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
John.GGVV (talk | contribs)
101 edits
Line 541: Line 541:


:@[[User:John.GGVV|John.GGVV]]: if by "realbility" you mean reliable (?), then yes, sources #1–6 are reliable, as sources go. (Sources #7–8 are obviously just commercial operations.) Whether they actually support anything in the draft, or provide sufficient coverage to help establish notability, I don't know, as I haven't looked. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 06:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:John.GGVV|John.GGVV]]: if by "realbility" you mean reliable (?), then yes, sources #1–6 are reliable, as sources go. (Sources #7–8 are obviously just commercial operations.) Whether they actually support anything in the draft, or provide sufficient coverage to help establish notability, I don't know, as I haven't looked. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 06:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
::okay thanks. [[User:John.GGVV|John.GGVV]] ([[User talk:John.GGVV|talk]]) 08:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


== 03:38, 2 July 2023 review of submission by Aynf224 ==
== 03:38, 2 July 2023 review of submission by Aynf224 ==

Revision as of 08:50, 2 July 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


June 26

09:34, 26 June 2023 review of submission by 103.122.6.62

Wants to successfully submit my draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ankush_Prashant_More 103.122.6.62 (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully submitted it – but it will be declined as the draft is insufficiently referenced, and there is no indication that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP user. Articles about living people require them to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article.
The easiest way to fix this draft is to find sources that cover Ankush Prashant More in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources and published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate strong, reliable, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not Original Research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:45, 26 June 2023 review of draft by DBryant007


DBryant007 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @DBryant007? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DBryant007. Articles about living people require them to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. The reviewer has decided that Dwayne does not meet this threshold at this time. We also strongly discourage you from creating an article about yourself, due to the conflict of interest.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 26 June 2023 review of submission by Satyendraias

why my articale is not accepting again and again 

Satyendraias (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Satyendraias: as explained in the decline and deletion notices posted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself; this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. Please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no it not a my personal thing i just created with his name its an ex dm of lucknow nad people know about him Satyendraias (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Satyendraias: be that as it may – promotion or self-promotion, pretty much boils down to the same thing.
And if that really isn't you, then you should probably change your username. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:23, 26 June 2023 review of draft by 41.114.175.155


41.114.175.155 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor. Your draft has been Submitted and may take up to four months or longer to be reviewed.
However, your draft in it's current state is very likely to be Declined. This is because it cites no sources. Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that the series is notable.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
The easiest way to fix your draft is to find sources that cover Shaka Ilembe in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation. Note that IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user generated.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Please note that if you are connected in any way to Shaka Ilembe then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 26 June 2023 review of submission by 2603:8001:8D00:2831:7DDF:EDE5:55EE:488F

Need help understanding what changes should be made. 2603:8001:8D00:2831:7DDF:EDE5:55EE:488F (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2603:8001:8D00:2831:7DDF:EDE5:55EE:488F.
Your draft article reads like a curriculum vitae or a résumé, not an encyclopaedic article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. It is also worth reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé.
Howard Feldman may indeed meet the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria for a Wikipedia article, but you need to find sources that cover him in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Howard Feldman would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Howard then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps Qcne (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 26 June 2023 review of submission by Jesseandwhite

I am not able to submit this for review. Jesseandwhite (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to click the blue box "click for review" but it would be pointless, it would be declined because it is VERY poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jesseandwhite I added the template so you can submit it but if you do, it will be declined for not meeting both WP:verifiability as most of the content is unsourced and it does not meet the the notability guidelines (see also WP:NSPORT). S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, what is considered a true source? Jesseandwhite (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jesseandwhite. To submit for review, press the Finished drafting? Submit for review! button.
However, in it's current state your article will be declined. Articles about living people require them to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold which includes sources that cover Rizza in detail. You would then summarise the sources in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Rizza would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Rizza then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

00:31, 27 June 2023 review of submission by Iamakisah

My article is notable but I'm unable to prove that it is notable Iamakisah (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamakisah: okay. Well, here at Wikipedia we're only interested in what can be proven. In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 27 June 2023 review of submission by Ajayraj890

I want to make sure if this article will be accepted if i request the review of this article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajayraj890. You need to work on the tone of your article draft. This line, for example, is not written in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "After failing to defend, Marthanda Varma decided to pay a huge amount and gave them presents. After making peace, they retraced thier steps and the territory was free again".
I also note that "thier" in the above sentence is spelt incorrectly, you have a misplaced "The" at the end of the first sentence (and a few missing full stops).
Have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which should help you understand what types of phrases and words to avoid in the future.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. It really helps to improve the article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir/Mam, your advice is really helpful. But this article is about a military conflict(siege). So, I can't display the event without using such phrases. And I will improve my grammar. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ajayraj890. You can definitely use neutral language to describe a military conflict. Something like... "Following a failed defence, Marthanda Varma secured a peace agreement through payment and gifts, leading to the withdrawal of the Sultanate forces and restoration of the previous territorial autonomy." Qcne (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your help. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]



