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
Jvaldry (talk | contribs)
36 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Tiffany_Ana_López
Line 406: Line 406:
::Thank you very much for the word you suggested. about too much references i am totally agree with you. three strongest references will be good enough. I will definitely follow this policy: [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill]].Best.-- [[User:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="Georgia" size="3" style="color:navy">'''Patricia'''</font>]] [[User Talk:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="tahoma" size="1" style="color: grey">(Talk)</font>]] 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for the word you suggested. about too much references i am totally agree with you. three strongest references will be good enough. I will definitely follow this policy: [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill]].Best.-- [[User:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="Georgia" size="3" style="color:navy">'''Patricia'''</font>]] [[User Talk:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="tahoma" size="1" style="color: grey">(Talk)</font>]] 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::: wow. amazing .thanks a lot for tidied up.Best.--[[User:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="Georgia" size="3" style="color:navy">'''Patricia'''</font>]] [[User Talk:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="tahoma" size="1" style="color: grey">(Talk)</font>]] 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC),
::: wow. amazing .thanks a lot for tidied up.Best.--[[User:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="Georgia" size="3" style="color:navy">'''Patricia'''</font>]] [[User Talk:Patricia Mannerheim|<font face="tahoma" size="1" style="color: grey">(Talk)</font>]] 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC),

== 16:48, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Jvaldry ==
{{Lafc|username=Jvaldry|ts=16:48, 21 August 2023|draft=Draft:Tiffany_Ana_López}}
What are the best sources to cite to improve chances of acceptance? I added JSTOR articles and a few others.

2nd question: Should I remove her middle name? Most of her publication's include her middle name but most news stories and web articles don't. [[User:Jvaldry|Jvaldry]] ([[User talk:Jvaldry|talk]]) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:48, 21 August 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


August 15

02:37, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Johsebb

The rejection of this article (with an invitation to revise) is based on a number of factors, but I'm puzzled by them. Some appear to be general:

  • This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. My sources are all published and most are well-known. Articles are in refereed journals. Which sources are not reliable? Which statements are not adequately supported? A number of points are supported by wikilinks rather than books or journal articles: Is that a problem?
  • This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view... What are examples of a non-formal tone or a non-neutral point of view?

In addition, the reviewer has made three comments:

  • Not enough inline citations. What are examples of statements that fail to have a needed citation?
  • Does not read like a Wikipedia article. This is a bit unclear. I have tried to follow both the general Wikipedia style requirements and those more specifically of the Mathematics WikiProject. Where have I failed?
  • Overly complicated to the average reader. The subject of this article is technical and theoretical. I've tried to make the article accessible by introducing it with examples that anyone can play with, and by continuing to use illustrative examples throughout. I feel that I have pitched this article at roughly the same level as, say, those on group theory and finite fields, for example. Is this not true?

I would sincerely appreciate clarification of these points so that I can move forward on a revision. Thanks for any assistance. Johsebb (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Lucy Ingram

I don't understand why my article on Stephen Buoro was declined (by someone who doesn't even have a special interest in Nigeria or Nigerian literature) for not having good enough references. It has 13 references. The article on Maddie Mortimer only has 8 and that got published. Lucy Ingram (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucy Ingram: firstly, a reviewer does not need to be a subject matter expert to evaluate whether a draft meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for publication.
Secondly, you should not make assumptions as to other editors' expertise or qualifications.
And thirdly, it isn't the number of sources which matters. Three solid ones may be enough to establish notability, whereas 13 flaky ones may not.
And finally, by comparing your draft to other articles that may exist you're on a hiding to nothing. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely has more than three solid sources. Lucy Ingram (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucy Ingram: and which ones would those be? Note that interviews don't count, as don't any other primary sources. I'd say the PW piece is okay, but that's just one, and one isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lucy Ingram. Please read the golden rule carefully, and evaluate the sources against those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that article reviewers or Wikipedia editors in general be experts in, or even knowledgeable in, the topic areas that they write about. Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic and showing how it is notable- such as a notable creative professional.
For one, interviews with the subject cannot be used to establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.
You write that his first novel had positive reviews- this could mean that his novel merits an article but not him personally- an article about the novel could summarize those reviews. To write about him personally it would help to summarize reviews of him as a writer generally. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 15 August 2023 review of submission by S.s.Grigera

