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
No edit summary
Hhbowie (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Line 390: Line 390:
[[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:Content like "known for its powerful features, an abundance of import and export options, its many customization options and its friendly native Mac user interface" is nothing but blatant advertising! [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:Content like "known for its powerful features, an abundance of import and export options, its many customization options and its friendly native Mac user interface" is nothing but blatant advertising! [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
::I am/was just trying to summarize what others (cited neutral third parties) have said about the application. If people have gone on record as saying these things, then how is it "blatant advertising" to summarize what has been said? [[User:Hhbowie|Hhbowie]] ([[User talk:Hhbowie|talk]]) 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


= March 20 =
= March 20 =

Revision as of 16:02, 20 March 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


March 14

Request on 01:28:27, 14 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind


I want to know what was the reason for the decline and how could i get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please tell me how can i get this published all the things are provided the references the website what is the problem then can you advise me to get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: the reason for the declines has been provided by the reviewers, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced with no evidence of notability, as well as being promotional in nature. In any case, this has been rejected and won't be considered further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:36, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Z812483032


I have rewritten the content that may have caused controversy, so I have resubmitted it for review and inspection. I would greatly appreciate it if you could guide me on how to improve the content I submit. Thank you.

Z812483032 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z812483032: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further; not because it "caused controversy", but because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article (see WP:NOT). It is also entirely unreferenced, suggesting that it may be original research or synthesis. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:02, 14 March 2023 review of draft by Ben wid


Hi, I created a draft (Draft: Christoph Ingenhoven). One reaction to that was negative, which I can't understand. Will my contribution be checked again? I would be happy to explain why I consider the article to be suitable and important information for the English Wikipedia.

Ben wid (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben wid: it's not clear whether you already resubmitted the draft or something just went wrong with the AfC tags, but either way it is back in the pending pool, so I would suggest you simply wait for the re-review. (BTW, please don't edit the AfC tags, they form a record of the draft's progress through the system. Thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ino. it seems to be working now Ben wid (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:51:39, 14 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Georgealexandar



George alexandar A (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgealexandar: you don't ask a question, but your sandbox draft was rejected and deleted. Please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or classified ads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:45, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Paulboy


Hello! I am working on creating a page for Camila Coelho, one of the biggest creators and entrepreneurs from the original 2009 blogger era that is a top creator to this date (was on Forbes 2022 creator list, CEO of two businesses), but I am running into some trouble despite having about 30 credible sources. Any help would be appreciated. She has been on GMA, CBS This Morning, interviews with Vogue U.S., Elle U.S., InStyle U.S., Harper's Bazaar U.S., People Magazine U.S., Business Insider U.S., Women's Wear Daily (WWD), Business of Fashion, and many more, including far spanning International titles. WWD has ranked Camila as the talent who brings the most media value to New York and Paris Fashion Week multiple times in the last 2 years. I have found many, many smaller creators in the same space who have lenghty pages, while Camila has been a prominent creator for 13 years. Please note there is only one Forbes contributor interview, the Forbes lists are from the editorial board, including financial audits, and are completely separate from contributors.

Paulboy (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulboy: you've improved the draft, and resubmitted it; now you need to wait for its next review. Or do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:20, 14 March 2023 review of draft by WikiNikki0127


Hello. I submitted an article for review on 3/10. I've been working to get this article published for a while now. I believe I had finally removed all of the "nonreliable" sources and included all of the reliable sources possible. I was waiting to receive the email that it was declined or approved, but I never got one. I logged back in today to see the status and it shows that I never submitted it on 3/10 on the main draft page. I have to look at the View History page to see that. My View History page has strange notes that I do not understand...any help would be appreciated.

curprev 06:20, 14 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 6,733 bytes −448‎ →‎Notable Alumni: not notable. See WP:ALUMNI and WP:WTAF undo 12 March 2023 curprev 13:52, 12 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 7,181 bytes +335‎ This draft has been rejected. Do not resubmit. undo Tag: Undo 10 March 2023 curprev 16:19, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ 6,846 bytes +63‎ Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard undo Tag: Reverted curprev 16:18, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ m 6,783 bytes −398‎ removed nonreliable sources. undo Tags: Reverted

