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
Line 852: Line 852:
::::Mr. So if Fiddle has visited my site he will also have noticed that all the news sources are visible in photos from the time or before the internet, with national newspaper clippings, 3 art magazines and many reviews written by famous critics, not to mention of the approximately 100 videos published cg that talk about my work as an artist. Everything is documented visually. This means that my draft has and as references, please restore it and let me know.. thanks, Gaetano Minale [[Special:Contributions/87.1.48.40|87.1.48.40]] ([[User talk:87.1.48.40|talk]]) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Mr. So if Fiddle has visited my site he will also have noticed that all the news sources are visible in photos from the time or before the internet, with national newspaper clippings, 3 art magazines and many reviews written by famous critics, not to mention of the approximately 100 videos published cg that talk about my work as an artist. Everything is documented visually. This means that my draft has and as references, please restore it and let me know.. thanks, Gaetano Minale [[Special:Contributions/87.1.48.40|87.1.48.40]] ([[User talk:87.1.48.40|talk]]) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Nothing will happen until your block is addressed. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 19:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Nothing will happen until your block is addressed. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 19:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Mr. Fidlle, Wikipedia's statute suggests that unblocking can be done through an administrator, so I ask you if I can't access Wikipedia because it's blocked, how can I get in touch with an administrator who can study and help me? If you can, why don't you help me? Thank you . Gaetano Minale [[Special:Contributions/87.1.48.40|87.1.48.40]] ([[User talk:87.1.48.40|talk]]) 14:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


== 13:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Vandeep243 ==
== 13:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Vandeep243 ==

Revision as of 14:35, 14 November 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


November 8

00:46, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Airborne84

Hello. After multiple improvements, I believe that Draft:Tactical Assault Group (game) clearly meets the requirements in WP:GNG. The last reviewer who declined the submission, reconsidered here, suggesting a resubmission. Perhaps someone here could review? Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button to place your draft back in the review queue. It will be reviewed in due course the same as any other draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:18, 8 November 2023 review of submission by K-popguardian

Glitch has recieved significantly more coverage in the wake of The Amazing Digital Circus, GlitchX, and Murder Drones. I'm doing my best to update the page right now but it doesn't look like I can submit it at the moment. Any chance someone could help resubmit this page in the future? K-popguardian (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of a draft typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, if I were the last reviewer, I don't think the changes made warrant reconsideration. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:38, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Snowmentil

The Wikipedia page that I made was declined, and I don’t know why. Could someone explain? Snowmentil (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft should adhere to wikipedia's guideline to notability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Editing and contributing (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:45, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Erick Wihardja

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request assistance and guidance with editing and submitting a Wikipedia article.

I have been working on an article about Draft:Vasanta Group (PT. Sirius Surya Sentosa) and have reached a point where I would greatly appreciate the expertise and support of experienced editors to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's content guidelines and quality standards.

The draft article is currently in progress and can be found at the following link: https://w.wiki/85XJ. I have made an effort to make the content as neutral, well-referenced, and informative as possible, but I understand that there might be areas that need improvement.

Here are some specific areas where I would welcome assistance: 

 1. Ensuring the article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.
 2. Reviewing and improving the article's structure, flow, and clarity.
 3. Adding relevant citations from reliable sources to support the information presented.
 4. Identifying and addressing any issues that may hinder the article's acceptance on Wikipedia.

I believe that with the help of experienced Wikipedia editors, we can enhance the article's quality and alignment with Wikipedia's standards. Any guidance, edits, or feedback provided would be greatly appreciated.

If you are available to assist with this project, please let me know the best way to collaborate and proceed. I am open to your recommendations and insights to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together and improve this article.

Sincerely, Erick Wihardja 

Erick Wihardja (talk) 05:45, 8 November 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) 12:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erick Wihardja I see that you declared a COI; as I assume you are employed by this company in some capacity, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure on your user page. Click that link for instructions.
Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as if it were on the company website. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does- that's what your website is for. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" in this context is not things like press releases, the company website, interviews with staff, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources. Significant coverage goes beyond these things and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk)

06:27, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

my articles submission on Wikipedia is rejected. so what i have to do to accept my article? also why my article is rejected? Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Leaves, your draft is nothing like an acceptable encyclopedia article. It entirely lacks context and is completely unreferenced. It presents no evidence at all that the topic is notable. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

help me to improve my articles for publishing 

Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page already exists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince Editing and contributing (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 8 November 2023 review of submission by BobTheRobber5

What was the reason for it being declined? BobTheRobber5 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BobTheRobber5 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). The reason for the decline was provided by the reviewer. You have few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The award does not establish notability as the award itself does not have an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) or you don't have several independent sources discussing the importance of her receiving this award. The controversy described seems to have little to do with her personally and simply quotes her in her capacity as a school official. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Aisyahaufaa

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Korea-Indonesia_MTCRC Hi im the employee of the company on the page i attached, currently we're trying to work on the english version of the page but the page is always on the draft section, how do i publish it so everyone knows the english version of the page? (original page is Indonesia) Aisyahaufaa (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisyahaufaa As an employee, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure(click for instructions).
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Indonesian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two Wikipedias are separate. Your draft would not be accepted as it is now if you were to submit it for a review. An English Wikipedia article is not a place for a company to tell about itself- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To try and publish, press the button submit for review in the draft page. Reviewers will look and see if it is acceptable to be undrafted and moved to mainspace. I will press the submit button on your behalf and we shall see what can be done. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan

hi may i know why you rejected my article Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a place to provide life tips or advice. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan: please understand that Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for your essays or soapboxing. Articles need to summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject. They also need to be encyclopaedic in tone and content, not promotional pieces or 'how-to' guides. Your current sandbox contents are again way off what is expected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Ruisleipa

Hi, I am having some trouble with this article. It has been rejected twice for the same reason despite my edits. The rejection says it is not encyclopaedic enough and should use respectable sources. But all the sources are independent and are research documents from universities and institutes, or published journalistic articles. So I don't know what the person who rejected the article really means. The sources are independent and reliable and the topic is notable by virtue of the objective coverage of it. Would anyone be able to give me some tips as to how to improve the article? Thanks in advance. Ruisleipa (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have summarized the technical information, but that doesn't establish notability. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about this platform and what makes it important/significant/influential- what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin

Dear Colleagues I am faculty member of Royan Institute and I would like to finalize the Wekipedia page of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran.

Please do me a favor and let me know how I can submit this draft as finalized page for Royan Institute?

Sincerely, Ali

Dr. AliReza Alizadeh Moghadam Masouleh (Ph.D.) Assistant Professor of Nutritional Biology - Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, gyn-medicum Göttingen, Waldweg 5, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany AND - Department of Embryology, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute, Tehran 16635-148, Iran 



 Katrina masbin (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Katrina masbin: could you please clarify whether you are actually User:Katrina masbin, or are only using their account? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do as a third party. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Wikiaflam

Hello... we are looking for clarification. This page has already been previously approved and published. I submitted some simple edits and now it is rejected. Thank you for your guidance. Wikiaflam (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiaflam What makes you think the draft is "approved and published"? 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 November 2023 review of submission by WikiCreator2023

Is it possible to get any help on what more I can add to this page before I submit it for review again. Would rather make sure it is in good stance before just submitting it. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

Liza Soberano 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have also just continued to copy-paste from other articles. Nothing about the subject and zero sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi

I do not understand why the biography of Jean-Pierre is defined as "an advertisment". I copy the style of other artists which some of them are really advertising there bravour. I tried to stay as much as neutral as possible. Jean-Pierre Groppx was a well known artist at his time and some people still remember the artist but some people start to ask today who is he. So I thought Wikipedia is there also to refer to events, people, and other thinks that need some reference and memories. In my opinion Jean-Pierre should have the right to be published as others. Please help me to modify the text as it should be less as an advertisment. Thank you for your help. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B

I just made a list to tidy up the article 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the draft is submitted and waiting for review. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

John Benjamin Hickey

Hickey at the 13th Annual Broadway Barks Benefit, at Shubert Alley in New York City on July 9, 2011 Born June 25, 1963 (age 60) Plano, Texas, U.S. Education Texas State University, San Marcos Fordham University (BA) Juilliard School (GrDip) Occupation Actor Years active 1990–present Partner(s) Jeffrey Richman (2003–present) John Benjamin Hickey (born June 25, 1963) is an American actor with a career in stage, film and television. He won the 2011 Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play for his performance as Felix Turner in The Normal Heart. 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish

Hi, My initial submission was rejected on the basis that it read too much like an advertisement. Before I proceed to edit my draft, I'd like to enquire in what way exactly? Is it down the content of the article, for instance, or the list of (co-)authored publications? Also, although I referenced a blog article, the blog is written by a reliable art historian and former university lecturer who is independent of the subject. Any help and thoughts on this is much appreciated. Many thanks! FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FactsThatFlourish, your draft has not been rejected. Rather, it has been declined, which is an important distinction. You are welcome to keep working on it. In my opinion, your draft over-relies on works by Katalin Herzog. Also, the sections "Exhibitions (selection)" and "Work in museum collections (selection)" are entirely unreferenced. Those sections either need references or they should be removed. Unreferenced statements like Space and movement are very important for Ton Mars, and this is evident in his works in various ways. Although most of his works look like two-dimensional paintings, they have sloping sides that narrow towards the back and rest against the wall. A viewer walking past can experience these works as sculptures, neatly embedded in the architecture of the exhibition space. come off as promotional and original research, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors summarize what art critics say. We do not function as art critics ourselves. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Flint314

I have tried to attach news and studies and reports to the page. But it is very hard to have lot of citations for something that is pretty new technology, and not so widely known. So how can I get it out there? Flint314 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected Wikipedia is only interested in things that are already out there ie notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Was Drafted for no sources

Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just moved to article space. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I will take a look. Comintell (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who moved it and think it was script error for saying "no references." It was moved due to tone and sourcing. I see it was moved back to the mainspace so I will take a closer look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell


Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Woodrusher

Hello, this is quite a legitimate entry as I was surprised Caples had no Wikipedia on him, as he is legendary in railroading and the chief engineer for the Clinchfield, in whose Wikipedia entry he is even mentioned. I have also included links to reputable sources in the community. As I am not artful in the processes and determinations of Wikipedia, I politely request guidance so I can make this entry acceptable. All I received was a summary and immediate decline, which is quite discouraging. Anyone knowledgable about railroad engineering and the rather astonishing accomplishment of Clinchfield Railroad, the last major railroad built in the United States and arguably the best engineered, is quite aware of MJ Caples. This is not a fluky Wikipedia entry application.