14:10, 27 June 2023 review of submission by 90.156.76.117

In general, I edited this article myself and made the footnotes myself.... The sources in the books are authentic. Please check this. They are in English. It took me a long time to write this article. I gave the Polish page about the phenomenon of selective photothermolysis, because it is described in this link. Of course, I gave a reference from Poland, because information such as scientific discoveries is easiest for me to understand in Polish. And as I come from Poland, I read it in Polish. The phenomenon of selective photothermolysis is important and I am sorry that my source as I come from Poland and the source is also from Poland has been discriminated :( . This phenomenon is really well described in the article I linked to. And the phenomenon of photothermolysis, which is an important element in the history of hair removal. This is an important discovery that has greatly changed the ways of hair removal. 90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be proven wrong in my assessment, but so far not convinced.
In any case worth noting that an article on Hair removal (with a section on History) already exists, which you can develop. Just don't post spammy links again, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But please go to this link and copy the content that is on this subpage. Click on: [Spam link redacted] and see the content of this link...you can translate it in Google and check. It accurately describes the phenomenon of selective photothermolysis. Sources are also provided in this link. This is not a spam link... 90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all the content is about the history of epilation as you can see 90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a spam link, because it is a commercial service provider, and you are posting it everywhere although I've asked you not to. And in any case, it is only a blog, and carries absolutely no credence as a source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at a couple of the other sources you've cited in this draft.
  • The Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 8(4), 2009, s. 284-287, is (according to this draft) meant to have a paper titled "The History of Hair Removal"; instead it has "Phospholipid-based formulation with improved attributes of coal tar"
  • The American Journal of Nursing, 64(2), 130-131, should have a paper titled "Magic and Medical Science in Ancient Egypt", but instead has "Drug data".
(These are just two of the 12 offline sources cited, but they were the first two I checked, so I stopped there.)
Can you explain where I've gone wrong, or otherwise why that might be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you chech it? [Spam link redacted] ? Please? will be very grateful because I spent all day yesterday and today preparing all this, so please check this page and content that it is ok. If you can? I will really appreciate it if you translate it and check it yourself (I mean link content) 90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • check
90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I work at University: https://www.isksio.uni.wroc.pl/instytut/struktura-instytutu/pracownie/osrodek-badan-nad-historia-i-kultura-zydow-z-poludniowej-polski/pracownicy-i-doktoranci/mgr-lukasz-krzyszczuk/ You can write to this email on that link. if you want? 90.156.76.117 (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor.
A bunch of your sources do not seem to exist? Did you use a Large Language Model like ChatGPT to generate these sources? The only reference to some of these sources that I can find is on the Ukrainian Wikipedia here (which seems to be a translated article of your draft?) and the Arabic Wikipedia here (which has now been deleted, but still appears in Google's cache).
I don't understand why you would think it would be appropriate to have an encyclopaedic article with fake sources.
Best, Qcne (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.worldcat.org/title/1231176721 90.156.76.117 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is not a book but a magazine 90.156.76.117 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? That book isn't cited in this draft. And in any case, it seems to have no coverage of hair removal methods.
I think we've pretty much reached the end of this debate. To recap:
  • The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
  • There is an existing article published in the main space, where salient parts of your proposed content can be incorporated.
  • Please stop posting spam links.
Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources have issues:
- The History of Hair Removal. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 8(4), 2009, s. 284-287 No such article seems to exist
- Tyldesley, J. (2008). The Ancient Egyptians: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press The author is Shaw, not Tyldesley?
- Sobek, M., & Sobek, C. (2006). How to Make Your Own Egyptian Tomb: For Fun and Learning. Sobek Publishing No such book seems to exist
- Harlow, M., & Barret, R. (2004). A Short History of the Roman Mass. Michael Glazier No such book seems to exist
- Sleeswyk, A. W. (1979). Puberty: Physiological and Psychological Considerations. F. A. Davis Company No such book seems to exist
- Khairullah, N. (1997). The Beauty Market in the Arab Middle East: A Study of Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Boston College No such book seems to exist Qcne (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Article has returned: Draft:History of hair removal with the same spammy link in citation no.1 Qcne (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the IP address which started this discussion, and another one responsible for similar spamming, and I have deleted two spam drafts they created. JBW (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 27 June 2023 review of submission by 90.156.76.117

What should I do to properly publish this article? Can I ask for tips? 90.156.76.117 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Sorry. I didn't read it. I will try to add this information to the epilation history under "depilation". 90.156.76.117 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 27 June 2023 review of submission by Petnog

I'm trying to create the article Atlantic Core Network Corridor, but it hasn't been approved. I'm not sure why, though. I think the references I used are definitely better than most of the pages for the other corridors of the TEN-T. Can anyone help? Petnog (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OSE as to why that is a poor argument, it could be that those are inappropriate as well. You only have two sources and the article does little more than say this exists. To pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage. It could be that this portion of the corridor does not merit a standalone article and could be included in the article about the larger project. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


June 28

Mainspace article Credit union league has been split to AfC instead of to mainspace Credit union central?