WikiNikki0127 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiNikki0127: yes, an IP editor had interfered with the AfC templates (possible vandalism), but it was later reverted, and the draft is back in the pending pool awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Sheesh. Wikipedia is weird haha. Is that something I should be concerned about? Why would an IP editor interfere with the it? Did they mess with my template or just the AfC template in general? These are mostly rhetorical questions... I read and write multiple coding languages, but wiki is a whole new world to me. Thanks for your help! WikiNikki0127 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:13, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Ttwkr


Dear reviews, I think there's a huge mistake here. He's a notable person, probably there's a need for more sources. Let me know

Thank you Ttwkr (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttwkr: what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ttwkr Unfortunately, your draft has been rejected because the reviewer feels that the subject is not sufficiently notable. In fact, it was rejected in September 2022. I am not a reviewer, but my impressions are: The first cite is to Twitter, which is not reliable since there is no fact-checking. The second source talks about Covid, but as far as I can see, it doesn't have in-depth discussion of the subject. Although references in other languages are acceptable, I personally can't evaluate them. Rejection means that the draft won't be considered further. If new sources have appeared, you can provide them, and ask the reviewer (I had the wrong user here, see below) if he or she will take another look. David10244 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the correct reviewer @Tymon.r. David10244 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Request on 01:47:15, 15 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind


i am not resumiting the article it is automatically getting resubmited and i dont know why


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: yes you are, by messing with the AfC templates; please stop. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:07, 15 March 2023 review of submission by SalahEldin1

Hi, my draft has been in pending state for over 4 months. Please can you help. (SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)) SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SalahEldin1: it was submitted 2½ months, not "over 4 months", ago. And drafts are not reviewed in any order. So you should just wait until a reviewer gets around to it. Although I must say you're not helping things with the REFBOMBING; eg. the statement Azizi Developments is a Dubai-based property developer surely doesn't need eight sources to support it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:53, 15 March 2023 review of submission by Alexandrabkk


Hello, My topic has been rejected because not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think is wrong, it's a young political of the opposition who need space, including on Wikipedia. Most of articles he has are in thai langage, so I focused on english langage coverages. Still have a look on his name he does have press coverage. How can I do to improve my article to make is sufficiently notable? The election are coming soon and a wikipedia page is a big help inside the country but also outstide. Many thanks.

Alexandrabkk (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandrabkk: Wikipedia is not here to provide "space" or otherwise help promote anyone or anything. Either this person is notable based on existing published sources, or they're not. And if they're not, no amount of editing can make them so.
As for sources, these don't need to be in English, Thai sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the WP:GNG standard (= independent and reliable secondary published sources).
In any case, as this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:04, 15 March 2023 review of draft by BHKendler161148


I, as editor, have been asked to find at least three further sources. I suggest that as Giles Marsh played one Top-Flight Match and played for a club that went bankrupt 130 years ago there are NO other sources other than those I have used. I respectfully request Giles Marsh is reinstated despite its limitations. Also it is suggested that it does not link to other articles. With due deference to Wikipedia I suggest that is not correct as I have linked the article to Accrington FC the team he played against that he was a Goalkeeper and to Thorneyholme Road, the home ground of Accrington are four examples.

BHKendler161148 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BHKendler161148 this draft has not been submitted for review. It appears this was sent to draft by an WP:NPP reviewer so I suggest addressing any questions or concerns with that editor directly, who left a detailed note on your talk page. However, generally if there are no additional sources that indicates an article is not warranted. S0091 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:35, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Rohin vaidya


Submission was denied due to inadequate sources and because the organization did not have an influence outside of the university. However, many other student sections have been given Wikipedia pages despite not having an influence outside of the university or having as many sources on their page (see Oakland Zoo, The Show (SDSU Student Section), etc.). What can we change so that we get our submission accepted?

