessary citations and article content to reach the bar.

First: can anyone point me to an accepted music band/artist article that only just (barely?) met notability criteria? I'd like to see how the article author incorporated the needed references into the body of the article.

Second: If the band garnered a feature profile by a reporter and was published in the regional newspaper (such as The Everett Herald), would that be legitimate to use as a secondary reference supporting notability?

Third: Arguably the *most* notable accomplishment of the band that has national/international ramifications is the single "Cheeks" which has over 6 million listens on Spotify. Such a level of airplay would be highly desirable by any artist, aspiring or otherwise. So my question: Is it even possible to add a reference or citation to a major streaming service play count as supporting the notoriety of a band?

Dcdan4 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dcdan4: these are the notability criteria for bands. if their most notable accomplishment really is a single with over 6 million listens on spotify, this band is simply not notable for wikipedia to include. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the response. But I hope someone else will actually take the time to provide answers to the questions in the OP. Dcdan4 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dcdan4, you have no sources. We can't even begin to evaluate without some reliable sources discussing the subject.
To your questions, any reliable source is going to validate some or all of the facts in the article. Incorporation itself should not be difficult. Notability is about independent reliable sources verifying the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, in this case WP:NBAND. For specific examples of what has and hasn't made the cut, you can dive down the rabbit hole of AfD music discussions. If the Everett Hearald is independent, in-depth coverage (ie not an interview), it would contribute to notability. Though two more sources would be best to go with it. As to mention of streaming, if reliable sources discuss a fact it's more likely to be due.Slywriter (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdan4 What published source did all that information come from? Such as the date the band formed -- that needs a published reference.
What music reviewer published a review that says the band has a "seasoned ambient sound and elegant music storytelling"? That info can't be included if it's someone's unpublished opinion -- it can't be stated in "Wikipedia's voice" as if this were a known fact.
What published source can verify that the "four members would meet for jam sessions at a house on the shore of Lake Shoecraft..."?
And so on through all parts of the draft. (One published source can be used to verify several assertions.) All information in an article must be verifiable (click here) so that any reader could consult the references to verify what the article says.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but trying to mimic another article on a barely-notable band is not really the right idea. Wikipedia documents what published sources say, rather than "telling the world" about someone or something David10244 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:40, 29 January 2023 review of submission by ClareNoI


I added another source, which is a website created by Wordpress (but is independent from my subject) and I got a warning about using sources that are "self-published" or something along those lines. Many businesses' websites are created by Wordpress.com, so should I be worried about getting a rejection because of that? Thanks.

ClareNoI (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ClareNoI A Wordpress web site may be independent of the subject, but it will be a blog written by someone on the internet, giving their opinions. I am sure the site doesn't have an editorial staff, with a reputation for fact-checking, and publishing corrections when necessary. All of that makes a publication reliable (click here). The New York Times and other large, well-respected newspapers have all of those things. And, whether a business's own website was created using Wordpress or not, wouldn't matter in an article about the business, because the business's own website is not independent, and you are very limited in what you can use from there. A business's own website is not a source for information that would go into a Wikipedia article. I hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ClareNoI And just to be clear, unfortunately, the reference you added almost certainly can't be used. David10244 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:37, 29 January 2023 review of submission by AkashLakhotia

Greetings,

Based on your description, it is not clear what needs to be done next. I have added 3 articles on them as refrence. Please provide additional context and information so that I may be able to write this article appropriately.

Thank you Akash Lakhotia

It would also be helpful if you could clarify the desired tone and format for your response. Thank you. AkashLakhotia (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AkashLakhotia There is nothing that you can do; rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

creating artiste biography?

21:16:08, 29 January 2023 review of draft by Stnts256


I need the artiste biography to be updated early so as to enhance visibility and credibility of his online presenceStnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 Wikipedia has no interest in his online presence. Our only interest is in if he meets the definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read the message left by the reviewer.
If you work for or represent this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. Declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

00:43:56, 30 January 2023 review of draft by Rix-wikipedar


I do not understand what sources I have to put to make this draft suitable to stay published. I have added many sources and details.