I also made a typo mistake in the header by putting a comma accidentally where a period should be in the abbreviation, but do not know how to change that.

Assistance on this entry is most appreciated and I believe this is a useful contribution for Wikipedia, Woodrusher (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodrusher Tighten your writing and set being discouraged aside. Being pedantic, if he is legendary then he is fiction. This is part of tightening your writing. Avoid praise words. Commit to dull-but-worthy flat toned prose.
Your only objective is to prove he passes WP:BIO. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 8 November 2023 review of submission by TakeDealyo

The reviewer has declined the draft because subject does not have significant media coverage. There were 13 citations on the subject but the reviewer says that they were just passing mentions. . Secondly, subject is an engineer, and they will not get the kind of media coverage that politicians and other celebrities get. Please suggest how to overcome this objection. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not appropriate sources to summarize, there is nothing you can do. It is true that Wikipedia's requirement to have independent reliable sources for a topic means that some areas are underserved, but this is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you response. If purpose of notable sources are for verification purposes then some of the citations are from the US Patent Office (USPTO), LinkedIn where someone has posted the review of the book authored by the subject and published by Elsevier (one of the world's largest publisher of STEM books) etc. How to provide more reliable sources? Please help. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your association with Mr. Kangovi? (I see you took a picture of him)
I confused you with regards to verification- verification is not the only requirement or need for a source. Sources must contain significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond merely documenting what they have done and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- what we call notability. I get that you see him as important, but what matters is if others see him that way.
Patent office documents are primary sources (as they only document he holds a patent) and do not establish notability. If an independent source writes about the significance of the invention that he holds a patent for, that would be what we are looking for. If as you say, they don't have the coverage needed, Mr. Kangovi would not merit a Wikipedia article. You may want to consider alternative outlets with less stringent requirements to tell the world about Mr. Kangovi. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Center&main

Seeking assistance with this draft. I have provided multiple reliable business sources citing Mahesh's role as CEO of Cleo and his notable background in the technology sector. Center&main (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Center&main You have already declared you are paid by Cleo to write this. Please use that payment to learn how to write and cite drafts that will be accepted.
I will give you a clue.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The draft has been rejected. You may appeal tothe rejecting reviewer if you feel it appropriate. It is unlikely to be reviewed further without their release. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.251.51

What should be added to this article to make it more complete? 178.204.251.51 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the comments on the draft page, multiple reviewers have noted that they don't understand what the article is about. I for one have no idea what an "otok" is. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking how to make the article clearer. On "otok" I made a link to the Chinese Wikipedia 178.204.251.51 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't know Chinese so I still don't know what an otok is unfortunately. Perhaps the otok article should be translated to the English Wikipedia. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FutsalFan97

I don't understand why this draft has been rejected twice if you compare my draft with articles like Tennis at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's singles and Tennis at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's doubles my draft is pretty much equal and has even more references. Why does it keep being rejected? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FutsalFan97 The draft has been declined, not "rejected". The terms have specific meanings here- "rejected" would mean a draft may not be resubmitted- declined means it may be resubmitted.
You do not have independent reliable sources that discuss this event in depth- you've just posted the results. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't have independent reliable sources, then why articles like the ones I mentioned who also don't have independent reliable sources are approved? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are numerous ways that inappropriate articles can get past us, this cannot justify more inappropriate articles being added. The men's doubles article has the same problem as your draft. There needs to be some sort of source besides the results. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

Need help with an article about Apache Pulsar @331dot written: > To pass the submission process, the draft needs to be much less about the technical information and features, and needs to discuss what independent sources say is important about this platform. That's my opinion, feel free to ask others at the AFC Help

I looked a lot. Spent the whole day on it.

Eventually, I asked the Pulsar community for help in finding good references. Hoping for any good recommendations. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vh8v8wch5drt7w6d4sozstpvhdcqn6gx

I don't see any independent, in-depth, and reliable at the same time sources here. Most of the in-depth sources are from the project documentation, StreamNative blog, or DataStax blog.

There are some articles by some bloggers on Medium and similar resources, but I can't they are "reliable".

Half a year ago I made a list of articles about Pulsar: https://github.com/tealtools/awesome-apache-pulsar#articles

Maybe something from this list is suitable?

There are two books on Apache Pulsar. One of the books is written by StreamNative employee, so its not "independent". Unlikely I can cite the second book several times in the article.

What is the concrete threshold of refs per section/per paragraph/per sentence or any other clear metric to article be considered valid for publishing?

I see the same similar situation in the list of Apache_Kafka and RabbitMQ references list. At least half of the references are from "dependent" sources. 


Visortelle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visortelle I fixed your post for proper display of a link to your draft(you had what I think you intended as a section title where the draft title should have been) 331dot (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle You asked about thresholds. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That is what we need. How many? That depends upon how many facts you state that are susceptible to challenge (as opposed to simple facts, like "Chalk is white")
I suspect you have answered your own question. No (useful) references = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spend a lot of time on attempts and combinatorics. Can we go this way?:
I'll provide multiple sources for each fact. Each of them separately most likely won't be "independent", "secondary" and "in-depth", but in combination, these requirements will be completed.
They will complement each other and not contradict each other. You'll be able to remove some of them. Visortelle (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle No. Spend the time or don't spend it. Multiple references for a fact is WP:CITEKILL, and will lead to a decline, perhaps rejection. If you want the draft to be an article, please see WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia woudl like articles. but does not need them 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle Seems it was rejected. Shame. Never mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's now how citations work here- putting multiple citations and saying they only work together would be original research. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just offer a choice for the reviewer. Feel free to leave refs you think is suitable and remove what you think isn't suitable.
The review process seems a subjective assessment. Is there any automated ref quality checker or something like that?
For now, it looks to me that reviewers even don't read the content of refs and just reject it for fun. Visortelle (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided:
Refs to two books from O'Reilly Media - the very reputable publisher.
Refs to articles on independent blogs.
Refs to an article in pdf by Intel.
What's wrong here? Visortelle (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 331dot Keeping the discussion in the existing section.
Is the article at inforworld.com a good article? Visortelle (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good for establishing notability. It's a comparison between two products and describes their features, it does not provide coverage indicating what makes it notable.. Blogs(which you refer to) are not generally considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about books? Visortelle (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most books are fine as sources(unless they are self-published). I haven't read the books you refer to so I can't comment beyond that. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the references in this article?

I'm looking on another Wikipedia articles on related technologies an quality of references isn't better in any way.

Maybe this is a suitable source to refer to? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3379120/apache-kafka-vs-apache-pulsar-how-to-choose.html Visortelle (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visortelle Please keep the discussion to this existing section. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, comparisons to other articles are not usually useful, see WP:OSE- unless those articles are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Visortelle:, let's review the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage:

1. Not independent or significant coverage.

2. Not independent. "At the time we started"

3. Not independent or significant coverage.

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.

6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.

7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.

8. Interview, not really fully independent.

12. Interview, not fully independent.

13. Company website, not independent.

15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.

Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. Visortelle (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is O'Reilly Media. It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.

Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. Visortelle (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards notability. You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whats next?
Do books count?
Should I remove some sources? Something else?
Regarding the notability - amount of stars on GitHub is a good metric for open-source projects popularity.
Only Apache Kafka from this list is more popular than Pulsar.

Most of top-level (not incubating) Apache Foundation projects are notable enough for people interested in this area. https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?number Many Apache projects with less number of committers and PMC members have an article on Wikipedia: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_RocketMQ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_CouchDB - ... many others.

Pulsar has a Slack community with more than 10,000 users - also more that many projects of this kind that have an article on Wikipedia. This kind of software is used in many enterprise companies. Pulsar isn't something that has been released this month, it's a mature project with hundreds of contributors: https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/02/03/apache-pulsar-hits-its-600th-contributor/#:~:text=The%20Apache%20Pulsar%20community%20embraced,contributed%20to%20this%20remarkable%20achievement. If I'll add refs to the community size statistics, Apache PMC members count, would it contribute to notability? Maybe some ref to a good article with the explanation of why this kind of software is important for the industry? Actually, the only direct competitor with similar amount of features here is Apache Kafka.