A split of Credit union league into two articles, Credit union league and Credit union central, was proposed at Talk:Credit union league#Proposed split. With no other discussion having taken place, one user decided to take it upon themselves to remove the "credit union central" content from the original mainspace article and dump it not into a new mainspace article proposed for credit union central but into AfC as Draft:Credit union central. That's a very bizarre move, as it dumps valid content out of mainspace and into a process which currently has a backlog of more than four thousand articles, with whomever made this decision having done nothing to work on the page, submit it or do anything with it other than wait for the six-month limit to run out so that the information is quietly deleted through effectively a back-door mechanism. I have no idea what this person is trying to do, but the content should never have been misrouted to AfC and needs to be put back to mainspace - either by reverting the "split" or by moving the content to its intended location, credit union central. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to fix this (imho) is to revert the article to before the split was done and then do it properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 28 June 2023 review of submission by Amiso072

I don't get the reason why my page is rejected Amiso072 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@amiso072: you're trying to write an advert for your company. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 28 June 2023 review of submission by Ajayraj890

I want to check whether if this article is ready for a review or not. Ajayraj890 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayraj890: I'm not sure what you mean; you have already submitted this, and it has been declined. You need to address the decline reason(s) before submitting again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand why the reviewers declined this. First reason was no context and grammer mistakes. The second reason was, the reviewer couldn't find the name 'Siege of Tovala' in any historic events. So i re edited the article again improving the grammer and context. And i moved the page into 'Chanda Sahib conquest of Travancore' which is more suitable name for the event. Now i want to make sure if it is ready for a review submission. Hope you understand what i meant. Ajayraj890 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here for pre-review reviews. If you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ajayraj890 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:38, 28 June 2023 review of draft by Rastinrah


Rastinrah (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Rastinrah? You have submitted this draft, and it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please review this draft
Im edit this Rastinrah (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to check the item manually and publish it if possible Rastinrah (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rastinrah, your article has been accepted. Qcne (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 28 June 2023 review of submission by Cellardoor99

Newbie here struggling to know how to get this page appproved (my first wiki attempt!). I think I am undertsanding secondary sources vs primary sources. However after some chats in the live help I undertsand different criteria need to be met for living people and they suggested getting input from an "experienced co-editor". I hope I am in the right place here. Apoligies if not. For the article there is in my mind not doubt of the notoriety being an acomplished auhor/scholar of 50 years which is shown by University pages and published books. But seems to be somehting else lacking. I did find another Wiki referencing the Prof. Award from 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._George_Grierson_Award grateful for any pointers or advice as I am a bit lost being new to this...thank you so much! Cellardoor99 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cellardoor99.
Your draft article only has three sources- two are Wikipedia:Primary sources (the staff page and the interview) and one is Wikipedia:User-generated content (Goodreads). That isn't enough to establish notability unfortunately.
George may indeed be notable, but you need to find independent, third party sources that cover him in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is super helpful thank you! i'll work on this to make sure it meets the requirements before re-submitting. thank you again! Cellardoor99 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:40, 28 June 2023 review of draft by LisaLena123


LisaLena123 (talk) Hello, I am having difficulty understanding the errors in the Wikipedia Page being created. I am a new editor and cannot seem to publish my first big page. LisaLena123 (talk)


LisaLena123 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LisaLena123.
Aaliyna does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability threshold at this time. Only people who meet that notability criteria can have an article. That page explains what we mean by "notability": basically Aaliya needs to be discussed in detail in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.
If you cannot find multiple independent reliable secondary sources then I am afraid that Aaliya would not meet the notability threshold and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Aaliya then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. We also strongly discourage you from creating an article about yourself!
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 28 June 2023 review of submission by Sherbn


I don't understand what the point is. An article about historical tradition is presented. Basic information is presented. Sources are indicated. Sherbn (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sherbn: the problem is, reading that draft, one has to work pretty hard to understand what it's actually about. For starters, the beginning of the draft doesn't clearly specify the subject, establish the context, or tell the reader what makes the subject noteworthy. Please see WP:MOSLEAD for advice on writing the lead section.
The referencing is also problematic. There are paragraphs without any citations. Conversely, there are orphan citations that don't seem to support anything. Then there are various links and external sources with non-English titles that don't indicate what their relevance is. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and also WP:ORDER for advice on, and correct ordering of, the appendices and end matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 28 June 2023 review of submission by Sussteve226

I need help i got flaged while i was editing and i lost my work Sussteve226 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sussteve226.
Your article draft was not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.
Please also read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which explains that Wikipedia is not a filehost to store your personal texts or images.
We already have an article about the Dell Inspiron here: Dell Inspiron 1525. If you would like to make edits to it, please go ahead but remember they must be constructive and sourced.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 28 June 2023 review of submission by LegalizeAnythingMuppets

I’m going to need editors to help improve on the page in order to make it resubmitted. LegalizeAnythingMuppets (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to be co-authors; if you would like to resubmit the draft, you need to do the work. Do you have questions about what you need to do? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


June 29

01:57, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Paris Cotz

Hello. I'd like to know how to make this page better. Jerry Ross Barrish is an important figure in San Francisco socio-political history as well as art history. Unfortunately most of his important essays are printed only. How can I best cite a printed source? Paris Cotz (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paris Cotz: to answer your question "how to make this page better", you need to first and foremost improve the referencing, which is lacking in both quality of sources and quantity of citations. (IMO you should cut down those long lists of exhibitions etc., focusing only on the most notable ones, as Wikipedia is not intended as a comprehensive catalogue of everything someone has done.)
As for printed sources, the first thing to note is that many sources which were originally in print-only have been digitised and made available online, so please try to find online versions of such sources if at all possible. But if you cannot, then offline sources are also acceptable, as long as they are cited in a way that makes it possible for others to locate and verify them. See WP:OFFLINE for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:01, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Icelyn.ca