Rohin vaidya (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohin vaidya: what you can and should change is cite sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. You currently cite no such source. (As for "many other student sections" etc., this is neither here nor there; please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:06, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Kj2023


I want to change the name of this page to Christian Cash Harrison in order to disambiguate from another article talking about someone else named Christian Harrison

Kj2023 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj2023: if and when the draft is accepted, the name will be disambiguated in an appropriate manner. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Thanks Kj2023 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22:11, 15 March 2023 review of draft by TexasEditor1


When my draft was declined, I received the following comments: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics).

Comment: Need in-depth coverage about him. Also, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand this, as I referenced several articles from mainstream publications that showed significant coverage of the subject, in interviews and independently, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer and it's Clevelanddotcom website, and books from reputable publishers. I also used other reputable publications such as a major university's alumni magazine. I'm quite confused about the idea that interviews don't constitute worthy coverage; I've built my entire journalism career writing stories about people based on interviews and research, many of which are cited on Wiki pages. And some of the interviews I used are part of bigger feature stories that include valid reviews, quotes from other people, etc. If significant coverage of living people cannot include interviews, what about the reviews and other pieces I included? I took care to cite — and verify — very reputable and reliable sources, not blogs or fly-by-night publications. I've also taken pains to archive everything. I understand mentions "in passing" aren't considered major coverage, but I included those to provide context and verification not only of information, but of relevance as a subject. I'm having a hard time comprehending how this person, who has cowritten major hits for superstars, had a foundational role in a major motion picture (as acknowledged by the director in linked references) and had a role in inspiring one of Bruce Springsteen's biggest hits — and is cited on many other Wikipedia pages — isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page. What can I do to turn this into a page that will be accepted? TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: there may well be solid sources cited, but they can be missed among the 70+ references. Perhaps you could highlight the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard (= independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject). Alternatively, please explain how the subject meets the WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER or other relevant notability guideline, and what evidence supports this. You can do so eg. on the draft talk page, so that once you resubmit the reviewer will have easy access to this. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Administrators only? — 04:02:01, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Ajshul

When I tried to create the page, it wouldn't let me, informing me that only an administrator could create it. Thus, I created a draft; should I submit it through AfC, or through a different process (directly to administrators...?)?

Thanks! Ajshul<talk> 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajshul: that's correct, that article has been repeatedly created and deleted, and consequently the name has been protected. You should submit it to AfC, which you have already done, so all you now need to do is wait for it to be reviewed. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for clarifying! Ajshul<talk> 12:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:45, 16 March 2023 review of submission by ShartingSophia

lookie here, im not sure how to ask a question but I hope im doing it right the steps confused me. I just recived the sad information that my article was declined for publishing because it was

" an attempt at humor." now.

LOOKIE HERE BUD. It was

' 'much'*' more than an attempt. In fact, it was the funniest piece of literature that has ever graced gods green earth. It is okay to decline my witting for being not serious and not factual but to insult my incredible work is insanity.

Thank you so much for

the fast response and I look foreard to (hopefully) another fast response[to my comment.

ShartingSophia (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? --bonadea contributions talk 06:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, @331dot I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but this user's unblock request, which is spelled out on their Talk page User_talk:ShartingSophia, is vulgar and unnecessary. I'm not a shrinking violet, but... ugh. Could that be redacted? David10244 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @331dot. You said "I'm not sure what this is, but it isn't an unblock request". I wasn't sure how to summarize the issue, but you got it exactly right. David10244 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declination of my article

My article was move to draft. I want to publish it and contribute in wikipedia. Draft:Hartley Higher Secondary School Hartley High School (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hartley High School: yes it was moved, because it wasn't ready to be published. And then I discovered that it's also a flagrant copyvio, so I've requested speedy deletion.
And judging by your username, you clearly have a COI. Therefore I've posted a message on your talk page to help you address this. Please do so before any other editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will gather information from different website. If I gather information from website you call it a copyright and if I write a article base on what I has see in the school and places then you will Call it as No proof verification. What I will do now. Atlas don't delete it. Make it draft and when you get time you edit it. It is a famous School in Kolkata, india Hartley High School (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hartley High School:
Please don't open a new thread with each comment, just reply to the existing thread.
It's not just me "call[ing] it a copyright"; copyright violations are actually against the law, and if the draft is found to be a violation it will be deleted, no ifs no buts. (Please read and understand WP:CV.)
And please respond to the COI query on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:56, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Terry123jenkins