Hello, this website was already declined 2x although it is similarly structured like other spin-off companies and uses similar reference sources. Could you please double check if it will be rejected again? Thank you for your support. S.s.Grigera (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.s.Grigera Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles that you have seen are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, and even exist for years. We can only address what we know about. Standards have also changed over time and what was once acceptable may be no longer, and it too is simply unaddressed yet. If you would like to help us, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Note that companies do not merit articles just because they exist- there is criteria for inclusion, which we callnotability, like the definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies (just like people) do not merit articles. An article must not merely document the existence of the company and tell what it does- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. We want sources that, on their own and not based on company materials(like interviews, press releases, and announcements of routine activities) to tell what they see as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). Please read Your First Article.
It seems that you work for this company(as you uploaded its logo), please make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure.
I would add that by uploading the company logo to Commons, you have made it available for anyone to use and sell as long as attribution is provided. If your company wants to do that, that's fine, but if not, it will need to be removed from Commons and uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use". This does carry some restrictions like not being able to be used in drafts, but images are not relevant to the draft approval process anyway, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S.s.Grigera: publicity materials and (other) primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 83.122.52.29

Javad Ramezani 83.122.52.29 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 66.214.255.122

Preemptively submitted an article for review before a coworker was able to review it. Any possibility of removing it from the public sphere to review? 66.214.255.122 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, we don't really do pre-reviews but I can say your article in it's current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia (which is why a speedy deletion tag has been placed on it.)
It is full of promotional language and reads like a PR piece for an advert. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which does not allow promotion of any kind.
A Wikipedia article serves only to paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary source say about a subject. Please also check Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which is our threshold for what companies and organisations can have a Wikipedia article. If AEA Ribbon Mics does not pass the criteria in that policy, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
You also mention that you submitted it before a coworker was able to review it. By chance, are you an employee of AEA Ribbon Mics? If so, you must declare that you have both a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Not doing so is a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Service.
Writing a new article on Wikipedia is difficult. You must remember that 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.
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) 20:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 15 August 2023 review of submission by BurningBlaze05

Do have any suggestions for my page? There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that have little to none quality. How should I get my page up to a standard that is acceptable? BurningBlaze05 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurningBlaze05 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Please confirm that you have read the decline reason, and what additional help you feel you need 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Globalsoccerhero

Can someone please assist–this page continues to be deleted even after following citing requirements. I am also using the same citing sources as other Guyana National Team players. Globalsoccerhero (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Perhaps those other articles are problematic as well and simply not acted on yet. The draft was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Jujupiter

Hi there! I'd like to add an image of the artist but have no idea how to get an image free of rights of him. What can I do to get one? I have sent him a direct message on Instagram but no replies. Any ideas what I could do? Thank you for your help! Jujupiter (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. It's not necessary to have an image in order for the draft to be accepted.
That said, the easiest way to get an image in terms of copyright is to take the image yourself. If that's not possible, and if the person does not make an image of themselves available with the appropriate copyright, there's not much you can do. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than worrying about an image, I suggest you put your effort into finding better sources for your draft. I haven't looked in detail, but it looks to me as if none of your sources are independent| of the artist. 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.
Please study the Golden rule, and look for sources that meet all the requirements there (they do not have to be in English, if English sources are not available). If you do not provide some, I predict that the draft will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

02:16, 16 August 2023 review of submission by 173.56.78.92

Would like to see if the revisions are now good enough to be accepted. 173.56.78.92 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft and a reviewer will eventually come and check it. Or if you have a specific question you wish to ask, you can do that here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 16 August 2023 review of submission by AlokMishra123

We have tried creating this page 5 to 6 times, but it gets deleted.