If anyone from moderators would provide a good reference article on a same kind of software (message brokers) with good sources list, I would be very grateful.
@331dot WDYT? Visortelle (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cc @Timtrent @WikiOriginal-9 Visortelle (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe I've said previously, it is usually not a good idea to cite other articles in comparison to yours, as they could have problems that you are unaware of. In this case, the ones you are citing indeed have the same problems as your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why your OSE argument is valid. I would understand it if there would be one, two, three articles on similar topics. But there are tens of such articles on very similar subjects. I can't find any good article. Can you?
Its completely unfair in relation to the project. People who unlikely can understand and evaluate any info written in the sources, trying to make some conclusions.
I scanned the "good articles" list yesterday and didn't find anything similar to the kind of software I'm talking about.
I looked for an open-source project that is:
  • Relatively new - not 30 years old something used by everyone, or something that is already dead and notable only as a historical fact.
  • Not something super-popular that runs on a lot of consumer-market devices, but rather a project used by professional engineers, that "normal people" wouldn't talk about.
By the way, Wikipedia itself uses this kind of software (Kafka): https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/O_OXJyTVk/home-w-wiki-status?orgId=1&refresh=30s&search=open&tag=kafka
I removed most of the content of the original article, including what has been evaluated as promotional in first edits.
Now the draft contain only very short list of facts.
I suppose, the article content can be added by others Pulsar community members over time.
All these facts are mentioned in the referenced books by very reputable publisher.
Isn't it's enough?
Maybe Wikipedia or any of it's moderators personally interested in not adding this specific project? I can't find any other explanation. Visortelle (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You answered only about my referencing to other projects but didn't answer anything about the book's reliability.
Also didn't answer anything about the Pulsar notability. Visortelle (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe those tens of articles should not exist. I don't know, I haven't examined every one or its sources. It's possible that this class of software does not merit Wikipedia articles because it lacks the appropriate sources. It is true that sourcing and verification requirements mean that some topic areas are underserved, but these policies are necessary. Articles do not just summarize facts- they should summarize what is said about a topic and what makes it notable. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be that the class of software as a whole might merit an article, but not individual software programs. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do these articles contributes to notability:
Visortelle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean - instead of writing an article for each program, write a single article on all the programs?
There are such articles that explain the problem that this class of programs solves: Message broker, Message queue
I don't think so. Each of them They are very different.
It's like saying that there shouldn't be article about each kind of animal - lion, zebra, cat, etc., but rather a single article about all the animals on the planet. Visortelle (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that people who aren't interested in the subject, are trying to evaluate the subject's notability.
For example, I absolutely don't find notable each NFL player who has lived on a planet or Maine elections (per year!!!). But it may be important to someone, and that's OK. Visortelle (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy about animals is not quite the same thing. My present circumstances don't permit me to examine the articles you've provided; perhaps someone else will sooner than I can. If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that. Because Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, personal interest in a topic is not required to contribute about it. In fact, it can be a negative, if the editor is too personally invested in the subject to see how policies are applied. Not saying you are, just speaking generally. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone not interested in facts about Maine (probably by living there) could decide to write so many articles about this area?
Also, I don't see how anyone not interested in using Pulsar, Kafka, any programming language, would write an article about it.
Same for any other topic, that you can't read about in the morning newspaper, see on TV news, or some YouTube channel like "a fact of the day". Visortelle (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> perhaps someone else will sooner than I can
Is there any way to initiate this process without creating one more article draft or a thread on the Help Desk? Visortelle (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that.
I don't feel that because Maine isn't my area of interest and I don't know anything about it.
If I saw some wrong or controversial fact in an article on topic I know well enough, I would probably raise a ticket/issue, or how it properly called here, on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, what a lot of messages. @Visortelle, why not put this energy into editing Wikipedia? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. Yep, it took much longer than I initially thought. And probably it's not the end. If I have decided to do something, I gonna try until I'll have some results.
Editing Wikipedia itself isn't my area of interest yet. I see it's requires quite a lot of patience to resolve disputes.
Same question - why put so much energy into rejecting the article?
Let's better try to find a way to improve it and make it suitable to be published.
The amount and quality of sources on Pulsar isn't less that on other similar projects.
Maybe I'm presenting them differently somehow. ask, I'll explain everything if something isn't clear. Visortelle (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after I already have some experience with Wiki syntax, and more-less understand what's needed in the sense of sources, etc., probably I'll start to make some edits. It's easier to do something when you pass the initial entry barrier/threshold on something unfamiliar before.
Depends on the final experience of the current topic. Visortelle (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle I remind you that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I wonder if anyome has mentioned WP:BURDEN to you so far. We woudl like any article om a topic that is proven to be notable. The burden of proof is the creating editor's.
We care passionately about WP:N andWP:V. Individual articles. not so much.
The rest of this is tl;dr 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it.
I tired of rejections with no any feedback. The only more-less constructive feedback I got was from @WikiOriginal-9, who provided per/source explanation of why it's good or bad. It was after the article rejection by another user.
That's why I'm asking, do these articles are good for notability or not:
Also I still didn't get the answer from anyone - are two books that I referenced to are good sources? These two books (even any of them) have enough information to cover all the fact in the article. Visortelle (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle With respect, this is a simple Helpdesk. Your detailed questions may be answered by using the references you have found. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any place on Wikipedia for discussion a specific draft before submitting it (and potentially getting a rejection)? Visortelle (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle This is, with precision, the role of the Draft name space and the Articles for Creation process.
Having something rejected is juts that, rejection. Having something defined means you get to work on it iteratively. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pangiotis A.

Hello,

What other correction should I take?

My last revision wasn't clear about what was wrong.

Thank you, Pangiotis A. (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pangiotis A. the draft is rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Given much of it is unsourced, it appears to be original research and it certainly is promotional. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Horophile

Hi, I was wondering if I can get assistance for how to improve my submission? I am including multiple independence sources but still getting declined? Horophile (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horophile. No, your sources are not independent. A large majority of them are affiliated with Harvard. Those Harvard sources are of no use in establishing notability. What is required are sources that are entirely independent of Harvard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Օֆելյա Հակոբյան

I have made updates, please help me to know if my article now is in a better situation. Thank you in advance. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Օֆելյա Հակոբյան The way to discover this is to submit it for review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Morekar

Their is problem in references but I don't ideo about that. Morekar (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morekar obviously the technical reference problem is fixed. I make no comment about the draft itself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent, Whenever I starting to edit in desktop mode appeared a note in reflist is – "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode".
@Morekar I do not see that I am afraid. If t persists I suggest WP:HELPDESK for that question 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 8 November 2023 review of submission by MicroSupporter

I am struggling to make it different to the previously deleted version on Verdis because I originally made it similar to Liberland another micronation nearby. I added more notable and recent references and information about their 'president' being detained. What can I do? MicroSupporter (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroSupporter: Could you please list all of the new references? Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I believe I added the following:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/melbourne-teenager-becomes-europes-newest-president,18022 (I saw you wrote it isn't independent but I do not understand why.)
https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/southall-teenager-sets-up-new-26385041
https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/20-wild-attempts-to-create-crypto-micronations-or-communities/
https://birdinflight.com/svit/verdis.html (in Ukrainian)
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/30/verdis-the-sovereign-state-on-croatia-and-serbias-disputed-border-18689539/
https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Danube-le-fleuve-ou-peuvent-naitre-des-utopies-1-3-Bienvenue-en-Syldavie-si-ce-n-est-en-Bordurie (in French)
https://issuu.com/starnewsgroup/docs/2023-07-18_rt_633/1 (some local paper I think)
https://explorersweb.com/terra-nullius-unclaimed-lands/ (I dont think I added this one. I am not sure) MicroSupporter (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this older article. The other b92 reference appears to be reposted from Sputnik. This one is independently written. https://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2021&mm=09&dd=20&nav_id=1925054 MicroSupporter (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 sorry I forgot to tag MicroSupporter (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, gimme a sec to review the links. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter:
Independent Australia: Author writes in first person. Ex. "I", "We"
MyLondon: Maybe, but seems more like an interview converted to article form.
Birdinflight: Seems ok, actually
Metro: Maybe
Issuu: Not really about Verdis, more about aid.
Explorersweb: Passing mention
b92: Maybe, but the coverage is mostly superficial (basic facts).
Also, per the MyLondon source, they have recognition from 1 country (Kingdom of Eswatini), though WP:NCOUNTRY isn't a thing so I'm not sure if this contributes much. In any case, I think this is pretty borderline so a second opinion would be appreciated. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. The Independent Australia article I think the journalist joined the ‘President’ to report on his trip. I would also like to advise looking at the previous references on the page like Većernji List, Total Croatia News, Pagina/12 and LaNacion. I think they are independent.
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/osnovali-drzavu-na-nasem-spornom-teritoriju-cilj-nam-je-pomirenje-naroda-1524432
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/371297-verdis-la-eco-republica-libre-que-preside-un-pibe-de-17-anos
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/revista-brando/la-republica-libre-de-verdis-el-pais-sustentable-que-fundo-un-joven-de-17-anos-en-una-franja-entre-nid03112021/
https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/verdis-republic/
are they ok? MicroSupporter (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123sorry I forgot to tag again. MicroSupporter (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter: Hi, sorry for the late response. One of the sources is an interview, and the others seem ok, but, as previously mentioned, I would like a second opinion. Feel free to resubmit, linking to this thread if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is too much citation of primary and questionable sourcing in the draft. And as with other 'micronation' articles, this article abuses the infobox to misrepresent the self-promotional claims of individuals of unrecognised zero-population states as having recognised heads of state etc - e.g. naming a supposed 'President' and 'Vice president'. Whether this counts as fiction, fancruft, or an outright hoax, I'm unsure, but in my opinion Wikipedia should not be presenting such fantasies as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued with you before. Respectfully, I think you have too much bias against micronations. You are basically saying they should all be deleted in that sense. Also what sourcing is primary except their website? MicroSupporter (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bias against misrepresenting fantasy as fact. As does Wikipedia. If people who write articles promoting the fantasies of imaginary country-builders as fact have an issue with that, it isn't my problem. Daniel Jackson is no more the 'President of Verdis' than Joshua Norton was Emperor of the United States. Compare the infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a misrepresentation. It says Micronation on the info box. If you feel this way maybe set up an AfD on every micronation. List of micronations MicroSupporter (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the BS the fantasy-country fanclub have been pushing on Wikipedia for years. Find some dubious local paper or the like that describes Imaginistan as a 'micronation' and then spam the article with a whole lot of nonsense about governments, constitutions, currencies etc, etc, etc that exists absolutely nowhere but on some website with delusions of grandeur. This is an abuse of infoboxes, and an abuse of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: Metro isn't an RS (rsp); it's a tabloid owned by the Daily Mail, although it's not deprecated as the Mail is. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

01:37, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Memories of

I'm not understanding how this draft doesn't show that this music group has received significant coverage. They have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and receieved significant coverage in articles from NPR, Consequence, Paste, and Stereogum. I've seen articles of other groups in the mainspace for years now that don't have as many sources of this nature. Memories of (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, 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 articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not in comparison with other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Interviews do not establish notability, as they are not independent sources, being the band speaking about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 66.41.37.183

Hello, I have drastically changed the article and make sure the references were better. So sorry about that. May we publish? 66.41.37.183 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not significant coverage of the company that describes how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. An article must do more than document the existence of the company and what it does, it must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Typically, after a rejection, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84

I am unclear how any articles can get posted to Wikipedia, this is a subject that has 30 references, some of these are from the largest news organisations in the country.