I have had two submissions rejected, and both state that the proposed article reads like advertising for the John Lewis Partnership. It is difficult to write about this subject without mentioning John Lewis. I have no connection with the company beyond the fact that I was a guest soloist in the 1966 and 1967 opera productions at the start of my professional career. That is over 50 years ago.I came to write this article after chancing on a blog requesting details of past performances. So I assembled all the information - with help from the JL Heritage Department - and wrote the brief history submitted. I have no other interest in the matter. I consider that the information in my last submission was impartial and purely factual. Please advise where and what precise changes are needed. Terry123jenkins (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Terry123jenkins,
Thank you for contributing a draft on this topic, and thank you also for confirming you have no connection with the subject.
The first thing that strikes me is that the draft has quite a lot of content which isn't supported by referencing. This could be because you've simply not been thorough enough in adding citations. Or it could be that you've written what you know about the subject, as opposed to what independent and reliable secondary sources have published about it. At Wikipedia, we only summarise what such sources have said; ergo, if you cannot support a particular statement with a citation to a published source, then it shouldn't be included at all. With that in mind, my first advice is to ask you to go through everything in the draft, and either reference it, or remove it.
The second thing I noticed is that the structure and style of writing is not particularly encyclopaedic, but instead narrative. For example (and this is only that; one example), an article must have a lead section (which is not the same as a 'lede' in a newspaper), which introduces the subject, establishes context and describes why the subject is notable. Your draft has no lead section. While such stylistic matters are not why the draft was declined, ultimately these must be addressed before the article is fully ready. You may find this guidance useful in further developing the draft.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. I am surprised you state the content is not supported by referencing. I considered that everything had a reference, although many of these are to newspaper articles. Generally, every production was reviewed in the major London newspapers and music journals, which are surely published sources. I will check to see what I have omitted. Terry123jenkins (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Terry123jenkins Let's take a sentence at random: "The first production took place in 1947, and the series continued virtually without a break until 1991." Where did that come from? Is it from reference number 2, which is three paragraphs down, with a heading in the middle? That's a long way between the information and the reference.
As the draft stands now, it looks like the first two paragraphs have zero references. You must show where all of the information came from. If one reference covers many sentences or paragraphs of material, you should ask for advice on how frequently to include a "ref" tag, so that it's clear to a reader (and a reviewer) what sources cover which info. David10244 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comments puzzling. I understood that the opening preamble simply stated the facts of the subject, and these were justified, and expanded, with references in the second section.
I find, for instance, that the wikipedia entries for Colin Davis, Edward Downes, and Arthur Benjamin - all mentioned in the text - have no references in this part of their entries. Ralph Vaughan Williams just has a note about the pronunciation of his first name, and the entry for James Robertson doesn't even appear to follow current guide lines at all.
I am quite willing to add a reference to the first performance being in 1947, but it is difficult to give a reference for the final performance in 1991. It was not intended to be the last and, as I explain, the enterprise simply fizzled out.
You describe the style as narrative. I have written it in chronological order, which seems sensible. Is that narrative? You also state that the opening sentences should describe why the subject is notable. I consider that my opening sentence does just that.
I would be pleased to hear your further comments. Terry123jenkins (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Terry123jenkins Yes, please add a reference for the 1947 date, and references for the other statements in the same paragraph.
The rest looks like a reply to you, @DoubleGrazing. David10244 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, @David10244. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Terry123jenkins: I don't know if you read the guidance on the lead section to which I signposted you earlier, but as I was saying earlier, the lead needs to serve a number of purposes all at once, to allow the reader instantly grasp what the article is about. To give an idea of what we need to see, instead of starting with

During the second half of the 20th century, the annual operatic productions put on by the Music Society of the John Lewis Partnership were an important part of the London musical scene, and gave audiences an opportunity to see rare and unusual works. The society's achievements merited an entry in the 1964 and 1979 editions of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Opera.