Some of the article is first-hand Biography Material/ and some is referenced from articles, podcasts, and magazine articles. Can someone please specify what requires additional citation? Icelyn.ca (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Icelyn.ca: the short answer is, everything needs to be referenced. The slightly longer answer: every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable public sources.
And these citations must come immediately after the statement they support, it isn't enough to tag a cite at the end of a long paragraph and say that that cite supports everything in there. Case in point: the 'Police Career' section has four paragraphs, the first three of which are unreferenced, and then at the end of the last para there is one citation. Even if it were the case that that one source genuinely provided all the information in that whole section, this is far from clear from the sparse referencing.
Another example: this person's DOB is shown in the infobox, but isn't cited. Which source provides this? (And if none of them do, then where did you get that from?) Unless the DOB has been published in a reliable source, you must remove it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your clear explanation and will be working on the adjustments accordingly. Icelyn.ca (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Kishan kotak

can u tell me why my article rejected and what changes should i di? 

Kishan kotak (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kishan kotak: yes, I can tell you, and indeed you could have also figured this out yourself, if you read the notices on the draft page. It has been rejected, and will shortly be deleted, because it is a blatant copyright violation. Please read and understand WP:CV, to avoid such incidents in the future.
In any case, a quick scan of this draft suggests that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia in any case, as we don't publish how-to guides or similar.
And finally, please don't start several threads here at the help desk. Asking once is enough; someone will eventually get around to answering your question. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 29 June 2023 review of submission by RajuS24

I added all the necessary details and then also rejected why Please help me still what details needed. RajuS24 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RajuS24.
Your draft article was only declined, not rejected. If it was rejected you would not be able to submit this article for review further.
The problem with your draft article and the reason why it was declined is that it currently cites only primary sources. Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Please remember that IMDB cannot be used as a source as it is Wikipedia:User-generated content.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers Marana Shasana in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that #arana Shasana would not meet the films notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RajuS24 (ec) The draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean it could not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted. Unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see the film notability guidelines- unless there is something unusual about the production of the film or extensive coverage of the production of the film beyond routine announcements of casting/staff. An article about a film generally must contain at least one(preferably a few) review of the film by a professional film critic or reviewer.
You seem to have an association with the film, if so, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Leon W2023

The article draft is objective and I don't understand why it gets flagged as "promotional" when the sources are trustworthy, what needs to be changed to get it approved from your perspective please?

BR Leon W2023 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User indeffed for sockpuppetery. Qcne (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Ian0510

Hi,

I'm just writing to get more clarity on why my draft got declined. I am new to this so was perhaps wondering if somebody could specify in more detail, where I may be going wrong with this particular article at all?

Many thanks in advance,

Ian Ian0510 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian0510.
Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your draft article currently has no in-line citations and the only references are to HSE - only one of which mentions The Water Management Society in passing.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article.
The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers The Water Management Society in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 201.235.248.233

hi we have this page uploaded more than 5 months and it is freezed, can you help us to optimize and approve it ? what are the problems there?

thanks Marcelo 201.235.248.233 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcelo,
Courtesy link.
Your draft article was declined on 22 June 2023. This is because your references do not show that Techunting qualifies for a Wikipedia article at this time. Have a read of the guidance in that link which explains what type of sources you need to prove notability in a Wikipedia context. You can prove notability only by finding reliable, independent, secondary sources that covers Techunting in detail - that go beyond basic facts and offer interpretation and analysis of the company. If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Techunting would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a company.
Finally, as you are the co-founder of the company, you must immediately declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also just for the record, while the draft may have been created 5(ish) months ago, it was only submitted for review last week. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:34, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Bbcrossword

Hi, The draft article includes references and citations for the inpatient fall prevention technology launched by Palarum LLC. Can you elaborate on how or where it fails to meet the guidelines for notability? Or, content that could be added to match the guidelines? Thank you. Bbcrossword (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bbcrossword. Do you mean your draft article Palarum LLC which was declined over five years ago? Or do you mean User:Bbcrossword/sandbox which has yet to submitted for review.
In either case, please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
For our notability guidelines for organisations, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). That policy explains what we mean be notability and how to prove notability for a company. In essence, you need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Palarum Smart Sock in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Palarum Smart Sock would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Not every company or product on Earth can have a Wikipedia article, only ones that pass that notability threshold.
Also, I see you have placed a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure tag on your User page, however you have not filled in the bit which tells us which organisation you work for. Please correct that immediately.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Bwthhybl