Requesting your help in creating the page. AlokMishra123 (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlokMishra123: this has been each time deleted for being promotional. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 16 August 2023 review of submission by CaptainBondi

Hi,

I've helped edit an article moved to draft due to more sources. I've added different sources, both primary and secondary including from Football NSW which is the official governing body of football in the state. It has been rejected due not reliable sources. I am confused on what now constitutes as reliable sources for a football team? CaptainBondi (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainBondi: my guess, and it is only that, would be that the problem isn't so much the reliability or otherwise of the sources cited, but that there aren't enough citations to support the draft contents. (The not adequately supported by reliable sources in that particular decline notice can be a bit ambiguous, as it could mean either unreliable sources or insufficient support by way of citations.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I meant to add that notability is also not shown, given that three of the four sources cited are primary, and one is very close to the subject. Per WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Would adding additional sources from well-established news outlets covering sports in the country satisfy independent and reliable secondary sources? Thanks CaptainBondi (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainBondi: if those additional sources provide significant coverage of this club/team specifically, then yes, that would potentially establish notability. (Note that significant coverage excludes passing mentions, as well as routine reporting such as match coverage, player transfers, manager interviews, etc.)
The other issue is supporting the draft better, so that it is clear which source provides what information. For this purpose, we don't necessarily need more sources, but more citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 16 August 2023 review of submission by David Madbellics

Hello, I'm created draft about illegal recruitment, can you explain to me why, and and you also explain to me the requirements or steps how your draft will be finally approved? David Madbellics (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Madbellics: that's just a dictionary definition, not a viable encyclopaedia article. Also, being supported by just a single source – indeed, a dictionary – isn't enough to show that the term/concept is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Please expand on the content, and add more/better sources which meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks thank you very much, good evening David Madbellics (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 16 August 2023 review of submission by Thompkin1961

Just wondering if this now passes muster as I have made what I think are the necessary additions based on the last suggestion. Thompkin1961 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will either accept it or leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 16 August 2023 review of submission by Da Piped M

Yall know more and better sources of this dude? Da Piped M (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was rejected some months ago it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to others to provide sources for this "dude". If you are writing the draft, you need to provide and summarize sufficient sources to establish notability. That has not been done, despite several attempts, so the draft was finally rejected, and won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Sourcing & Notability

Hello! I submitted an article (Draft:Underscores (musician)) for review last week, and was not accepted, for issues with sourcing and notability.

I generally understand why there were issues with sourcing - the reviewer left the comment, "Youtube, Soundcloud, facebook, etc, may not be used as references." I included those sources (YouTube, SoundCloud, and Facebook) because I believed them to be self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Some of the sources were definitely stretching the guidelines a bit, so I removed them. The remaining self-published and questionable sources were published by the subject of the article, and are about the subject of the article. Is there any chance someone would be willing to take a look at references 11 and 15, and let me know if they are acceptable exceptions to the self-published or questionable sources rule?

Concerning notablity - I was basing this article on the notability guideline "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The published works in question are this article in Rolling Stone, this article in the Atlantic, this article (along with others) in Ones To Watch (which is a newsblog), and this article (along with others I didn't include, since I thought I had established notability) by The Fader. All of these sources are focused specifically on the subject of the article (they are either profiles of her or reports on her work), and as far as I can tell, do not fall under any of the exceptions to the notability criteria. I'm wondering if the reviewer's comment about notability was primarily in response to the questionable sourcing, or if these sources in and of themselves do not meet the notability criteria. Would someone be willing to give me some detail on notability as well?

Thanks! Remainsuncertain (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Remainsuncertain it seems you have not read the comment, left at the same time. PLease conirm you have read it, and then ask for such additional help as you require 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw your comment on my talk page and replied for clarification, tagging you - not sure if that's the best way to do it, but I came here after a few days since I didn't hear back. Unless there's another one you're talking about that I haven't seen? BTW, my reply to your comment on my talk page is a little out of date, since someone else made some edits in the meantime. Thanks again!! Remainsuncertain (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

03:59, 17 August 2023 review of submission by Neilf72

I am trying to have my page resubmitting, but the captcha requested comes up every single to I try to submit. I place all the captcha details in correctly but just keeps repeating every time I enter the new captcha phrase and click submit. Neilf72 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was submitted correctly and is in queue at Draft:William Thomas Drain.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Neilf72:--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22, 17 August 2023 review of submission by Pragati Soni

I edited the article after it got rejected but I can't see the updated status on my dashboard. Please assist me in figuring out if the revised version of the page is good enough to be published or not. Pragati Soni (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was declined today. You will need to take a look at the message templates and make adjustments to the draft accordingly. Once done, you can resubmit. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Pragati Soni: --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:40, 17 August 2023 review of submission by EtherealOwl

I created my first article and submitted for review. But it was immediately declined because of lack of references. I updated it, still declined on basis of lack of significant coverage. I again edited and submitted it for review. I haven't had any more feedbacks. Does it mean it is being reviewed?