... I would start with something like (and this is obviously just an example to illustrate my point):

The John Lewis Opera was a London-based private opera society associated with the John Lewis Partnership retail business, active from the late 1940s until 1991. It is notable for being [whatever reasons make it notable], and was considered the most [its claim to fame] of its time.[citation needed]

This, in a couple of sentences, defines the subject and tells me why it matters.
As for your point about a chronological structure, this is obviously one perfectly sensible approach, especially when laying out a historical sequence of events, or the overall evolution of a subject over time. However, it may not be suitable for covering the entire article, as you may wish to consider some aspects of the subject outside of such a structure. In the case of an operatic society such as this, you might deploy a structure (arranged by section headings) comprising, for example:
  1. Lead section
  2. Background
  3. History
  4. Notable members
  5. Notable performances
  6. Legacy
Of these, I might expect to see the History section laid out chronologically (or possibly thematically, or both), and the Notable performances should also be similarly arranged (from oldest to newest), but the other sections would probably be better treated in some manner other than chronological.
I hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful comments. I hope to rewrite the article following your suggestions some time next week. Terry123jenkins (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:10, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Snehal Narkar

Why my article is being deleted? DJ UV india is a notable person, i have attatched sources too please go through that once. He have remixed many popular songs which you can check on youtube which have 113k+ views. He have 10k+ followers on instagram. He is an famous artist in india so please go through my article and sources once again. THANK YOU :) Snehal Narkar (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snehal Narkar, you need reliable, independent sources (eg, newspaper articles). It doesn't matter how many youtube views someone has. -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:03, 16 March 2023 review of draft by PBTheIsland


A page I created {Howard Cox, Jr.) was declined for notability reasons -- "No indication he's a notable businessman, philanthropist." I'm new and I was hoping to get guidance on how to improve the page. The subject is a leader in the venture capital industry, having led his firm's investments in more than 30 companies, is a past Chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, received the industry's lifetime achievement award and, with his four partners, received the 2003 Harvard Business School Alumni Achievement Award. He is involved with numerous philanthropies, having donated $20 million to the South Florida Science Museum in 2021 and $10 million to Harvard Business School in 2022. There are a number of other business and civic achievements as well. I would reach out to the administrator who issued the decline, but am not sure how to do so. I'd welcome any assistance you can provide. Many thanks! PBTheIsland (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PBTheIsland, notability isn't determined by what a person has done, but whether reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about what a person has done. To start, what you would need is independent, secondary sources saying things like "Cox is a leader in the venture capital industry". Are there (independent!) newspaper profiles on him? Have a look at the links in the grey box in the decline message for a deeper explanation. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

02:39:20, 17 March 2023 review of submission by Writer01wiki


Hi there, I am a new editor and just received a decline on my first submission. I am suggested to add more references which need to meet the criteria before the resubmission. However, as my topic is an app which was launched not long ago. It would be difficult for me to provide more sources at the moment... Therefore, I would like to seek for more specific guidelines on improving my page so as to get a pass on launching the article. Please let me know what I should do in this case.

Thank you!

Writer01wiki (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Writer01wiki: if you cannot find sources to establish notability, then by definition you cannot publish an article, because Wikipedia only summarises what reliable published sources have already said about a subject.
Most of this draft is unreferenced – where did the information come from? Did you read it somewhere? If so, cite those sources. Or do you have some 'insider' information from unpublished sources that you've based the draft on? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! Basically all the info I have written can be found from those references I have attached... For example, the features part, it can be found from the description of the app stores; and the lines of the cities can also be found from the links I have put on. Writer01wiki (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Writer01wiki The descriptions in the app stores are not independent of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability. Also, please read too soon. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the descriptions in the app stores were probably written by the creator of the app. That's what I meant by not independent. David10244 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:28, 17 March 2023 review of draft by UrFathermaybeblind

Hello! This is JJ Savani's Team and we are trying get his page published on wikipedia and we dont know why you declined it. It was his actual biography recorded by him.

UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UrFathermaybeblind If you work for this person, the Terms of Use require that you make a formal paid editing disclosure. You must also read conflict of interest(even if you are not paid). Also, only a single person should have access to and be operating your account.
Wikipedia articles should not be the words of the subject. An article 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. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, that's what social media is for. This is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:08, 17 March 2023 review of submission by Muzic SP


Muzic SP (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music SP You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered any more, and it has also been deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:59, 17 March 2023 review of draft by Philip Torchinsky


I did my best to create informative article about a topic that is significant at least for people starting to develop software in Java: Draft:BellSoft.

Unfortunately, my draft was rejected, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to improve it.

Specifically, I am seeking an example of a well-written article about a company supporting a product in a similar industry. By studying such an article, I can learn from best practices and create a more informative and compelling text. I am committed to using this feedback to create the best possible article.

In addition, I am looking for guidance on how to ensure that my article is written from a neutral point of view and supported by a range of independent, reliable sources. I understand the importance of avoiding any appearance of advertising in my text, and I have made every effort to do so. In fact, my draft cites 30 independent sources, with only four of them referring to the company's website. These sources provide important information for readers to fully understand the topic at hand.

Also, I would like to remove a comment that was made in my draft regarding WP:COI. As someone who is not affiliated with BellSoft in any way, I believe that this comment is irrelevant to the article and to me personally. I hope that you will agree with my request and allow me to proceed with my revisions accordingly.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from you.


Philip Torchinsky (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Philip Torchinsky as far as COI, I will add a comment to the draft you have stated you have no affiliation with the company. For the draft, giving it a brief look, I see sub-par sources such as blogs or forums which are user-generated thus not reliable (like Wikipedia) along with press releases which are not independent. I suggest you read the notability guidelines for companies thoroughly, along with WP:42. For examples of well-written/well-sources article, see WP:GA. S0091 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Torchinsky To clarify, S0091 is saying that Wikipedia is (also) not considered reliable by Wikipedia, since the content here is user-generated. All info at WP should be properly referenced, which is more than blogs do, but incorrect information can sometimes slip in unnoticed. David10244 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

10:18:03, 18 March 2023 review of submission by Faran315


I am trying to add a page for a social venue Chenab Club. I have been visiting this club since forever. I have created this page and provided reference links. I am trying to provide impartial writing and information as this is a historic landmark venue. However, this draft submission has not been accepted.

I would like to request senior writers to review the content and provide advise to make the submission compliant with wikipedia guidelines.

I thank all who take their time to respond. Kind regards F

Faran 10:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faran315 (talk • contribs)

@Faran315: most of the content is unreferenced, which in itself is a problem, as everything on Wikipedia must be traceable to a reliable published source; or if you look at it another way, when writing a Wikipedia article, you should only be summarising what published sources have said. Not citing any sources runs the risk that the content is either your own original research, or else copied from somewhere, neither of which is allowed.
Then there is the question of notability: the two sources you cite are the club's own website, and Wikimapia, neither of which can be used to establish notability; instead, per WP:GNG we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and completely independent of the subject.
Please do not resubmit this draft before you have addressed all of the issues I've mentioned, as your draft may otherwise be rejected and even deleted. BR, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:20, 18 March 2023 review of submission by UrFathermaybeblind

My resubmit is gone i have created and modified the article and i need to resubmit

UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UrFathermaybeblind The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see my message to you in your post above. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:14, 18 March 2023 review of draft by FalBuru


I don't get the reason why it was declined. 

   the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
       in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
       reliable
       secondary
       independent of the subject

I fulfill every single one of these with the article, it is in depth and reliable given most the sources are CompuPhase's own site or documentation, and there's no original research given I myself don't work in Pawn, I know of the language due to it being needed inside the SAMP community, it's a mere translation of the Italian article for it. Lastly, there cannot be independent sources about the language given it's fairly niche. I can cite open.mp's documentation specific to SAMP, which is ironically the best third-party source for the language, but I'm not mentioning it anywhere so it just wouldn't make sense. I'm here to ask for suggestions on how I should modify the article to fit this last criteria, or how I'm not fulfilling the rest of the criteria.