I was just wondering if I submitted an article and it is under review then if I edit it, will it put me back in the queue for waiting for publication? It was submitted it a month ago and it says the review will take around 4 months, but if I edit it will I lose my place in the queue? It's also currently categorized as a C:class article, are there any recommendations to improve it so that it would be B or A and does that help my likelihood of getting it reviewed faster? Bwthhybl (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bwthhybl.
Firstly, it sounds like you work for a company or organisation and you and your colleague(s) are writing a draft article about that company or organisation? If so you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest immediately (also see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure).
You can still make edits to a draft after submitting for review- there is no queue: drafts are reviewed in no specific order and it can take several months for your draft to be reviewed. There is nothing you can do to speed up this process, as draft reviewing is all done by volunteers in their own time, and Wikipedia gets 100s of new drafts a day.
If your draft article is declined, you can then make improvements to it. Only if it is rejected have you reached the end of the road as that means your article will no longer be considered.
The easiest way to improve a draft and make it more likely to be accepted is to ensure it meets the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. Only topics that meet this threshold can have an article on Wikipedia. In essence, you need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover your topic in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid your topic would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any more questions. Qcne (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 29 June 2023 review of submission by NurAlamSr

Why This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? NurAlamSr (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected that submission as being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia because it serves primarily to advertise a company and its services. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or advertising vehicle. This is also an issue because of WP:NPOV, a very important policy which states that all content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Separately, the article subject does not seem to be notable, which means no article on it should exist. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2601:18B:300:9F10:A423:D8B6:DAD7:F471

I need to learn why my article was rejected, so that I can attempt to improve it and make it acceptable. 2601:18B:300:9F10:A423:D8B6:DAD7:F471 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because it isn't written like an encyclopaedia article. See what Wikipedia is not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things in that link that don't match my particular error, whatever that may be. I am willing to correct this, if I can be pointed more directly at where I have strayed. Thanks for elucidation. HealthLogger (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Your submission was written like an essay or opinion piece. Wikipedia articles are entries in an encyclopedia, which means they need to have a clearly defined subject that meets notability guidelines, and they need to be written from a neutral point of view. I think one key issue is that you're not writing for an encyclopedia.
Smoking cessation might provide some guidance on how to approach this kind of topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 29 June 2023 review of submission by HealthLogger

There is another Wikipedia article on Smoking Cessation. My article on Quitting Vaping / Vaping Cessation, was rejected because it was stated it read too much like an essay, and was thus "contrary to the purposes" of Wikipedia. Would a longer distinct introduction to the topic improve its chances of pulbication? What else does it need to become encyclopedia worthy? 

HealthLogger (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HealthLogger.
Check out the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal section of this policy for an explanation why your article was rejected: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Your article would be more appropriate for a health blog, not an encyclopaedia.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I use the smoking cessation wikipedia page as a template ? HealthLogger (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HealthLogger actually look at Electronic cigarette and also note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. For the topic you are writing about, sources will also need to meet WP:MEDRS. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:10, 29 June 2023 review of draft by Sahas P.


On the U.S. Route 30 page, I had noticed there was no link for US 30 in Wyoming, as there was for US 20. I created a draft of it, taking over 2 hours to do, and when I was done, I forgot to add the "Major intersections" box. I thought it would be easy to do, but it turns out it wasn't. No matter how many times I tried, it just wouldn't work. I even looked at other U.S. Route pages for help, but that didn't go well either. When you get the chance, please look at this message and help me add the box whenever you can. I would really appreciate it, and don't forget to fix any edits and help revise the "Route Description" box. Here is the link: Draft:U.S. Route 30 in Wyoming Sahas P. (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sahas P. did you see KylieTastic's response to a similar query you made at User talk:KylieTastic#How will I find sources?. It seems you started WP:BACKWARD (read that) using what you know rather than starting with sources then summarizing what they have written about the topic. Adding an infobox is not going help the draft meet the notability guidelines nor do the ones that are already there so is a poor use of anyone's time, including yours. What you need to focus on is finding reputable sources with in-depth coverage about the topic. S0091 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 8.9.93.13

That was a hoax anyway. 8.9.93.13 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:6CF8:3575:22E0:79D

Because I'm actor and I need this up and ready 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:6CF8:3575:22E0:79D (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your website, social media or a means of promotion (see WP:NOT). Only subjects that meet the the meet the notability criteria warrant an article which you do not meet so best to move on. S0091 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:09, 29 June 2023 review of submission by Elton Heta

I have added additional information from official sources along with relevant references, I do not know if they are sufficient and what additional information you suggest I find and add for the article. Elton Heta (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elton Heta The article has been rejected. We don't recommend you add anything to the article. This isn't Linkedin. Wikipedia doesn't publish this kind of article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was rejected but additional information and references were requested and I just did it, I didn't understand what you wanted to say with Linkedin because I couldn't make the connection, what does this mean? Elton Heta (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first time, the article was declined - that's when you were asked to add more references. The second time, it was rejected - no further editing is encouraged. What I meant by "this isn't Linkedin" is that Wikipedia is not social media or somewhere to post a CV/resume. That's what you have done here, with links to your github, facebook, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For an IT platform that verifies its work, they are, just as they are for singers Spotify, Youtube, etc., so is GitHub in this case, so it is not that it is being treated like Linkedin. Elton Heta (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotify and YouTube are also not reliable, independent sources. -- asilvering (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 2009cATBOOK