The feedback has always been addressed as best I can with my limited understanding, so if there are any other sections that need fixing I am happy to take feedback and implement it. Benking84 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it reads like an advertisement, especially the introduction. See "[t]he founders of Swiss 8 have first-hand experience in managing mental health issues;" this is the kind of thing an advert trying to promote Swiss 8 would say, the phrasing is bad for a wiki article. Also "Swiss 8 aims to create a new approach to mental health care that is proactive," this could be rephrased more like "A stated goal of Swiss 8 is to create a new proactive approach to mental health care" There are many other examples as well. Also I can't comment on whether the subject is even notable enough to get an article. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benking84 I see you declared a COI; if you work for Swiss 8, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work for them, I did some volunteering a year or so ago as they are a charity. Even if I did though it is an entity that has had multiple media articles in the biggest papers in the country this year, so is of importance to the public.
Is this the issue? The admins assumed that I was being paid to write the article? Benking84 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Fbarbe

My submission has been rejected for appearing to "read more like an advertisement". Note that I have not been paid and have no financial interest in the project (which is a research project) to write this Wikipedia page. I have, however, used Ludii for my bachelor thesis, so I am aware of my bias. This is my first time writing a new Wikipedia article, and would be very grateful if someone could highlight the paragraphs/parts that make it sound like an advertisement and that I could change. Fbarbe (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fbarbe In the first instance please approach the reviewer who declined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Chrisw1117

Why was it declined? Chrisw1117 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisw1117: for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. Have you read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based it off another award winner from the same award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivi_Lin Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisw1117: the Vivi Lin article has its own problems, mimicking it may not be a good idea. In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever may exist out there, but by checking whether they meet the necessary standards for publication. Yours fails on notability grounds, due to its sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources is not credible? They are all from news agencies and the award platforms themselves , (sorry I am just trying to learn lol) Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award platforms are what we call primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So would the news agencies that confirmed the awards and discussed not count to support? Chrisw1117 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Arunvikram2208

My article is getting declined even after adding independent sources Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: there is precisely one source cited!
This draft is being declined for lack of evidence of notability. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Congrats on creating a strong contender for the longest article title, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you added sources, but I only see one source. You should first gather your sources and then summarize them- not write a text and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 115.114.90.174

Hi,

Why my article submission is rejected multiple times despite the fact that it provides all the necessary information from relevant trusted sources. ?

Kindly help. 115.114.90.174 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find no draft with such a title, and your edit history under this IP address shows only one edit, namely this help desk query. Please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the following page: Draft:Bharti AXA Life. I have submitted the article twice as per the requirement. But now, it got's deleted. Please help me to retrieve the same and in editing the article as per the wikipedia guidelines. RahulRaiSahab (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Bharti AXA Life
Okay, thanks. As you can see, the title is different from what you first gave.
This draft has been deleted as promotional. You may ask the deleting administrator to have it returned to you for drafting, but this is far from guaranteed.
What is your connection to this company? I will post a query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz

Hello, I've been working on this article about a living musician (that happens to be my husband) for 9 months now, I started by clicking on a red link on his American label's wikipedia page.

I'm not getting any response on my messages to the last reviewer, and he mostly justifies the rejection by the "tone" issue, is the 3rd time I get this reason, I did a lot of work reading the Manual of Style, but it seems I still has some work to do (and stuff to learn)


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, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.


Can anybody help me solve this "tone" issue? I collaborated editing many musician's articles (in other languages than English) I honestly I see a similar tone and overall style in my article, but I really appreciate any help.

Since the last rejection I did change some small details, removing references and a couple a words that could be considered "peacock" mostly adjectives .

Thanks in advance Vicpaz (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicpaz I do not see it as an advert. The tone looks acceptable. All you need to dos to proves that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and then resubmit it for further review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this.
What I've found (as sources) satisfies Criteria for musicians #1, 5, 10 and 12.
For 1 there are the press quotes.
For number 5 (Has released two or more albums...on important indie labels) I was asked by a reviewer to remove ref pointing to Discogs (still can't understand why, but I did remove them) and to the label's release announcements. I cant point the article to any better than the label's announcement!
For number 10 there are the film and series placements, but for the major ones (Narcos, Ozark, etc) there are no media coverage, only a mention in the credits and some inclusions I referenced to specialized film-music sites.
For number 12 there for example one interview (1 hour long) that was a full career spanning one, with loads of biographical information. But I included that (somebody's suggestion on the live chat) as a "further reading" link. But it could be a reference to all major bio data in the article. I don't think is great to reference 10 times in the article to the same ref....Then again, you have to listen to the 1 hour interview to find the information (it's in Spanish)...
But thanks for reassuring me that the tone is ok, will look for help about the way to reflect the notability from the references into the article text...
Cheers Vicpaz (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 9 November 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

I understand the comments that have been made.

2) I think I have misunderstood how to use Links and References, and included a number of them the wrong way round. I need help: a) To ensure where I should be using Links, and that they are correctly inserted b) To move some citations from Links to References and c) To make sure I type in References in the correct format. I have just included the internet URLs

2) I accept the comment about being a 'connected person', but have borne in mind that the structure of any entry needs to comply with the standards required, and am happy to have this considered, and expected this would be the case.

Thank you 

 PinneyFowke (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is inadvisable and highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write about ourselves at all, please read the autobiography policy(as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing).
If you wish to proceed, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 9 November 2023 review of submission by OkraKemp

The last reviewer of my article removed an entire paragraph of content, not just references as they state. Is that allowed? Can you direct me in finding the original content that is now missing? OkraKemp (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OkraKemp Please examine their edit. Unless I am mistaken, Mcmatter has done precisely what they said. All prior versions are available to all in the history tab, except in exceptional circumstances.
I have flagged that I cannot find your declaration under WP:PAIDanywhere. I can find a use of {{Connected contributor}} at Draft talk:Okra Energy. Istead you need to deploy {{paid}} with parameters filled out on your User page, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OkraKemp I did remove entire paragraphs in this edit, because they were off topic. We have an article on LNG if the reader wishes to know more on that topic, they can click on the link to that article. This draft is supposed to be on Okra Energy not LNG. Stick to the facts of the company and base it on what others have stated about the company in reliable source. As for the question is that allowed? Absolutely, no one owns any particular draft or its content. My edits were to help assist in guiding you to a better draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Craigmateo

Advice needed on how this article could be adjusted to be accepted. I've removed biased language and added 3rd party citations. I'm having trouble understanding that it's not a notable enough topic. Craigmateo (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigmateo Please start by approaching the editor who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

Hello, I translated this article from the italian one and I added some more references. I think it is complete enough. Can you helpe me understanding what is missing, maybe with an example? Kimbamy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 5.101.23.224

Why are the sources presented not suitable? The authors of the books are well-known scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, VK is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content so should not used. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are links not to VK, but to PDF versions of books written by famous Soviet scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

What exactly do I need to update to ensure I get published :) NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I list pages that I am messaged as external links or autobiographical links should not be on the wiki at all? NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Roddy Quezada Granados

As a representative and unbiased individual who has professional knowledge of Doreen, I have created this draft with original content and photos for which I obtained her permission to use. I'm puzzled by the rejection of this draft and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Roddy Quezada Granados (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one cited source which is an interview so is a primary source and not independent. What she has said, written or created is not useful. What is needed are reliable secondary sources with no affiliation with her that have written about her (again not what she says, etc.) such as critical reviews of her work. Also, external hyperlinks do not belong in the body of the article. Almost everything under the "Works and Contributions" section is a hyperlink and they all appear to be mostly primary sources (production company, publisher, etc.) so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Roddy Quezada Granados. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roddy Quezada Granados Pivtures are handled at Wikimedia Commons.mThey are upper deletion there. Visit c:COM:VRT and follow the instructions there, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

Can someone help me with trying to resolve these issues in more detail:

that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't see secondary sources that verify the article and prove notability, and the draft itself doesn't look very much like a proper Wikipedia biography.

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieMeisner Please be specific in the help you woudllike. This is, at the moment a plea for anything and everything. With recision, what abiut the comments you have acted here, is unclear to you. We can start from there.
Be aware that writing your autobiography is not a great idea. It is a rare person indeed who can be unbiased and impartial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, I just named the account under the author so I can remember which account is for what information.
well I would like to start on what are the major issues with the writing. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make it look more like a wikiepedia page NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner by summarizing what reputable sources have written about Meisner, own their own without any input by Meisner. Almost everything in the draft is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article which is why people writing about themselves or those close to them is so strongly discouraged here. Its rarely successful. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this based on the author. I am not the author being written about - I accidentally named myself by the username. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Are you using multiple accounts? Please declare which you are using. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No this is my only account. I put my name as the username rather than the article name. This is my first time using Wikipedia NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner I suggest you change this name to another that is not Ms Meinser's. We have a rule: One person - one account. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple will be your friend here. It is improper to appear to be adopting the person of Natalie Meisner.
Please make this your first priority 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have changed my username to my personal account name. Memeraj (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Thank you for requesting a name change.
With regard to the writing, please read WP:MOS. Put simply, we require dull-but-worthy prose, and for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That should be sufficient to get you started. Work by gathering the references first, marshal the facts you intend to use into a storyboard for the draft, and only then write what the references say in your own words, without close paraphrasing. You will be amazed how different the end product is, so consider abandoning your existing words. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj pinging the correct user! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I fix the look of the wikipedia page... apparently it isnt looking like the proper way it should. Memeraj (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj HELP:YFA and WP:MOS should guide you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Likelihoodist

I hope that you can provide clarification as to the reasons for this rejection as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved.