Plus I want to mention, that the biography is of an army official and therefore more references cannot be provided. EtherealOwl (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you submitted it correctly so someone will review it. Once it is reviewed, you will receive a message on your talk page with an update. I cannot advise how long this will take so your patience is appreciated. On another note, regardless of being an army official, reliable sources are needed to show notability so if these are the only references you have the topic may not be notable. I will ask how you are able to know so much information about this person despite not having references to support the information (a lot of the content has no sources at all)?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @EtherealOwl: --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

04:13, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Farnoodex

Hi, I hope all is well. I created an article page titled "Farnoodex." I submitted it for review a couple of weeks ago. Would you mind taking a look at the draft page? If you need anything, please let me know. Thank you. Farnoodex (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP: AUTOBIO, it is strongly discouraged to write articles about yourself. This article will, more likely than not, be rejected by a reviewer. Applescapable (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Drsushmarajput

i am not able to submit my draft getting this error WikiProject classification tags Start typing to search for tags ... Adding the 1–4 most applicable WikiProjects is plenty. For example, if you add the Physics tag, you do not need to also add the Science tag. An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. Drsushmarajput (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsushmarajput: sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking? But I assume the draft you're referring to is  Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Sushma Rajput? In which case, I can tell you there is little point in submitting that, as it is entirely unreferenced and very promotional. Please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your exploits and achievements. (In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Driveslave

Hallo This draft page has not been accepted, but i do not understand why. I received a message saying there is no references tha can be verified, but if it is a new page the only references can be taken outside wikipedia. what should i do to see the page published? thx Driveslave (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Driveslave: you need to tell us where you got the information from, by citing your sources; see WP:REFB for advice.
What's more, those sources must meet the WP:GNG standard, to establish that the subject is notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 18 August 2023 review of submission by 83.2.41.42

Hello, I would like to ask for assistance in submitting this Wikipedia article. It got rejected for a lack of reputable sources to back it, but as far as I can see, it does have a number of them included in current version and they seem to tick all these boxes: - in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) - reliable - secondary - independent of the subject At least 4 of the added sources match these criteria, (two in-depth reviews form GamingonLinux and 1 from PCMag, 1 from NAG) there are several non-english reviews added as well. How should I proceed, are we close? 83.2.41.42 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language references are fine. Youtube is deprecated as a reference. You should work from good references instead of finding references to suit your text. Tailor your text to suit the good references you find. WP:42 is a shorthand good guide to references 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

Dear Reviewers,

I'm reaching out to discuss the recent article that received attention from prominent national news outlets like Times of India, NDTV, Aaj Tak, News18, Jagran, Times Now, Hindustan, and Zee News. However, a reviewer raised concerns about the reliability of these sources. I've noticed that various Indian articles have consistently referenced these news sources as reliable points of reference.

Could you kindly provide guidance on selecting credible independent sources? Additionally, if there's a list of reputable sources available, it would greatly aid my future research.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, Incognitopublisher (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is generally unreliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for further help. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

I'm baffled by why this hasn't been approved yet. It is supported by published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject Please review and advise Gsandler (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The notability of Douglas Rigby is now well substantiated by reliable secondary sources. I don't understand why it has not been accepted yet?

"A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Gsandler (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gsandler As noted at the top of your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,343 pending submissions waiting for review." There is an extemely limited number of volunteers to conduct reviews of thousands of drafts; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Addax00

I need help to add a reference to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8962748. This is the reference used on this article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Hardest. The article I have created is just a translation of the same content. Addax00 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Addax00: there is no point in referencing Wikidata, as that wouldn't be a valid source for anything. And I don't see any references in the es.wiki article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

09:02, 19 August 2023

Доброго дня! Будь ласка, допоможіть мені краще зрозуміти, що саме потрібно редагувати в статті https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924) Чи правильно я розумію, що потрібно редагувати тільки розділ Біографія, інші розділи можна залишити без змін?