My page of a high rise in Kansas City was rejected for being insignificant. However, there are many buildings in New York City and other such cities that are shorter and of less significance, and yet they have been accepted. What can I do to make this page relevant? 2009cATBOOK (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show reliable coverage in independent, secondary sources (see WP:GNG). Those sources aren't independent. By the way, you might be interested in WP:ARCH, a wikiproject for editors interested in architecture. asilvering (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: saying that other pages exist in defense of your own is rarely a good plan; no article is perfect, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:58, 29 June 2023 review of submission by 47.40.238.193

How do I improve this page? I had hoped to make the page available to edit for other users given the significance of the topic in recent-day culture and the scope of his impact was something that was well-worth examining. I attempted to write from a neutral perspective and included criticisms. If anything came off as biased, I am open to changing it. 47.40.238.193 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further; hence, there is nothing to improve. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you work on adding content to Depp's article about his impact. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

01:38, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Afracica

I recently updated this page and my edits were removed. I documented my source. I used the same source for both minor edits. I added the birth name and the year both were available in the IMDb, which is the goto database for actors. I am just trying to understand what I did wrong.

Thank you,

Andy Afracica (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Afracica: you're at the wrong place; this is the Articles for Creation help desk, for dealing with drafts that are undergoing AfC review; you should probably ask at the Teahouse instead. But since you're here: IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and cannot therefore be used to support potentially sensitive or contentious information such as a person's DOB; that's why your edits were reverted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by JalKiRani

Why is my draft "The Haunting; getting rejected?

I have linked various reliable sources from big newspapers like Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, MidDay etc.

Also the film is already released on Amazon Mini TV.

Can you please approve my draft? JalKiRani (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JalKiRani: we don't approve, decline, or otherwise determine the fate of articles here on the help desk, that is done when you submit your draft for a review and a reviewer comes across it and assesses it.
This draft has been twice declined for lack of notability. You will need to demonstrate that the subject is notable, by meeting either the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standard. "Link[ing] various reliable sources" is a start, but isn't in and of itself enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources in the draft are not independent, as they are largely quoting Fernandes' words. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Elton Heta

I have added additional requested information, is the matter now under review? Elton Heta (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also the newbie here like you, and I know why your article got deleted. Your article contains references of social media handles, not of PR. Wikipedia checks PR for the validation and not the social profiles. And the second reason is you are writing about yourself, that is strictly banned here. Narendra7302 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elton Heta: no, the matter is not under review, because this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. Also, as the previous commentator says, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, for the record, I want to point out that Narendra7302 (who has incidentally just been banned) is giving bad advice. Wikipedia is no more interested in PR than in social media. Almost all social media is unacceptable as sources because it is not reliable. Almost all PR is equally unacceptable because it is not independent. See 42 for what is required in sources.
It is also not true that writing about yourself is "strictly banned": it is strongly discouraged, but people are permitted to try. It was repeatedly trying, and apparently failing to understand why it didn't work, that got Narendra7302 banned. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand everything you say, but I want to emphasize that regarding the profession of programmers nowadays, I think that GitHub, Stackoverflow and similar platforms like these or certificates from Google and memberships and listings are somewhat reliable and I think they can be treated as such in these cases, I also started editing this article after someone else had started it and I noticed mistakes, so I started submitting more references from different national and international media for myself.
I ask for your understanding and I don't know if after all this history this article will manage to be reviewed! Elton Heta (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Narendra7302

I want to create the article for President Awardee Mohit Sharma, who is a social worker and NSS volunteer from Bareilly region. I saw article about other NSS Volunteers on Wikipedia, so I thought to make an article about him also. But, the article is declined while the other article for the different awardee is published with the same number of references. Kindly, please publish this article to mainspace. Thanking you Narendra7302 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narendra7302: do you have an actual question you wish to ask? This draft was declined for lack of notability, and unless and until you rectify that, it cannot be accepted. (As for other articles that may exist on persons with a similar background, this is neither here nor there; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the similar article Ritika Verma and compare them, both are President Awardee of NSS. Narendra7302 (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narendra7302: as I already said, whatever other article may exist isn't relevant here, as we don't assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but instead by reference to the relevant guidelines and policies. I repeat: do you have an actual question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've a question. How can I make this article ( or any other article) eligible for Wikipedia page. I read that minimum 3 news articles are required for creation and here I've mentioned 7 proofs, including news articles and videos too. So, what I've to do to make this page published here Narendra7302 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narendra7302: firstly, you have cited five sources, not seven, and at least one of those is primary and provides no meaningful coverage of the subject, so we're down to four. All the four only talk about this award, which is similar to appointment news, whereby someone gets appointed as a CEO or whatever, the organisation sends out a press release, and certain types of media pick it up. This is not the publications writing about the subject, independently and of their own volition. We need to see that this person is genuinely notable beyond a single event like an award (unless that award be, quite literally, the Nobel Prize or similar). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Gaff33

Hi,

I was able to find one contemporary journal / magazine source, which I've added. I note that the web sources I've linked are the only sources for other similar articles, so I hoped they woudl be sufficient. Appreciate this is only a tiny article, but as it gets a mention in various other articles it is plugging a gap.

I can tidy up what I've got, but I can't do that much better when it comes to sourcing.