The stated reasons are as follows:

1. Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page), which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.

Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or derive the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.

Would my article be improved by citing Rothman et al.?

2. In-depth entry

Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct. Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article.

Do I need to clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?

3. Reliable sources

The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist) , Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.

4. Secondary source

I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method. 

What sort of secondary source would be helpful for my article?

5. Independent sources

All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.

In summary I am puzzled as to why my article was rejected. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that you have already published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

References

1. Celentano DD, Szklo M, Gordis L (2019). Gordis Epidemiology, Sixth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. p. 149-177.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Breslow, NE, Day, NE (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Vol. 1 - The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications. p. 162-189.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331: 428. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55.

4. Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S.; Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-5564-1. 


Likelihoodist (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likelihoodist There is truly no need to out yourself. "Independent" means "Inependent of the Subject"
You might approach the reviewer who declined it. They wish to see an increase in the references. For matters os science we need to be as sure as we can be that things are not fi=ringer hypotheses. References help a great deal here. Is there any coverage external to Academe? If so it is useful. If not, no matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have tried to contact WikiOriginal-9 but have not yet received a reply. I am very much of a novice navigating Wikipedia so I may be looking in the wrong place. If he/she responds will it be here or should I be looking somewhere else?
It sounds like the major (only?) concern is insufficient references. I can certainly add more references to text books that discuss this topic or papers that use it in their research. Would you advise me to do this and see how the reviewer responds or should I wait for more explicit instructions about the concerns about the references that I have given? Likelihoodist (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

02:54, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” 

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cd634011, thanks for reaching out. Can you go into some more detail on why you think this is a notable academic book per WP:TEXTBOOK? Also, can you list the best 3 or 4 sources that go towards establishing notability? Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Here are the Wikipedia quidelines for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books", which is from the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books): "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."
The book was published by an academic press (Scientific Psychology Series by Routledge) and has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions. The quidelines for establishing notability on the above Wikipedia page mention that books must meet at least one of the criteria (not all of them).
In addition, there are references on that Wikipedia page that provide additional context as to the notability of this particular book (please see my first post with the quoted material). Just as an example, it is cited on that Wikipedia page that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” This book was published by a prominent academic press and the book went through multiple rounds of peer review by independent experts in the field before it was published.
Finally, the following reference appears on the notability page for "Academic and technical books" and particularly applies to this book, as it is a highly specialized mathematical book: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." Meeting this criteria implies that it is not expected to be highly cited by other books or in the media (a criteria for notability that should not be used here), which is OK given its technicality and limited audience. Cd634011 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That looks promising. I'm not an expert on textbook notability so I'm going to hand this over to someone else. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:09, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Littleboybrew

I would like to understand what would make a museum notable? Littleboybrew (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, those sources aren't that bad. I've seen worse. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Didgeridoo2022

I believe that Ozjasz Wasser qualifies for a Wikipedia article and that the submission is adequately supported by reliable sources. Wasser played a very important role in Jewish life in Lviv from early 1900s until his death in 1941. This fact is mentioned multiple times by the sources provided. These secondary sources meet the Wikipedia source requirements. They are all published, reliable and independent of the subject. The Balaban book on the Tempel Synagogue contains the most extensive references to Wasser. This includes his biographic information and the tribute to him by the Chief Rabbi of the Synagogue. I could offer a rough English translation to the reviewers if necessary, since my guess is that they don’t know Polish and haven’t read the source. The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora Polish Series (Lwow) is a well-regarded and invaluable source that documents Jewish life in Lwow that was obliterated by the Holocaust. Wasser is mentioned multiple times in the series and it is clear he was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Lwow from the early 1900s until his death in 1941. The Lviv Interactive Center of Urban History is playing a critical role in resurrecting the Jewish culture and life prior to the Holocaust in modern day Lviv. The Center has done extensive research and the fact that they have chosen to reference Ozjasz Wasser in the roles he played at the Tempel synagogue and as a well-known lawyer is evidence that Wasser was an important person in the Lviv Jewish community. The Wikipedia article on the Tempel Synagogue itself includes a reference to Ozjasz Wasser as the longest serving Chairman of the Board of the Synagogue. As we have discussed one of the consequences of the Holocaust, in addition to the tragic loss of life, was the total erasure of the Jewish people and community from cities like Lviv. This makes it extremely challenging when it comes to finding sources for documenting the lives of those who perished. In my view that is even more reason to acknowledge the importance to the community of the leaders of the Jewish community. Ozjasz Wasser was a leader of the Jewish community in Lviv that is well documented by several reliable sources. He qualifies for an article using Wikipedia’s own standards and I hope the reviewers will reconsider their decision. 

Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Didgeridoo2022, thanks for reaching out. I just took a look at all of the sources listed in the article and all of them except refs 1 and 10 are just passing mentions. Even though ref 10 isn't that much. Also, I can't open ref 1 to evaluate it. So, I can't tell where your getting your info from? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 (https://polona.pl/preview/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9) is far more than a passing mention.
I appreciate that you don't know Polish so this document is very difficult to read.
I have attempted to make it easier for you.
His name comes up 21 times:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=340
There is a whole chapter on Wasser:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=10
Because it is in Polish here is a small extract translated into English:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=247
"19. Celebrations to celebrate the twenty years of work of Dr. Ozjasz Wasser.
For twenty years Dr. Wasser held the difficult and responsible office of chairman of the Temple Management Board, devoting much work and time, money and abilities to this institution and trying to maintain it at the appropriate level. No wonder, then, that his colleagues in the Management Board, and especially those who had been following the pace of his work for years, decided to celebrate the anniversary in a solemn way, perhaps in part to reward the president for his efforts and diligence."
Ref 10 in the section entitled B. Progressives he is mentioned numerous times and he is also in a group photo.
So that's where I get most of my information from. Thank goodness that these documents have survived - so much information was lost and destroyed. I believe strongly that it is very important to remember the past so that we don't repeat the same horrendous mistakes in the future. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Do you know how to go to different pages? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your browser there should be a search option but failing that you have to use the left and right arrows. They don't make it easy! 159.196.103.151 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - I was logged out - apologies! Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your research! Let's see what others have to say. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

please tell me how i create my wikipedia. Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukeshnr sinha only people who meet our special notability criteria may have a Wikipedia written about them. You do not meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

what are the requirements for writting the wikipedia ? please tell me the requirement.i am unable to create wikipedia instead of that i deserve for writting of wikipedia. please suggest. 

Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Your First Article @Sukeshnr sinha. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Marinosk

Hello. I have drafted an article for The American College of Greece. The original version had many references to our website - exactly like many US educational institutions do. It has been taken down because the references were from our site. We have rewritten the article in an as plain way as possible, sitting respectable media of Greece as sources. Again, it was rejected because the "references were not reliable". Can someone guide on what to do? Marinosk (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marinosk. Firstly you must immediately make a paid decleration disclosure. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My user page stated that I work for the organization - it now states it as per WP:PAID instructions. I need some guidance on references please. Marinosk (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marinosk. I've had a closer look at the draft and I think it could do with one or two more sources that discuss the history of the school or review the school in some way, but are very specifically independent of the school: this means not database entries, not interviews with faculty. The ekathimerini article for example is just an interview with Dan Smith which doesn't confer notability. Since it is such an old institution there must be sources - even offline ones - in newspapers and journals and books that discuss it? Qcne (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There are lots of ofline sources - we have a museum full of them. How can I reference them? Marinosk (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marinosk Offline sources are fine as long as they are published in some way. You'd reference them as you'd reference any other source. Qcne (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:09, 10 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.180.135.200



80.180.135.200 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ please restore this deleted draft, give me a chance to prove to you that it has all the notability to be published. Gaetano Minale

Hi IP, please see WP:RESTORE for how to request a page be undeleted. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Manike23

Hi, my article was rejected again and the reason given as "Removing the IMDb sources, the remaining sources are not enough to establish notability in terms of significant coverage, etc." How ever the subject of this article is well recognised and award winning actor in Sri Lanka. He has also appeared in a few international films as well. I have provided local mainstream online newspapers along with the websites, IMDb pages, and exciting Wikipedia pages for cross referencing. I have see articles of Sri Lankan celebrities with far less referencing, thus, I don't know how to improve mine further. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Manike23 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manike23 IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB) so you will want to find better sources if possible. I went through and wikilinked those that have articles which I think will help and you can check those articles to see if there are any helpful sources. I also found Eka Malaka Pethi which I did not see listed in the draft. Most of the awards are either unsourced or the cited source do not support he won the award though and please see WP:Words to watch. Things like his "he continued his passion" is not appropriate. As far as sources to support notability, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and routine announcements like casting, release announcements, etc. are considered trivial. Those are fine to use to support a role though. S0091 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @S0091, for this detailed feedback. I will edit the draft accordingly and once done, do you mind if I tag you again to have a quick look at it before I resubmit? Much appreciate your support. Thanks. 2001:8003:EC02:DC01:C458:D7BC:D970:1810 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is best to get another eye on things and I may not be around so if you have any additional questions about the draft, just post a new query here and a knowledgeable editor will reply. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Got it. Thank you. Manike23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Tbalaba

Hi, may I ask why my article has been declined? My contributions may seem a little short on reference but the article I am trying to publish is legit. Tbalaba (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tbalaba. I have rejected the draft which means it won't be considered further. You have a single source and the draft reads like an essay for a Catholic blog- not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.

Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).

I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.

I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed

The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.

Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+

I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.

For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.

I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.

At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.