Rix-wikipedar (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rix-wikipedar, directory listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Existence is not enough for an encyclopedia entry. Need independent sources discussing the subject. Check out this this guide for more assistance. Slywriter (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:02, 30 January 2023 review of submission by Suicasmo


I have added trustworthy sources (NHK, the public broadcasting of Japan) for this draft.Suicasmo (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:35, 30 January 2023 review of submission by Perumalism

Annamalai is Tamil nadu state head of BJP the ruling party of India. Since July 2021 Annamalai is featured in 100+ news articles.[1] and I believe the article meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Thank you

Perumalism (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perumalism He is the regional head of a political party, but he does not hold public office. NPOL requires that a person hold public office or have won election to public office(in the one election mentioned he came in second). 331dot (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So he is "featured" in 100+ articles, or just mentioned? 331dot (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot He was featured in 15+ articles. Significantly covered in 100+ articles.Perumalism (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perumalism Please tell what your three best sources are(only three, please). 331dot (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot [2],[3],[4].Perumalism (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perumalism So these three in order are; an announcement of his appointment as the regional party head, an interview with him, and another interview with him discussing his joining of the party. None of these establish notability. Interviews are by definition the person speaking about themselves, and as such not independent; we want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. Routine announcements also do not establish notability. We need sources that discuss his significance or influence. If the sources out there are like this, he would not merit an article. This is why a prior article about him was deleted. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I agree with you. can you please check these source for one last time[5],[6],[7] Thank you Perumalism (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources suggest to me that he could be important or significant down the road, but not that he is already. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. He must already be significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Ok thanks for your patience Perumalism (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

07:51:20, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Prof. Sugarcube


In writing about this trial, the notability of the trial is secondary to my main goal of writing about the history of the Fordney Rifle, a variant of the Kentucky Rifle developed by the victim of this case. Unfortunately, the trial is not as covered by secondary sources as much as I hoped, but I have found passing mentions about this murder whenever a Fordney Rifle is sold at an auction house, or mentioned in gunsmithing websites/books/circles in regards to how the gunsmith died.

Mainly I ask for help on figuring out whether this article should be reformatted to talk about the gunsmith himself, rather than the murderer. I was originally intending on *both* articles to be made, so if it's possible to have two articles based on both Melchoir Fordney, the victim gunsmith (and thus talking about his manufacturer of Fordney Rifles) and John Haggerty the perpetrator (and thus relation to American legal history), that would be preferred. However, I'm unsure whether to guage the adequacy of a source in its relation to wikipedia, or additionally, where to find mentions of the trial in media that wasn't immediately archived on the net.

I did recently, however, find that the murder and trial was mentioned in the book Centennial, and featured (with wrong information) on the back of a collectible card in a set from Atlas Publications. It has also appeared in several then-contemporary newspapers but mainly as single paragraph mentions. I do wish to find out how to immortalize the context of the Fordney Rifle to Melchoir Fordney and the circumstances of his death, especially considering several high profile figures were part of the case (including Ellis Lewis who presided over the court). It seems as if there IS a story here of SOME notability but as I currently lack sources that mention in secondary nature about the trial, I am unable to apss Wikipedia's guidelines. So i ask, what would be the best method to find secondary sources of this trial? I don't particularly live in the US (where this murder occured) so there's an additional geographical barrier to overcome. Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:23, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Joyce wachira


I have allowed editors to assist in editing this article where i have not done as required especially on notability. Is it possible for the editors to edit my draft article to be fit for submission?

Joyce wachira (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce wachira You cannot grant or deny permission to others to edit any article or draft; anyone is welcome to edit. Your draft as is now is wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume or merely document someone's professional accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; what is the nature of it? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joyce wachira As 331dot says, anyone can edit the draft if they choose to. The "hosts" who answer questions here don't usually edit drafts, but they might. Creating a new article is hard, and it's generally up to the article creator to bring it up to submission standard. Have you read your first article (click here)? David10244 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:38, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Katiet838


Editors, I am trying to figure out what I can do to get this page published. The feedback I have gotten is that it needs more reliable sources. I have posted links to tweets by journalists, and to the nonprofit's independent listing on GuideStar, an accrediting body for nonprofits. Zenger House is an active nonprofit serving journalists, but there's not a lot out there on it, so I'm trying to figure out what I can do. Thanks!

Katiet838 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katiet838 Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Tweets by journalists are not significant coverage of the topic, and have not been subjected to editorial control and fact checking. If as you say, there "is not a lot out there" on it, it likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about an organization like a nonprofit. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:57, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Gochyafx


Gochyafx (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a couple of edits hoping that the AJA page will pass. Third time lucky I hope!

Draft:AJA Video Systems

This company sells similar products so I formatted the above page like theirs.

Blackmagic Design

Please let me know what I need to do to make this better. Thanks!