Good day! Please help me better understand what exactly needs to be edited in the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924). Am I correct in understanding that only the 'Biography' section needs to be edited, and the other sections can be left unchanged? 

Inna Ogiievska (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things wrong with this draft, but the biggest problem is that it is completely unreferenced. We need to see where this information is coming from. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Roast Etti

One of the reviewers said that the draft should show that the subject meets one of the eight conditions listed below. I wonder if any of the following (that are visible on the internet) may be considered? Grateful for your advice. 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (His recent chapters have high citation results. He has been selected for lead chapters in books. His books have been widely purchased by libraries in the US and Europe as seen in WorldCat. His research in international communication led to him being appointed as Foundation Chair of a new department). 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (He has received the prestigious Order of Australia from the Queen of England, as Head of State, for services to education). 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (He was elected Secretary General of the prestigious International Association for Media and Communication Research that was set up by UNESCO in the 1950s). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (He has been a Visiting Professor at Sorbonne - Paris III in France; Jilin University, Communication University of China, South West University of Politics and Law, and South East Normal University - in China). 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. (He was appointed Foundation Chair in International Communication at Macquarie University. He was also appointed to the prestigious position of Professor Emeritus at the same university). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. (He has served as Dean of the School of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy). 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (His commentaries have been published in China Daily and other media. He chaired a panel with former Australian PM John Howard and Foreign Minister Gareth Evans in Parliament House, Australia). 8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (He has been Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of International Communication (Taylor and Francis) since 1994. Roast Etti (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roast Etti: I'd say #8 is your best bet, assuming it can be verified from a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 19 August 2023 review of submission by MUBARAK SHEIKH

WHY REJECTED MY PAGE? AND WHY NOT PUBLISHED MY PAGE YET? I AM LOOKING MY PAGE IN GOOGLE DID'NT GET MUBARAK SHEIKH (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MUBARAK SHEIKH: please don't SHOUT.
Your draft has been deleted as promotional. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about yourself. Try one of the many social media or blogging platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

This process is getting absurd The New York Times reviews are more than "passing mentions." They discuss the book and the author, Douglas Rigby, in enough depth to provide more than meet the Wikipedia guidelines. What's more, several of the citations are not accessible online. Have the reviewers checked those? Finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their "notability." I think this article provides substantial documentation. Gsandler (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC Gsandler (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the sources fail verification, others are passing mentions, I can't see the New York Times review, perhaps you can elaborate on what it says in the text? Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsandler: RE "finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their notability" – whether or not being published by a major publishing house automatically makes a book notable, that would be the book's notability you're talking about, not the author's. There is nothing in WP:AUTHOR that confers publisher-derived notability on an author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the first source in the draft is actually written by the draft creator G. Sandler. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 19 August 2023 review of submission by HikingManiac2010

Asking if my submission for Lynn Sorensen has been approved as notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? If not, what more can I do to prove that he's had a lifelong professional music career with world renown bands? Thank you! HikingManiac2010 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected twice, you have zero independent reliable sources to support any of the content, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Pinkcell23

I believe I addressed any concerns some time ago about my Wiki article on Chris Jonas, and now I am wondering if it needs to be resubmitted or if it will continue to be reviewed as it now stands. I'm a little unclear on how the process works and I am still hopeful it will go live soon. Thank you for your help! 

Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pinkcell23. Your draft was submitted for review, and it'll be reviewed in due course - though it may take up to four months. Qcne (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate it. Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

Hi, I'm baffled... as I have provided numerous citations related to the subject that were published in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, such as The New York Times, Harpers Magazine, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History, New York History, The Kirkus Review, The Red Rock News newspaper, and the Modernist Manifesto.

What's more the subject has written books published by major publishers, such as Harper and Brothers and JP Lippincott.

This more than meets Wiki's general notability requirement:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 

Gsandler (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gsandler. Unfortunately your article has now been rejected and can't be considered further. Qcne (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:58, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal

I have re-done this article 3 times with a ton of secondary credits and each time it seems to be getting a _subjective_ "this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry despite this person having a two-decade career with numerous credits for writing, producing, voice over work and production in multiple entertainment mediums. He's even already on wikipedia pages (listed as winner/runner up in comedy competitions) - where, ironically other winners/runners up have far less. Examples: Tom McTigue - was a series regular on Baywatch - only his bio/imdb page is a source Ngaio Bealum - similar level of work, but mostly in the pot space, many sources are primary and not secondary Bill Radke - is a west coast radio host now - one of the sources being his station bio page Ricarlo Flanagan - this person was a semifinalist and had a handful of episodes - the notable was 4 as "davey" on Shameless; every source is an obituary Preacher Lawson - 4 sources, two of which are his YouTube channel

I could keep clicking through, but this is really feeling like once a single person decides "not for Wikipedia," the bar gets progressively higher and higher.