If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum to discuss COI issues is WP:COIN. You don't have to sign a contract to have a COI. You said on your user talk page "I volunteering for the Apache Foundation - also non-profit organization." That is absolutely a COI, full stop. Comparing it to Wikipedia editing is a red herring. WMF employees must and do declare their relationship. Volunteer editors do not have a COI with regards to Wikipedia itself. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot ok, I duplicated the question to the right page. Visortelle (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe I wrongly used the word "volunteering". Probably it's because I’m not yet used to communicating with the audience who isn't familiar with how open-source works.
If we'll look at it with your point of view, then any user who contributes to any open-source project, can't write an article about it. Is it right?
When you use any software library project, you need to report bugs and make contributions to it, otherwise you'll can't use it normally.
From what you're saying, only users who don't have any initiative, are able to write any articles on Wikipedia. But if they don't have any initiative to contribute to the project by reporting or fixing bugs, they unlikely will have initiative to write an article on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe not my deal, but did you happen to work as a lawyer by any chance? :) Visortelle (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm reading the WP:COI page and can't find anything about that volunteering is a full stop even by your understanding of volunteering.
Could you point me to the specific paragraph? Visortelle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I don't have any of the listed relationships:
> Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial.
  • I don't have any friends or relatives in the ASF.
  • ASF isn't religion.
  • It's not about politics. I'm not a politician.
  • It's not an academy.
  • I didn't sign anything with ASF, not physically, not digitally.
  • I didn't ever get paid by ASF.
Visortelle (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who contributes to an OS project obviously has at least a potential COI in writing or editing about the project in Wikipedia. That does not mean they cannot write an article. It does mean that they should be aware of, and follow, the recommendations about editing with a COI. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

I Try to a lots of time but still in draft Thevikastanwar (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of scanned articles

Hello, I am trying to get my draft validated (Draft:Bernhard Ruchti) and I am almost there according to the last comments, but I cannot seem to have a clear answer regarding the validity of scanned articles for the notability of a musician. I have the following sources. The comment that was made is that the sources provide from the website of the artist. It is a fact, since the artist scanned paper articles that are not available digitally. Are scanned articles not considered as valid sources that are external, written about the artist by someone else than him, and that are not interviews? I referenced in the notes 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 that are PDF scans about him. Also the Christo Lelie article (not 16), in Dutch, is entirely about his work. I also received the comment that the "https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation" but I know for sure that it is not the case since I know the person who published it, why is it considered a translation? Finally, I understand that the source 7, written by an academic person for an academic journal is valid, so only two remaining sources could be added. I have extra sources but I would like to know if they are valid:

- This is about the Beethoven recording: https://www.tagblatt.ch/kultur/langsamer-musizieren-braucht-mut-ld.1149042

- This is also about the Beethoven recording: https://www.saiten.ch/langsamer-ist-besser/

- This one is about the Schumann recording: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Nov/Schumann-fantasie-MJMCCK190.htm

Thank you for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: there is no need to scan sources, or to cite previously scanned ones that have been uploaded to another website. Instead, you should cite the original publications using the relevant {{citation}} template, eg. {{cite-news}} or {{cite-web}}. If the source is offline, you may include a quotation to highlight the relevant part which supports the statement you're making in the draft. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467

Understanding what can be done before a resubmission.

Can you please explain if more references from independent publications will help? Or your decision is that whatever the references, you will reject any future submission? 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily need more, we need enough significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. It looks like the Les Echos (France) piece might be one instance. We'd like to see three. Which other two do you feel represent significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Early life and education" and "Persinal life" sections are entirely unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy Verification. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Dogma.geneva

totally disappointed by reviewers advice which completely fails to account how the review met the requirements of the platform. Seek solutions. Dogma.geneva (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogma.geneva: do you have a question you wish to ask?
This draft has been correctly declined, as the referencing is inadequate. Moreover, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dogma.geneva please have a read of WP:NBOOK, which I linked to you before on my first decline notice. There is zero evidence that Petriots meets our special definition of notability, the criteria of which you can find at that link. You have at least now cleaned up the overly-promotional language so I assume you correctly understood and read the WP:NPOV guidance. But you do not seem to have understood the WP:NBOOK criteria yet? Let me know when you do. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dogma.geneva, by far the most common way to show the notability of a recently published book is to provide references to several in-depth reviews of the book published by mainstream reliable sources. Your only independent source does not seem to qualify, as it seems to be more about the dog than the book. I can only read the first few paragraphs because of a paywall, but it does not seem to be an in-depth book review. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D

Hello! Please let me know what else needs to be done. I have been trying to submit the article for months, fixing things according to how I understand what needs to be done, but unfortunately making no progress. I am new to Wikipedia, and this particular article is very important for promoting the Ukrainian ballet, for letting the world know that not only Russian ballet exists, especially in today's realities. Whatever I do, I still get the same reason for declining the submission. I need someone to show me point by point where the so called "unsourced claims" are. I will not give up! 

2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Konanado

Hello! Please help me understand what needs to be done for my submission to be eventually accepted. I try to improve my article every time it gets declined, but I fail to understand what "unsourced claims" are. The last decliner took wikiholidays now, and I have no one else to ask for advice at the moment. This article contributes to promoting the Ukrainian ballet, which is very important in today's realities where the world only knows the Russian ballet. Thanks in advance! Konanado (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Konanado. Another user (you?) had a discussion on my Talk Page where I went over the issues with the draft. I hope it will be of help.
I'll go through the draft and point out some unsourced claims:
- Her Date of Birth and Location of Birth
- Her parents
- Her stage debut
- Her career at KMATOB
- Her career as a teacher at Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University
- Her career as a ballet master at National Opera of Ukraine
- People‘s Artist of Ukraine award
- The entire Repertoire and Tours sections.
Every single bit of information that I've highlighted above needs an in-line reference. If the information is already found in existing references, then feel free to repeat a reference more than once (using the same citation number), or change the layout slightly so that each paragraph has about one citation at the end. If there are no references for these pieces of information then they must be removed or references found.
Please also be aware that promotion of any kind (including of Ukrainian ballet!) is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. This is a site to document notable topics, not to promote them.
My genuine opinion is that this draft could be accepted if you could just fix those missing references from the highlighted information above. If you do, please let me know on my User Talk Page and WP:PING me, and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Gudwise

Is there anything to do when article/subject doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG at all? Gudwise (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gudwise Yes. Something else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the answer is yes then what else? You can contribute on that article. Gudwise (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gudwise, there are 6,743,121 Wikipedia articles that you can help improve. Please do not waste your own time or the time of other volunteers trying to write about non-notable topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

03:50, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Citizen arindam

I have used reliable news report's ( from famous Indian news platforms & newspapers like NDTV , Hindustan Times) but I don't understand why the article cannot be published. And also I have a pdf about the organisation from the Ministry of Health and Welfare West Bengal, India Citizen arindam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Citizen arindam, thanks for reaching out. 2 sources is not enough. Usually, you need at least 3 pieces of non-promotional, in depth coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2024 Major League Baseball season

Can you please fix the error i made on 2024 Major League baseball references please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for drafts going through the AfC review process. The article you mention is already published. In any case, if you can edit to make an error, I'm sure you can also "fix" it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey:DoubleGrazing Can you fix the error i made about ron washington being hired as angels Manager please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this is not the place to ask this. The best place to ask is the article talk page(Talk:2024 Major League Baseball season) if you are unable to fix it yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Vinraj123

I could not able to remove a part of references mentioned at the bottom of the draft article. Please help me to remove the all the references so that I can paste the correct ones in order. Vinraj123 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinraj123: you can remove the first 14 manually-created (which you shouldn't do anyway) 'references' just by normal editing. The other ten are created automatically from the inline citations you've made, and need to be deleted one by one from the body text where they are referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB

Hello, Instead of opting for a whole page dedicated to Astronism which I understand might be premature at this stage, would perhaps a brief mention of Astronism on the page Astronomy and spirituality be more appropriate? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_spirituality Or perhaps the page Astronomy and religion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_religion Since Astronism is presented as a religion focused on astronomy, inclusion in one of these pages may be more appropriate due to insufficient notability for a whole page dedicated to Astronism. This may be appropriate as these two page listed have not included any contemporary examples of interaction between astronomy, religion and spirituality from what I've read. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section to the Astronomy and spirituality page just to see what people think instead of giving Astronism its own page which seems inappropriate at this stage. Let me know your thoughts. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to apologise for my earlier rejection which was rightly undone as an error. This came from an inherent bias I have against new age religious movements. I'll recuse myself from getting involved in this draft and the contents. Qcne (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

to the administrators who want to help an 85-year-old artist whose draft of my artistic activity was blocked and eliminated while awaiting publication, I ask for the restoration and publication of my activity given to culture for over 50 years. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as already explained by the administrators you have been in touch with, there is more to this issue than simply restoring the deleted article, which in any case isn't something we can even do here at the help desk (with the exception of the few administrators who regularly patrol this forum). Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Xehadkabir

Submission rejected message was "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." how can i make it sufficient. Xehadkabir (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xehadkabir you can't, that's why it has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 14.98.204.11

Can I know the things to be done 14.98.204.11 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No things are to be done, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Thewikicolumnist

I don't understand why my article was rejected. Please advice me on steps to be taken to improve and submit my article. Thank you. Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikicolumnist your draft was declined, not rejected. Did you read the decline notice which specifically explains what was wrong with the draft? It is not written in a tone that is acceptable for Wikipedia. Please re-write this in a way that complies with our strict WP:NPOV guideline. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikicolumnist the entire draft is promotional starting with "Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin's political journey began with a strong commitment to addressing the concerns and issues of the people in the Shaikpet Division. He gained recognition for his grassroots approach to problem-solving and his dedication to improving the living conditions and infrastructure in his constituency." Just simply state when he entered politics, dry facts, nothing more and also remove the Challenges and Achievements section. See also WP:Words to watch. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Chicano Culture