Is this salvagable? Or should I give up? Gaff33 (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaff33: "is this salvageable", as in can an article be created on this topic? Probably. But it will need better sources. What you need to do is find at least three solid, independent and reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this subject, and then summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided. A quick glance suggests you're part of the way, but not quite, there. Or if, as you say, you cannot find better sources, then you should probably drop this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked 3 web articles and a contemporary journal article which all provide significant coverage of this subject. How should I demonstrate that these are reliable independant secondary sources? Gaff33 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff33: are they, though; are they reliable and independent secondary sources? I'm not saying they categorically aren't, I just have no idea what Urban75.org, BrixtonBuzz.com, or SouthLondonClub.co.uk are. All I can say is they're quite not The Times, or even the Big Issue. (Nor, I would argue, does the first of those provide significant coverage.) Which is another way of saying that quality, even more than quantity, of sources matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are local news sites, local history clubs, and so on. Once upon a time they might have been local print magazine, but hardly anyone publishes physical media nowadays.
...But I guess that's my question! What's the metric here? Who can say if these are reliable? Gaff33 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff33: I can say categorically that you need better sources than 'local history clubs' etc. Anyone can set up a 'local news site', esp. in this day and age, and write whatever they want. The onus isn't on us to prove that such a source is non-reliable; it is on whoever is wanting to rely on that source to demonstrate that it is. The fact that none of the sources cited in this draft passes muster in any obvious way, means that the WP:GNG notability standard simply isn't yet met. Hope that clarifies the matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm still confused though - how are you able to say categorically that these sources are non-reliable? Or conversely how am I to know if a source is reliable? Is there some sort of list of "generally reliable" sources that I could check (ie. The Times, The Big Issue, etc)? Not being facetious - I'm genually trying to figure out what the metric is.
Also you said "none" my sources pass? Even the 1877 issue of "The Builder" magazine? Does the same issue apply here (ie. in 1877 anyone could have gotten anything published in this magazine?)? If so it feels an impossible barrier. Presumably I could still cite this as a primary soruce? Gaff33 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about reliable sources. In short, a reliable source will have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- they don't just publish whatever the writers write, an editor reviews the reporting for accuracy. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff33: okay, yes, the Builder article may be solid; I didn't have that in mind, sorry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff33 As the person who declined it, I can also say that bonmarchebusiness and southlondonclub are both obviously not independent sources.
Regarding "who can say if they're reliable", for something like a history blog, look for listed sources. If there are none, it's not verifiable in itself - so not particularly good for our purposes either, unless for some reason you need to say "such-and-such blog wrote about this topic on this date and said blah-blah." Personally, I'm happy to accept that a local history blog shows some amount of "notability" (see WP:N) and probably isn't going to be disastrously incorrect about something (as long as the article isn't something high-stakes, like a biography of a living person or something about a contentious topic). But if I'm going to accept an article with some wibbly sources like that I want to see at least one that is basically unimpeachable. Otherwise, I think the article's chances of surviving a deletion discussion are almost nil, and that's the standard we're trying to apply here. (Also, I don't want anyone's first article to be sent for deletion if I can help it!)
The Builder article doesn't have a byline, which makes me wonder if it's independent reporting or basically a 19thc press release. I'd have to check before calling it reliable, secondary, and independent. -- asilvering (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gaff33, not sure if this helps but I did a quick newspaper trawl and found a couple more sources (but mostly got bored of job averts, and store adverts) KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's impressive stuff! Thanks!
(I'm curious whether "The Noorwood News" in the 1930s is materially different to "Brixton Buzz" today - both are local special interest journals. It is contemporary at least, and from a historical perspective it is endlessly fascinating!) Gaff33 (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ever wonder who invented shopping? Les Francais, silly". The Independent. 8 April 2000. p. 37. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
  • "Britain's First Radio Train - A Bon Marche Novelty". The Norwood News. 10 August 1934. p. 2. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
  • "Mt T. Priestley Resigns". The Norwood News. 21 April 1939. p. 18. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
  • "An Inducement to Visit Brixton". The Norwood News. 2 October 1936. p. 16. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
  • "A Greater Bon Marche". The Norwood News. 19 October 1934. p. 6. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
  • "Under One roof - Bon Marche's Concession To Customers". The Norwood News. 14 September 1928. p. 2. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
Gaff33, Doh didn't even notice most from Norwood News... two more non Norwood News, inc Selfridges taking controlling interest. KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "Young London" article is great, especially the part where they say "he would very soon be ruining himself" - which is exactly what happened! :D
Thanks again! Gaff33 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Bonnie1981

I created an article on Echelon Studios, which is already mentioned a number of times on Wikipedia and has received press coverage since 2004 so I don't understand why it's not considered notable? 