I would also point out that on the Stan Against Evil Page - Stan Against Evil - Matt also appears as the credited writer in Season 3. What's crazy is the only other writer without a Wiki page there is Jessica Conrad and that's downright criminal considering her career. Does Wikipedia consider writing to not be a substantial portion of entertainment? Is it only front of camera or directing that count? Trying to figure out what else needs to be found here - not really getting great feedback. 


Midwesterngal (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midwesterngal: this person can be notable in one of two ways, by meeting either
  1. WP:GNG, but the sources cited aren't sufficient for this, with the LA Times piece being the only one that comes even close (note that interviews do not count), and it alone isn't enough; or
  2. WP:ENTERTAINER, but there is nothing in the draft to suggest this is the case.
So no, it isn't a subjective standard we're working to, it is very much an objective one; and it isn't a single person deciding, you've had three reviewers (and now me) all reaching the same conclusion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Midwesterngal Just FYI you don't need to provide the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article- simply place the target page title in double brackets, as I've done here. Please read other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused. The other sources seem to rely heavily on first-party sources (bios created by stations, managers and other similar items, including one of the above where all of the sources is a variation on that person's obituary (and, frankly, getting an obit in Variety involves emailing it with verifiable entertainment credits - and that's the same for the other sources).
He already appears in Wikipedia - will reviews of other media help? I can also get into the SF archives and find an older review if that helps.
This seems ridiculous considering his very active IMDB which includes shows with major presence, including Beware the Batman which is an IP based on that small indie DC comic publisher that seems to be going places.
I will add all of those with some minor adjustments to the article and hopefully this will help your team find that a writer in the business for over two decades with voice, acting, producing credits and a ten-year podcast which has led to additional credits just may qualify. Midwesterngal (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Midwesterngal. A should be entirely based on reliably published sources, and almost entirely based on sources that are wholly independent of the subject - not written by, published by, or based on information directly from, the subject or the subject's associates. If little or no such material has been published - i.e., few or no independent writers have chosen to write in depth about the subject, and been published by reliable organs - there is essentially nothing that can go into an article irrespective of what the person may have done, said, or created, or how famous, popular, or influential they may be. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Midwesterngal, any draft that includes language like has made a career that combined his passion for is going to be received by reviewers with well-placed skepticism. That's promotional "booster" language, not neutral encyclopedia writing. Also, per WP:IMDB, you should be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. The only things that matter on Wikipedia are references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Weinhold that devote significant coverage to Weinhold as a person. Passing mentions and lists of credits and products of press releases or PR activity are of no use. As for the other articles you listed, Wikipedia has over 6.7 million articles and at least one million of them are in bad shape. Wikipedia editors work 24/7/365 to either improve or delete these articles. We do not accept the existence of older poor quality articles as a valid argument to create new poor quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for those other articles that you listed, Midwesterngal, all except one are listed as stub class, which is the lowest possible rating. One is rated start class, because there is some coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If you were taking a university level course, would you model your contributions on the work submitted by D students, with one barely getting a C mark? Or would you strive for a higher grade? Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

07:40, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Zia1985

Article creation Zia1985 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror

Hey, I am working on a Wikipedia Page for Markus H.-P. Müller. He is a very influential person in the financial world with his focus on ESG and associated thought-leadership. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Markus_H.-P._M%C3%BCller#Early_life_and_education Sadly it was declined twice. The help page told me I had too many sources. I now reduced to number of sources and focussed on summarizing the information from the sources like Reuters, Bloomberg and CNBC to form this article. Do you think this article may pass if I resubmit it now? 