This has been rejected once for notoriety. Another for lack of sourcing content, but the articles that would qualify appear to be ignored since the turnaround time between the rejection and read time for them is lower than the timing behind the rejection. Chicano Culture (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean resubmission was not possible. It was declined because notability(not notoriety, which has a more negative connotation) was not demonstrated. See WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Fyathens

Hello there, I wonder what is the specific reason it rejected again. Fyathens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Yevrowl

Please help me improve the article... or point out what is currently not exactly consistent with being posted on Wikipedia. Yevrowl (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer already answered this question. This is the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 12

00:56, 12 November 2023 review of submission by LovelyAngel1004

Excuse me, I really need some help with adding more information on the show "Audrey and Friends". The show is so obscure that it has been lost media for a long time. Also, I'm afraid that the article would be deleted after I submit it once again if I don't add enough information. I also want the article on Audrey and Friends to be seen on the web. So could you please help me with that? LovelyAngel1004 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try newspaper archives or the Wayback Machine? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Noseallergy

Hello, Not sure what is needed on this article to get it approved. The instructions are very convoluted, even for a college grad. Please tell me what needs to be fixed, added, removed, etc. in specific detail. Thanks, Noseallergy Noseallergy (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least 3 non-promotional sources of in depth coverage that are independent from the subject. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:39, 12 November 2023 review of submission by RBROBERTSON

I am writing to ask for help in addressing the November 3 comments on my submission about Marco Pasanella. The reviewer mentions that I should announce any potential conflict of interest as I am his wife. This seems like a fair request; but exactly how should I do this? In the body of the submission? Also, the reviewer requests the tone to be more neutral and warns against subjective words. I am happy to do so but am wondering what words seem non-objective. I don’t seem to be able to find any adjective that is not backed up by fact. Finally, the comment mentions that the entry should refer to a wide range of “independent reliable published sources.” Sources like Time, Esquire, Architectural Digest, Food & Wine, The Washington Post, NPR and The New York Times seem to meet this standard. I’m not sure what to do here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your guidance!

Best, Rebecca RBROBERTSON (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times and Esquire sources don't look that bad but it won't let me read them. Maybe someone else can take a look. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RBROBERTSON Regarding making a conflict of interest declaration, please post it on your User Page by following the instructions at WP:COI. Let me know if you need any help.
The tone is still not great: you need to write in a completely dispassionate way (which is going to be difficult if you are his wife!) and state the facts in a dry, formal tone. The easiest way to structure this is by paraphrasing or summarising the sources directly- don't include any information not stated in a published source. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Palauisagoodcountry

bro how can i make this better Palauisagoodcountry (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources. I have no idea what that is supposed to be. It looks made up. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Aaditya SYY

I have attached all the website articles I have got regarding the movie. And I don't know what else to do. That is why I have resubmitted it the same. I am feeling helpless regarding getting the article accepted by wikipedia. I have given all the references that I got. Please help. Aaditya SYY (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaditya SYY: after no fewer than seven earlier declines, this draft was finally rejected as non-notable. If, as you say, better sources do not exist, then there is nothing to be done; this is the end of the road, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving our article a chance 7 times. Is there a chance I can come up with a secondary source and resubmit the article in the future? Please give me that one chance. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY Rejection typically means the draft is at the end of the road. If something fundamentally changes about the draft, like new sources that the reviewers did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the most recent reviewer directly.
This film is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have a connection to this film? 331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got a contract to prepare a wikipedia article from the Producer of the movie. This is my first attempt to prepare a Wikipedia article. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY You must declare your paid editing relationship immediately, this is a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID. I will also post instructions on your user talk page. You should also read conflict of interest.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, even without a conflict of interest. That you chose to dive right in without first gaining some experience and knowledge is on you- if you are being paid to be here(unlike most of us), it's up to you to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guiding me. I will gain more experience. Yes, it is a work I'm being paid for, but the movie is genuine. The movie is real and it really got released, and the tickets for the movie were sold in Bookmyshow app as well. I understand that wikipedia article publication is not at all easy. But I will gain more experience and will get better at it by taking good guidance. Thank you. Aaditya SYY (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaditya SYY: just to clarify, nobody is saying this film isn't real; it's not like we're claiming it's a hoax. We're saying it hasn't been shown to be notable by Wikipedia standards, which is a hard requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

i want to create a page for a school in sanath nagar hyderbad india, but it is not getting approved Rutvik888 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. It is also clear you used an AI chat bot like ChatGPT to write your letter, don't do that. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention the absence of a Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School located in Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, India. Hindu Public School is the largest educational institution in Sanath Nagar, and I believe that creating a dedicated Wikipedia page for the school is essential to provide accurate and comprehensive information to the public.

Hindu Public School has been a cornerstone of education in the community, contributing significantly to the intellectual and cultural growth of its students. Despite its prominent position, the school is currently not represented on Wikipedia, and this absence is a disservice to those seeking reliable information about educational institutions in Sanath Nagar.

I am eager to contribute to the Wikipedia community by creating and maintaining a well-researched and unbiased page for Hindu Public School. I have gathered extensive information about the school, including its history, notable achievements, faculty, and the impact it has had on the local community. My intention is to ensure that the Wikipedia page adheres to all guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia.

However, I have encountered challenges in getting the page approved. I understand the importance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in maintaining the quality and reliability of information on the platform. I am committed to meeting these standards and request your approval to create the Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School.

To facilitate the approval process, I am open to any guidance or feedback from the Wikipedia editing community. I am confident that with your support, we can create a valuable resource that accurately reflects the contributions of Hindu Public School to education in Sanath Nagar.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response and the opportunity to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Rutvik888 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutvik888, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is simply no evidence this school meets our special definition of 'notable' (the guidance of which you can find at WP:NSCHOOL). You've had seven (!) reviews. This is enough now, find something else to work on. Qcne (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search. There appears to be nothing in English about the school other than bare mentions. You could possibly try searching in Hindi, Telugu, or Urdu, but unless you can find three independent reliable sources, all of which contain significant coverage of the school, the school simply doesn't meet notability standards, which is the minimum requirement for articles.
Please don't keep posting your request for help at multiple boards and user talk pages. If you do find three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you can post those links to my user talk and I'll take a look, once. I'd strongly suggest that before bringing me three and only three such sources you read WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and stop using chatgpt for your messages. ltbdl (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Bbilin

Hello,

Thanks a lot for accepting the page for publication. As I mentioned previously, I have no conflict of interest with the person, we are coming from the same small community and I think she (and other people including her partner) deserves having a wikipedia page. Myself I am a physicist working at CERN Switzerland, and hence have neither economic nor social connections with her.

Therefore, I would like to learn how we can remove the disclaimer on top of the page. The page now contains all the references that I have found about her career, also in English on top of the existing Turkish sources of Cyprus.

Many thanks, best regards,

B. Bbilin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Found out how to remove the box from the page, and updated accordingly. Bbilin (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 12 November 2023 review of submission by FoxtrotAzad

Dear Editor,

I have made amendments on the Rezal Khairi article and included notable references. Please consider to publish it based on the recent amendments.

Appreciate your kind understanding on this matter.

Thank you. FoxtrotAzad (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxtrotAzad the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, there is nothing more to do. Qcne (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83

I need help, with the permission, I ask that the draft of Georgios Dritsakos to be transferred improve and let somebody else to create an article of Georgios Dritsakos. I'm not good at it. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you relax, take it one step at a time, and work slowly and gently towards your goal? The goal is to prove that the subject is notable in a Wikipedia sense. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Www.mioshy

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have revised my submission about Yitzhak "Itzik" Barlev, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, neutrality, verifiability, and proper formatting. I have focused on providing factual, well-sourced information about Barlev's career and the impact of his work, avoiding any promotional content. I have disclosed my relationship with the subject to avoid any conflict of interest and have used reliable, independent sources to back all statements made in the article. I believe this revised version aligns with Wikipedia's standards and would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if there are any further adjustments needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yitzhak Barlev Www.mioshy (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR1Wp1jtXzaBidgHmkWB9leeonr_qufmbqrr41sqPHTPsj72q6kwh9b2VjQ I kindly ask for the deleted draft to be restored and the subsequent publication of the page on Wikipedia because I believe it was deleted unfairly. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to request this is at WP:REFUND. However it is fairly clear that this will be declined due to the issues surrounding paid editing, sockpuppets, and lack of notability.
Please give up this endeavour, and refund any money you took from the clients to create this article. Qcne (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
egr. Mr Qcne you did not read what I wrote correctly, I am Gaetano Minale, an artist where someone created an artistic profile of me and sent it for publication and there was no payment on my part as compensation, which is a very serious thing which he stated. I have 50 years of artistic life in Italy and in the world which is all documented on this website of mine www.gaetanominale.com. Please consult it and you will see that everything you have said is not true. Thank you and I hope you can understand and help me. Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Ghrimovich

i do not understand why nokeric is not "notable" enough for wikipedia? i think this is a mistake, maybe this is a case of corruption and personal sabotage. i would like this to be reviewed by another individual. Ghrimovich (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghrimovich What is your connection to Mr. Bernhagen? (since you took a picture of him)
You have no independent reliable sources in the article. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable source with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
Corruption and personal sabotage are very serious accusations requiring serious evidence. Provide your evidence(without outing) or withdraw the accusation. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i apologise for my baseless accusation i am just immensely passionate about Mr.Bernhagen and his art, i want it do be documented and memorialized in the vast hauls of wikipedias archives. i regret my words and with the utmost respect for the work of the wikipedia team i sincerely apologise and withdraw my accusations. I am unaware of the machinations or processes to install links to sources for the article. Ghrimovich (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghrimovich As presented, the subject is not notable, except to those who are his fans.
For references, please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. It's not hard. I say this because everyone adds references. The finding of references is the hard thing, not the adding of them to an article.
Please take a couple of paces back and read the links I have given you. We will ignore your rant of frustration since you have made a proper apology and withdrawn the comments. For the future, please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile concentrate on finding references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ghrimovich, your draft is packed full of unreferenced promotional fluff like he discovered a passion for creating content and catapulted into internet stardom and The dynamic between Bernhagen and his mother has become a beloved element of his content, contributing to the authenticity and charm that has endeared him to his audience. Every trace of that kind of promotional language must be removed from your draft. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 74.74.209.253