FalBuru (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FalBuru: a few remarks in response:
  1. None of the sources cited meet the WP:GNG notability standard, so the draft was certainly correctly declined.
  2. A lot of the content is unreferenced, so it could also have been declined for that reason, and likely would be unless you improve the referencing.
  3. If, as you say, this is a translation (presumably from the Italian Wikipedia?), you must acknowledge that as the source – see WP:HOWTRANS for advice.
  4. Your statement "there cannot be independent sources about the language given it's fairly niche" very much suggests that the subject simply isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and if that is the case, then there is nothing you can do to "modify the article" to get around this.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I had never heard of the General notability guideline, I will look into it. Yes, it is a translation from the Italian Wikipedia.
I will note about the niche comment that it's niche like VBScript, where given the very specific use case, its popularity is completely tied to what it's used for. To give an actual number, there's currently a minimum of 40,000 people playing SAMP, during it's golden era in 2011 it surpassed 200,000, which is all people who could be exposed to the topic and people who could use an English article for the topic, given the current availability being just French and Italian. What I meant by niche is that it's scarcely documented. FalBuru (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FalBuru: the "scarcely documented" bit is precisely what I meant. Even if millions of people use Pawn, but nobody has ever published articles or books or TV programmes etc. about it, then you couldn't have an article on it, because Wikipedia articles only summarise what other reliable sources have previously said about a topic. Conversely, even if only a handful of people use Pawn, but it has been extensively covered in published media, then in Wikipedia terms it is notable and warrants its own article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Understood, thanks.
FalBuru (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:13, 18 March 2023 review of draft by PeterBruce-Iri


PeterBruce-Iri (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Hi, A couple of months ago there was an excellent citations tool. Can you help me find it please?[reply]

Hi @PeterBruce-Iri there are many tools so not sure which one you were using. Try this guide. this one or ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:02:04, 18 March 2023 review of draft by Raylaur15


Update on review of article on Los Pleneros de la 21, submitted on January 14, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Los_Pleneros_de_la_21

Dear Wiki Editors: Its been more that two months since I submitted this article for review. Can I get any update as to its status? I want to be sure that it was submitted correctly and is in the queue for review. It would be wonderful if I heard somsehtng soon.

thanks,

raylaur15

Raylaur15 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raylaur15 you did submit it correctly so it is waiting for review. Given we are all volunteers, editors do not review drafts in any particular order. In the interim, I suggest posting on the draft's talk page the three best sources that meet the notability criteria for musicians. Please also see WP:42 and WP:THREE for guidance. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice!! I just posted the four best notability sources on the Los Pleneros de la 21 draft article's talk page.
If you have any other suggestions for moving the evaluation process forward, please let me know. 
Again, thanks so much for your comments.
raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:B1BD:E509:62B7:23A9 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

08:20:43, 19 March 2023 review of submission by Raghav1788


Raghav1788 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raghav1788: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:37, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Walnuthillstreet


Hello i have edited this draft and attached what i consider to be reliable sources and removed information that could not be sourced. I would be very grateful if someone could review for me before i resubmit. Thanks in advance ---

Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walnuthillstreet: in other words, you're asking for a review, before you resubmit this for a review? We don't provide 'pre-reviews'; when you feel that you've addressed the reasons for the earlier declines, please just submit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks will do Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:34, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Overly Simplistic Username


Hi there, the article has been made a draft for not being properly covered and sourced? Are there any specific areas that this seems to apply to which my novice eyes have missed? Also could someone please clarify the purpose of a stub as I was under the impression that an article being a stub meant that it gave some understanding but still left room to be improved in the future and expanded upon? If that is true then does that not negate the point in regards to it not being sufficiently in-depth by USER:M.Ashraf333's standards?

Just looking for a bit of clarification and advice here.

Thanks!