Drmirror (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmirror: we don't normally provide pre-reviews on demand, but given that I have previously reviewed this and am familiar with the sources cited, I can tell you that this would not be accepted since none of the sources meet the WP:GNG standard for notability.
On a separate but related matter, you have not yet responded to the COI query I posted on your talk page ten days ago. Please do so now. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have answered.
I just do not understad which sources I should find as he is one of the most influential thought leaders in the finance industry. This is also stated in the articles from renowned sources. The article just summarizes well recognized articles in the financial industry. I do not see a the difference compared, for example, to this article: Marion Laboure.
I certainly do not want to discredit you, but it is just frustrating when I got told in the first decline that the Bloomberg articles are solid and I need more of them. Then I find more of this sort of sources and it gets declined again. Drmirror (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources include [1], [2],[3],[4],[5], [6]and a passing mention [7] hope this helps. Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and the rest are Müller commenting on things. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see published sources talking about the subject, not the subject talking about something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, it is getting clearer to me. Just to clarify: Primary sources do not qualify as secondary sources are needed which talk about the subject, not the subject talking about something. Correct?
Thank you for your help already. Drmirror (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drmirror, please be aware that thought leader is vapid 21st century promotional business jargon that conveys nothing of value to our readers. "Thought leader" is not a plausible claim of notability. You need to explain what this person has actually accomplished that makes him notable, avoiding all substance free public relations catchphrases. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Vojtik2009

i dont know how to accept it Vojtik2009 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vojtik2009. Your draft has been submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. This may take up to four months. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i want to so that thai boon roong twin tower world trade center be public please make it public thank you Vojtik2009 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojtik2009: I'm guessing you're now talking about a different draft,  Courtesy link: Draft:Thai boon roong company? That will certainly not be published as it stands currently, as the draft (such as it is) is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User indeffed. Qcne (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror

It seems like I do not have enough secondary sources to publish this article just yet. I want to wait a while until more sources are published, and then contiue with this article.

Will the draft be deleted if I do not resubmit within a certain time? Drmirror (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmirror. Unedited drafts are deleted after six months. Just make a few minor edits to reset this clock. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 20 August 2023 review of submission by 46.222.248.116

I added some references for the article. These are advertisements published on some magazines from the UK en 1987-1988. One of the was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_and_Video_Games. I don't know how to add them in order to be correct. 46.222.248.116 (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I'll give some general advice on this draft, as it won't be accepted in it's current state.
The two references you added are just adverts for the game that appeared in a magazine. These are useless for showing notability: we need to see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are not connected to the game - this means not interviews, not adverts, not PR pieces.
The third reference is an instruction manual which is, again, useless for establishing notability.
Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (video games) which explains in detail what sort of references you actually need. If you can't find suitable references, then I am afraid there can be no Wikipedia article.
Also: your External Links section is far too large. Please see the policy at Wikipedia:External links- you should only have one or two immediately relevant links, not random Lets Plays.
Your Commentary section is also completely unsourced. Who stated it was a game from the golden age of Spanish software? We need proof of there being a sequel too.
Sorry, you have a lot more work on this article before it can be accepted.
Let us know if you have any questions, though. Qcne (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 20 August 2023 review of submission by 84.222.36.186

Excuse me, why was It rejected? This song won Sanremo, how can it come to be "not encyclopedically relevant"? I think basically any other Sanremo-winning song has its own page... 84.222.36.186 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has said it's "not encyclopedically relevant", but that the references (which are all but non-existent) do not establish notability. It probably is notable, but we need to see proof of that by way of reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, now it's clearer. I've added some references, including an interview from Italian national broadcast (Rai) 84.222.36.186 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't added any new references. You've added one external link, but it isn't cited anywhere, so isn't technically a reference. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

01:09, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

Although this article has received coverage from national news media in India, it has been nominated for rejection due to insufficient evidence of significant coverage. Could someone kindly assist me in identifying more reliable and independent sources that could support its content? Is national news not considered a reliable source of information? The list of prominent national news outlets includes Times of India, NDTV, Aaj Tak, News18, Jagran, Times Now, Hindustan, and Zee News. We need to engage in a discussion regarding the level of coverage required. Alternatively, please provide guidance on which news media or website coverage would be considered reliable for creating an article. Incognitopublisher (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Incognitopublisher. Our article Paid news in India describes the unethical practices of many Indian news sources, especially when it comes to the entertainment industry. This affects the Times of India, Zee News, Hindustan Times, and many other news outlets. As for the references in your draft, they seem very weak to me, and likely generated by paid public relations activity. We need significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources in order to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 21 August 2023 review of submission by VishalParmar1

why my submission was rejected VishalParmar1 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pravin Parmar does not meet the strict notability threshold as explained in this policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people). Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Shabiha Tasnim