 Bonnie1981 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonnie1981: it's not considered notable because the sources cited do not meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. We need to see significant press coverage, not just passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Ositarich

Links were added cos i felt i needed references. Should i remove the links? What should be done. Thanks Ositarich (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ositarich: this draft has been deleted as promotional, so there is nothing that should be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Neilmelawati

hi, I had submitted a few tries, but keep getting rejected. may I know how can I improve my article to make it approve? Neilmelawati (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined twice and finally rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It has also been tagged for speedy deletion as purely promotional. The draft is barely referenced, with the one citation being Twitter, which is user-generated content where anyone can literally spew out whatever they want: thus, extremely unreliable (see WP:TWITTER.) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left my standard deletion notice with helpful links -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 30 June 2023 review of submission by Igor Markov

I'd appreciate some explanation/reasoning for the reviewer's decision. Which part of the text reads like an advertisement? (there are no judgements, superlatives, etc) Which of the references are considered sufficient? Aren't the in-depth CNN and MSNBC interviews relevant? If Anderson Cooper wants to know about this organization, doesn't that imply notability? I know, expecting common sense from the Wikipedia is too much, but there is clear evidence of notability even for someone who is critical. Igor Markov 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Igor Markov: the whole draft is essentially promotional, because it contains nothing of encyclopaedic value, and therefore seems to exist only to spread awareness of an organisation called Bluecheck Ukraine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, let me quote: "
Bluecheck Ukraine is a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (EIN 92-1021572) established in 2022 during Russian invasion of Ukraine to support the people of Ukraine." This is a statement of fact, and the number makes it easy to verify (including the goals of the organization). I am puzzled by your claim about "nothing of encyclopedic value". Are you saying this sentence is promotional? Let's compare to the first paragraph of some established article, such as CNN. Is that promotional too? Thank you.
Igor Markov 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, I made a few edits to the text, but not the first sentence. Comments on the new text would be useful too. Also, did you mean that something in the text poisoned it or that every since sentence was promotional? (the latter would be difficult to understand, given the first sentence in particular) Igor Markov 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are rarely relevant to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine To state the obvious, an interview is not a monologue, Anderson Cooper of CNN has no connection of the subject and does not repeat material produced by others - he is one of the most established TV reporters in the US.
.
The very fact that Liev Schreiber was invited to CNN represents that CNN editors - who are are independent - thought BlueCheck was notable. Also, in the process of interview, Anderson Cooper says things about BlueCheck. Granted, the Wikipedia review policies are widely open to interpretation, but not accepting a pair of CNN and MSNBC interviews as evidence of notability seems like a stretch, at least to someone living on this planet. Igor Markov 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

01:32, 1 July 2023 review of submission by 72.252.188.194

I have done the citation issues raised by the reviewer. Please provide guidance where possible so that the submission is improved. Thanks in advance. 72.252.188.194 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:42, 1 July 2023 review of submission by 2402:8100:2178:D0F8:0:0:90A3:37DA

What changes I need to do 2402:8100:2178:D0F8:0:0:90A3:37DA (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no changes you need to do, because the article has been rejected given the subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. Unless you can prove that Krish kajia is notable by Wikipedia's standards (a quick google search pulls up no reliable sources, so I find that extremely unlikely, and there isn't even a claim to notability in the article), no matter what changes you make, the article will never be accepted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 1 July 2023 review of submission by Salindersingh505

I need to make Page on Manav Faakir.. Can you assist me how to do that>?? Salindersingh505 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salindersingh505 Why do you need to do this? We don't have "pages" here, we have 'articles. Your draft article was rejected, and will not be considered further absent a fundamental change here. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 1 July 2023 review of submission by Dr. Tanmay Goswami

i want to see my deleted article so i can review my mistakes 

Dr. Tanmay Goswami (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Tanmay Goswami I've fixed your post to provide a link to the deleted draft which was in your sandbox. It's best to create new drafts via Articles for Creation or the Article Wizard. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Any article about you should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 1 July 2023 review of submission by Charliephere

i need more help to make this more like an actual wikipedia page and to just add more detail with the information Charliephere (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB for starters and note that they are called articles NOT pages. Your draft currently gives no indication that the topic is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 1 July 2023 review of submission by V.B.Speranza

Need help finding reliable sources and more information about Tom Rice V.B.Speranza (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V.B.Speranza The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This page is not for requesting co-authors to work with you or do research for you. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 1 July 2023 review of submission by ThomFett

My article was rejected for lacking reliable sources, but I am the reliable source. I'm Thomas Sloat. How do I fix this? ThomFett (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ThomFett You can't, a topic must be written about in independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. If no independent sources have written about it, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. You are a firsthand source, but that is not what we mean by a reliable source.
The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that it cannot be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted- but you need to summarize what independent reliable sources say, not what you say. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

02:56, 2 July 2023 review of submission by John.GGVV

I need to know if my sources are realbility or not. thanks in advance. John.GGVV (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John.GGVV: if by "realbility" you mean reliable (?), then yes, sources #1–6 are reliable, as sources go. (Sources #7–8 are obviously just commercial operations.) Whether they actually support anything in the draft, or provide sufficient coverage to help establish notability, I don't know, as I haven't looked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay thanks. John.GGVV (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 2 July 2023 review of submission by Aynf224

Hi, Supports, Please give indetail the step by step guidance to improve my article. The said article was in sandbox and declined. Thanks Aynf224 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aynf224: you need to demonstrate that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms; this almost certainly requires sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard, namely multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of this person.
Wild claims, like the ones in the 2nd para, also need to be substantiated, and everything must be clearly supported by citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1162992760"