Overly Simplistic Username (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Overly Simplistic Username: this was draftified because the subject doesn't appear to be notable, which is fundamental requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. There's nothing in the career etc. details that would seem to make her inherently notable, therefore notability must be established via WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. None of the sources cited meets this standard.
And yes, stubs do get some leeway, but mostly in the breadth of coverage and completeness of contents, not in terms of notability, or for that matter verifiability. (Not that this is IMO anymore a stub, BTW.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:20, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Aniprk007


My article, Draft: Gumraah (2023 Film) was rejected even when it has all the relevant information and sources to confirm the same, in lieu of that a similar named draft, Draft:Gumraah (2023 Film) exists which has only a single line written as of now. Kindly recheck my draft Gumraah (2023 Film)

Aniprk007 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniprk007 The draft was declined before, not rejected -- rejected means the draft won't be considered further, while declined means you can address the reasons for the decline, and resubmit. The draft is currently being reviewed. What does "The movie was set to go on floors in the summer of 2020..." mean? Is this something in Hindi, or English spoken by people from India? I have never heard that expression before. If it means the movie was set to be in theaters on that date, or released on that date, please reword that sentence. Also, I don't think the actor's names should be italicized when they are mentioned. I made a couple of very small copy-edits to the draft. David10244 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions I have made the necessary changes. If you have any further suggestions do let me know.
Also there's another draft Draft : Gulmohar (2023 TV Series) which should be deleted, as the title mentions it as a TV Series but actually it's a Film and an article for the same already exists by the title Gulmohar (2023 Film) Aniprk007 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:13, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Hhbowie


I am confused by the feedback I am getting. The reason for my latest rejection is that my draft entry reads too much like an advertisement. But then the specific words that are cited as objectionable are clearly placed in a section titled "Reception." If the reception has been favorable, then wouldn't you expect the words in this section to sound a bit like an advertisement? Is the problem that I should take out the whole section? But then I'm not sure how to include citations to several good independent sources and, of course, it is also important to include a healthy number of these in the article. So I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe that any of the text outside of the "Reception" section reads like an advertisement.

Hhbowie (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "known for its powerful features, an abundance of import and export options, its many customization options and its friendly native Mac user interface" is nothing but blatant advertising! Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am/was just trying to summarize what others (cited neutral third parties) have said about the application. If people have gone on record as saying these things, then how is it "blatant advertising" to summarize what has been said? Hhbowie (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

06:30:29, 20 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo

provided enough reference Mambomo (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mambomo: a single source, that isn't even cited, really is not "enough". This has been rejected, and will likely be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow how do you guys even operate like Resident Advisor is the Biggest Artist magazine and you guys still don't want it talk about, racism not existing!!!! Mambomo (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mambomo: please do not start hurling baseless accusations around.
This draft was rejected because the RA does not meet any aspect of the WP:GNG standard for notability: it is not secondary, it does not provide significant coverage of the subject, and while it may or may not be reliable it is certainly not independent. And given that both 'references' (which in any case aren't cited in the manner required for articles on living people) are to the same source, this also doesn't satisfy the requirement for multiple sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok you win Mambomo (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check Draft:Asraman Bilig ? What should i do?

Can you check Draft:Asraman Bilig ? What should i do? Nasty32 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources, articles are based on reliable, independent sources, NOT on what you know about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:38, 20 March 2023 review of draft by Editorranjitksharma


Nocturnal781 has declined my draft article submission saying, "Whole article needs to be formatted and edited all around. Not ready to be on Wikipedia."

Could anybody kindly share some examples of places where the formatting and editing are lacking?

I would like to review my article and make the changes accordingly.

Thanks

Editorranjitksharma (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:13, 20 March 2023 review of draft by 64.114.255.114


Can you help me understand why the citations are not adequate in this case? Was it in regards to the MacRumors article regarding the LegbaCore acquisition being used, rather than e.g. the Gadgets360 citation used over on the Apple M&A page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple#cite_note-g360-legba-114 ?

64.114.255.114 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:58, 20 March 2023 review of submission by Katehubert

Added a Forbes article as a reference/citation.

Katehubert (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1145717181"