It is not promotional. How can I make it acceptable? Shabiha Tasnim (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted for unambiguous promotion or advertising. The fact it was titled 'MD Munib Fuyad's Bio' (emphasis mine) is a poor start. Wikipedia articles are about people, not for people.
Please carefully read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which details that Wikipedia is not a social media site or a way to promote a subject. Qcne (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Artendeavour789

I am requesting assistance to update the sub title of Richard Malone (designer) to Richard Malone (artist) as Richard Malone is a practicing visual artist as opposed to "designer" Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Draft:Richard Malone (Artist) and Richard Malone (designer) – which is an article, not a draft – exist, with the same content. If you want Draft:Richard Malone (Artist) deleted, then click "edit" and paste this text: {{delete|G7}}. It will tag it for speedy deletion at the sole author's (your) request, and will be soon deleted by an administrator. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should use the "move" function not submit a new draft and do you have a conflict of interest with the subject by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no conflict of interest. they are an artist as opposed to designer. so ideally would change the exiting article (designer) to (artist) Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes with what the reliable sources say, and most seem to call him a designer [8]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah I see, they would call themselves an artist however. so it is not possible to change what is in the disambiguation terms? Artendeavour789 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789 Yes. Read all of the thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Admin help}} is it possible to change the subtitle "designer" to "artist" Artendeavour789 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the move function. You don't need to be an administrator. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789: per which source (would they call themselves an artist)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789: I'm assuming you want the published article moved to a different title? In which case, this is not done by submitting a copy of it for AfC review.
The disambiguation term (in the brackets) is only there to distinguish the article from others with the same name; therefore, as long as it isn't incorrect, it shouldn't really matter whether it says 'designer' or 'artist'.
That said, anyone, including yourself, can move the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. is it possible to change it? Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789 Yes. Read all of the foregoing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Uzungol1

Hello, Would it be possible to accept the draft of the article please? Uzungol1 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uzungol1. You've submitted your draft for review, as it states in the notice this may take four months or longer due to the current backlog. Please be patient. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, apologies I thought it might have be accelerated since I already waited the 4 months prior to it being declined and resubmitted Uzungol1 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla

Why my article was declined My article was declined which is actually a autobiography. The editor is saying articles about self or individual persons are not available but kindly check the below link he is also an individual and his article was approved and also we can see plenty of self articles are approved, How?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Mukherjee Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla.
Please very carefully read the policy on biographies of living people here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Unfortunately Wikipedia has millions of articles and many are not suitable, they simply have not been improved or removed yet. The existence of another article has no bearing on how your draft will be judged. Qcne (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla I would also add to the above that the fact that an article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Patricia Mannerheim

HI.I have added three new, reliable, independent and secondary sources to the article. In addition to Farsi, two sources are also in English. But one word has confused me: Lecturer. My question: Is this university world class? Raitng maybe? I added this title to the article. Does my edit meet the policies? What is its alternative word in English Wikipedia? Assistant Professor? or something else.Best. Patricia (Talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Patricia Mannerheim. It looks like Mehdi was not actually employed by the University as a teacher or professor, so I think public speaker would be better?
Your last clause in the opening sentence is suffering a bit from Wikipedia:Citation overkill however. Maybe reduce it to just the three strongest references? Qcne (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tidied up some of the grammar as it wasn't quite correct English in some places. Qcne (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the word you suggested. about too much references i am totally agree with you. three strongest references will be good enough. I will definitely follow this policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill.Best.-- Patricia (Talk) 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow. amazing .thanks a lot for tidied up.Best.--Patricia (Talk) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC),[reply]

16:48, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Jvaldry

What are the best sources to cite to improve chances of acceptance? I added JSTOR articles and a few others.

2nd question: Should I remove her middle name? Most of her publication's include her middle name but most news stories and web articles don't. Jvaldry (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1171523729"