Gochyafx I see you declared a COI, but I think you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
Please see other stuff exists. Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you wouldn't know this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles together by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been evaluated by the community.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. 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. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:42, 31 January 2023 review of submission by 5.210.253.48


5.210.253.48 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:09:13, 31 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Hekiti


I recently submitted an article for review but it was denied due to copyright problems.The information I used in the article was from my own dissertation. How can I allow myself to use my own intellectual propert in the article? Hekiti (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hekiti I assume this is about Draft:Agatha Cobourg Hodgins. Leaving aside the copyright issue, Wikipedia doesn't host original research. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:29, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Jamesjones2234


Jamesjones2234 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesjones2234 This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. David10244 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:05, 31 January 2023 review of draft by Cammur


Hi there. Two images were removed from my draft page for copyright violation. However, I have written permission from the owner of the images to use them on Wikipedia. How can I get them inserted back into my draft and make note that using these images are not in violation of copyrights?

Cammur (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cammur Non-free images cannot be in drafts. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the sources and text. Don't worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cammur If the draft is accepted, you will learn that "written permission to use (images) on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. There is a process for adding non-free images, but you can deal with that later. David10244 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:08, 31 January 2023 review of draft by 71.11.29.254


Hello, I am working on revising a draft that was declined; is there a time limit as to how long I can take to do that? And is there a certain number of times you can submit a draft for a particular page, as long as I keep trying to improve it? Thank you!

71.11.29.254 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only time limit is that inactive drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(but even then can be restored). There is no hard limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted, but if you repeatedly resubmit without showing progress or hope of notability, it will eventually be rejected and ineligible for resubmission. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:25, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Mastercup

Hello, thank you for your message. Why the article does not comply with the requirements? What I sould do to correct it? Mastercup (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:07, 31 January 2023 review of submission by Hhbowie


It is not clear to me why this submission is being rejected. Reviewer is saying it is a notability question, and added a comment that "Articles need to be based on secondary sources."

The draft article currently cites 15 sources, and most of them are indeed secondary sources. Previous submissions were rejected because of a lack of in-depth sources, but I recently added a citation to a full-page review appearing in MacFormat/MacLive magazines. Since this is one of the few (if not only) print magazines left covering applications written for macOS, I'm not sure what else can be reasonably expected.

Hhbowie (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhbowie Github is not a secondary source; it's where the code is held. The app's own website is not secondary. After you remove these references, you need to find new references for the particular statements. Or, remove the statements that were backed by these references. David10244 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I have removed the app's own website as a citation, and replaced that with a secondary source.
I understand that GitHub does not qualify as a secondary source. But Wikipedia's guidelines state that "'Primary' is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'. While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality [and] accurate.... I believe that my references to GitHub are valid, since I am only using them to establish a historical record showing the history of the application. Hhbowie (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhbowie That's fine for Github, but there need to be enough additional secondary sources to establish that the software is "worthy of note" to a broad audience: that it's not just ordinary software. It is in the pile to be re-reviewed now. David10244 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Hhbowie (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

06:01:10, 1 February 2023 review of draft by AlbertSJTan


I would like to know why the reviewer has mentioned that a range of independent sources are needed and which specific ones he feels are not suitable. Most of the sources are trusted mainstream media companies in Singapore, Australia and Morocco. Also, what are the areas of improvement I can make to the formatting or the "peacock terms" he has identified.

More importantly, the reviewer has said he is on a break till March. Can this article be reassigned to a new reviewer?

AlbertSJTan (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:52, 1 February 2023 review of draft by De Facto Image Building


Hi! I was wondering if you can be specific about the references that are not reliable. Could you tell me which ones so I can adjust accordingly?

Thank you

De Facto Image Building (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:49, 1 February 2023 review of submission by Al Amin Sabbir

Draft:Shahjahan_Shamrat


I'm working on Bangladeshi actor "Shahjahan Shamrat". I researched about him and found him. And I also interviewed him to learn about him. I got several links to popular newspapers and news portals writing him. So, I started writing about him. I completed short info about him, wrote a description, and then submitted it for review. I'm planning will complete the rest of the article after reviewing it. But I got rejected. I follow their instructions in the comments. But again, rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Amin Sabbir (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amin Sabbir The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission would not be possible. "Declined" means resubmission is possible, but you must review the comments left by reviewers and address their concerns, or it will eventually be rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Amin Sabbir In addition to the comments that are in the draft, I see "His role in the movie Chironjeeb Mujib is also worth mentioning". Why is it worth mentioning? The draft doesn't say. That could be worded better. David10244 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:26:32, 1 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Patrick21london


Between November and December 2022, I made significant improvements to my draft article about the low budget science film, Dune Drifter. Can you advise me on what else I need to do to get my article accepted for publication on Wikipedia? From Patrick Lee, United Kingdom, 1 February 2023.

Patrick21london Rejection typically means that a draft won't be considered further. If you added new information that the last reviewer did not have, you should first ask them to reconsider. It appears that the sources you used aren't appropriate for establishing notability; Eye for Film seem to post paid-for reviews, meaning it is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:09, 1 February 2023 review of draft by Bostonfan1198


Hello I got inspiration for writing this article for King County Medical Society after seeing the simple Washington State Medical Association Wiki page. Linked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Medical_Association. I am wondering if a page as simple as that one can be public, why can't mine? I believe that King County Medical society is associated with WSMA. Would it me helpful to mention that?

Bostonfan1198 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bostonfan1198. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic. The group's own website is not independent. An article that mentions the group in passing is not significant coverage. Without providing references to such significant coverage, and summarizing them, it is simply not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:08, 1 February 2023 review of draft by 2001:718:1E02:9112:B100:C036:AD90:416B


I have a question. You say official books and ecncyclopedias are not reliable sources in Wikipedia (for example, this article is denied for this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Gumilevsky), than what are reliable sources? What is the difference then between Wiki and street Yellow pages? I am just curious about it.


2001:718:1E02:9112:B100:C036:AD90:416B (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Some books are reliable sources and other books are completely unreliable drivel. Some encyclopedias are reliable, and others are unreliable. Each source needs to be evaluated separately. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


February 2

Request on 02:54:17, 2 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Sutakku 1


I made a draft for an article titled 'Sutakku', I admit its about me (I'm a musician who's released an album physically including on vinyl and have 30,000 streams on spotify) but all the information I put in it is relevant to the headings in question, all of it is accurate with references. For example when I talk about when I was played on a radio I give the exact quotes the radio host said in regards to the song and I attached the original live radio recording as a reference. When I talk about the competition I won I attached a reference including the guardian article covering it. I gave a reference with the facebook link to a page discussing indie music which showed pictures of my album as vinyl copies in a record store. I don't talk about myself arrogantly or anything I tried to remain as neutral and factual as possible; occasionally I said things like 'his music is arguably outsider music' and justified why. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks :) Sutakku 1 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sutakku. Your draft completely fails to make the case that you meet the notability standards described at WP:MUSICBIO, and you are therefore not eligible for an encyclopedia article. Your references are exceptionally poor. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, and I suggest that you focus on trying to make some hit music instead of trying to write a Wikipedia biography. Frankly, you are wasting your time at this point in your career. Cullen328 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutakku 1 That was a bit harsh, but accurate. You shouldn't expect to use Wikipedia to help bring more listeners to your music. Once you have enough independent publications writing about you and your music, an article will be warranted. David10244 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair enough I apologise. I think the draft has been deleted, I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this but is there a way I can recover it? Not to resubmit it or anything just for personal use Sutakku 1 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:44:02, 2 February 2023 review of submission by CerebrumNonHabeo


I'm considering making a Wikipedia page about Max Donner (1883/4-1962), an American musician – published composer, violinist, and conductor. I believe Donner passes the Wikipedia notability requirements, and I have a number of newspaper, journal, and magazine articles from the 20th century for sources, especially specialty music publications that mention his career. However, I'm his great-great-grandson (never met him), and I was wondering if this counts as a conflict of interest. Regardless of my genetic relation to him, I think he is a forgotten composer who merits a page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. CerebrumNonHabeo (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CerebrumNonHabeo (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CerebrumNonHabeo We prefer the term "article", not "page" to refer to the content of the encyclopedia. It may not sound like it but there is a distinction there.
I think "great great grandson" is sufficiently distant to not be a COI, unless there is some additional factor involved like(for example) you having written books about him, or run a museum about him, or something besides just being related to him. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:50:13, 2 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jasim Al Senaidi



Jasim Al Senaidi (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:09, 2 February 2023 review of submission by Guroadrunner


Guroadrunner (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Q: Why was Draft:Bob Whitcomb Racing initially declined? As one example reason, there is a specific request to split Bob Whitcomb Racing off from its predecessor DiGard Motorsports. It also meets WP: Notability because of its notability of being the team that won the 1990 Daytona 500. What do other editors see on the sourcing, references, material and/or contents which I might not be seeing? 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1137062577"