I do not understand how this article has twice been rejected for not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article references two separate articles hosted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as three separate recognized news outlets covering both the subject's campaign and incumbency. Other incumbents on the Massachusetts Governor's Council have entries (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Iannella_Jr.) with less information. Please help me understand the specific issues involved. 74.74.209.253 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Other inappropriate articles cannot be a justification for adding more inappropriate articles. Articles from the Mass. government are primary sources and do not contribute to notability(though they can be used for other purposes). Interviews don't add to notability either. Notability isn't actually the issue as this person meets WP:NPOLITICIAN for holding elective office- but you still need sources with significant coverage of her. You don't have that now. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 12 November 2023 review of submission by James Taylor12

what contribution could be made James Taylor12 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None, the draft has been rejected. You have no independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Davidwalker1981

I've added an infobox to the page but the first image I uploaded previously remains in the same place - I was hoping to replace that with the infobox. Could I get assistance with that change please? Thanks Davidwalker1981 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts; you may try the help desk. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Davidwalker1981, I removed the redundant image. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! David Davidwalker1981 (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 13

02:19, 13 November 2023 review of submission by SerialNdesgination

I would like to enhance the article by including references to websites. If you agree, I can also create more comprehensive references. Once I have completed the task, I will notify you. Thank you for your consideration. SerialNdesgination (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@serialndesgination: your draft has been rejected and will never be considered again. ltbdl (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i cant create any articles again? SerialNdesgination (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can create other articles, just not this one. ltbdl (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Jovana lukina

Hello

I have received the feedback that the article I created was not accepted for publication because the subject lacks enough notability.

Wikipedia says that good references indicating notability would be the type of article such as “… an interview, a biography, or …”. Using those guidelines I have included references that point out to notability of the subject I am writing about. 1. 3rd party summary on biography: https://theorg.com/org/mirrorcle-technologies/org-chart/lj-ristic

https://www.equitynet.com/c/crocus-technology

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/18609238#xj4y7vzkg


2. Interview with Dr. Ristic https://www.sensortips.com/?s=rictic


3. References on Dr. Ristic’s executive appointments https://www.crunchbase.com/person/lj-ristic

Alpha Names Ljubisa Ristic Vice President of Technology and Business Development; Former Motorola Executive Selected to Manage Company's Technology Roadmap | Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (skyworksinc.com)

4. Reviews/presentation of the book edited by Dr. Ristic that contain words like “lucid” etc.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sensor-technology-and-devices-ristic-ljubisa-ristic/1124243383

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/11/12/710


5. Link on Dr. Ristic’s patent activities https://patents.justia.com/inventor/lj-ristic

6. Reference to the full reprint publication in the respected journal of one of the articles that Dr. Ristic has recently published that certainly speaks to notability of his work. https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/industrial/article/21274969/mirrorcle-technologies-mems-mirrors-the-next-big-wave-in-mems-technology

I believe all these references pass the test of notability as outlined by Wikipedia.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Jovana lukina (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:37, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Drnishakhanna

My article is rejecting. Please give the reason why my article is rejecting and how can i imporve it that is approved. Drnishakhanna (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the draft? I don't see where you've ever edited before... WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 It is the now deleted Draft:Dr. Nisha Khanna.
@Drnishakhanna It appears you felt your autobiography would be appropriate. Its was judged to be advertising or promotion, and has been deleted as such. While you are welcome to try again it is suggested that you do not do so. An autobiography is likely to cause you to struggle. Almost no-one is capable of lack of bias about themselves. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:46, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Venom 200

Hello, I am attempting to recreate Jane-finch.com. I have cited several recent reliable and in-depth coverage sources to demonstrate the website's notability. However, there are many other media sources such as TV video coverage but where links no longer exist, or have expired. There are only saved versions on YouTube, but editors have said YouTube is does not qualify. I am still unable to get the page approved. Please help. Thank you. Venom 200 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venom 200 You declared a COI, what is the general nature of your COI?
YouTube does not qualify as user-generated content, unless the video is posted by a reputable news organization on its verified channel. Videos do not have to be online, but you would have to provide enough information that someone could locate the video(like in a physical library archive). The award is meaningless towards notability as the award itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). You say that the website attracted attention but do not say what this attention was. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, 331dot. I added a reference links to mainstream new stories that are in-depth about Jane-Finch.com and should pass notability criteria. The attention it attracted was for its creation and existence to promote the Jane-Finch community. The other national news coverage of the website happened in 2005 and are no longer archived anywhere else.
Can you please have a look of the links I have provided in the article? It should pass notability requirements.
CBC video segment about Jane-Finch.com:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1048050755589
Toronto Sun:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517023812/https://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/05/12/5538201-sun.html
Webpage and 60 min radio story:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/docproject/a-feeling-of-shock-how-a-toronto-creator-s-jane-finch-website-drew-the-ire-of-police-local-radio-station-1.5817658 Venom 200 (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Leo211

All the requirements of the editors (Qcne, Johannes, GoingBatty, Vanderwaalforces, Kilaseell) were met. As a result, each paragraph in the draft article "Petro Kotin" has a link to an official source (parliament website) or a link to a source in a respected media outlet, for example СNN, Reuters, U.S. News etc. What is the meaning of the Lightoil editor's phrase: “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia”? This is his subjective opinion! Please reconsider this issue and publish the article. With respect and hope for understanding. Leo211 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo211: it is perfectly possible for the draft to be sufficiently referenced, and yet for the subject to be non-notable. If there is no evidence of notability, then that is the very opposite of "subjective opinion". In any case, this draft has been rejected now, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility of the topic to whom? Who evaluates the visibility of a topic? Subjectivity again) As far as I understand, if a topic is mentioned in the world and national media, on the websites of government organizations, then the topic is noticeable. Thank you. Leo211 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you would be wrong. Please review WP:notability.
Also, who said anything about "visibility"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meaned "notable" but used
"visibility". Leo211 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Kotin played a key role in the Energoatom project" but don't say what that role was. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some obvious things. If a person heads the Energoatom company and this company implements the Energoatom project. Naturally, we can continue that this person is moving the project. Thank you. Leo211 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leo211 Your next step needs to be to contact the reviewer who rejected this and request they take a second look and discuss it with you. This is an appeal of the rejection. Most reviewers are amenable to a sensible and simple short case being presented to them.
Should this fail please come back here, ideally to this thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice. I will try to convince) Leo211 (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources state that he had a particular influence on the project, something that someone else would not have done? 331dot (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Real projects are not always accompanied by detailed explanations during their implementation due to the need to protect them from attacks from competitors in the media. Upon implementation, detailed information about them is published. This project is still under implementation. Leo211 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Fact wiki world

Why contrary to Wikipedia regulation please? Fact wiki world (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks to be a blog post, not an encyclopaedic article. Qcne (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 103.85.206.37

Can you explain why it's rejected clearly 103.85.206.37 (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been declined (not rejected) for "insufficient context", which is a fancy way of saying "huh, what is this?!"
Of course, this could equally have been declined for lack of referencing, lack of evident notability, or as a likely hoax. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 87.1.48.40

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ questa volta lo scrivo in italiano, come posso ottenere la grazia su Wikipedia ed essere di nuovo presente su questa enciclopedia? tutti cercano di eliminare qulsiasi pubblicazione venga fatta a nome d Gaetano Minale e nessuno che cerca di aiutarmi e essere reintegrato dopo 6 anni di blocco infinito. Cchiedo nuovamente ai sigg amministratori di riaprire questa mia bozza di profilo per essere pubblicata, credo che dopo oltre 50 anni di attività artistica come pittore meriti questa pubblicazione. Vi chiedo di consultare questo mio siti web con tutto quello che c'è da sapere sulla mia attività artistico svolta fino ad ora www.gaetanominale.com Grazie Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translated:
this time I write it in Italian, how can I obtain pardon on Wikipedia and be present on this encyclopedia again? everyone is trying to eliminate any publication made in the name of Gaetano Minale and no one is trying to help me and be reinstated after 6 years of endless blocking. I ask the administrators again to reopen this draft profile of mine to be published, I believe that after over 50 years of artistic activity as a painter it deserves this publication. I ask you to consult this website of mine with everything you need to know about my artistic activity carried out up to now www.gaetanominale.com Thanks Gaetano Minale
Response
This is the wrong forum. To appeal a block please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ
per favore Fiddle , per il blocco farò come lei ha proposto, ma la prego ripristina questa bozza cancellata in inglese , dammi la possibilità di dimostrarti che ho tutte le carte in regola per essere pubblicata, controlla questo mio sito con tutte le notizie e vedrà che 50 anni di vita artistica sono tutti documentati.
www.gaetanominale.com
. Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translated:
please Fiddle, for the block I will do as you proposed, but please restore this deleted draft in English, give me the opportunity to demonstrate to you that I have all it takes to be published, check this site of mine with all the news and you will see that 50 years of artistic life are all documented.
Response
We will await the outcome of your unblock
I visited your site. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. So if Fiddle has visited my site he will also have noticed that all the news sources are visible in photos from the time or before the internet, with national newspaper clippings, 3 art magazines and many reviews written by famous critics, not to mention of the approximately 100 videos published cg that talk about my work as an artist. Everything is documented visually. This means that my draft has and as references, please restore it and let me know.. thanks, Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will happen until your block is addressed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Fidlle, Wikipedia's statute suggests that unblocking can be done through an administrator, so I ask you if I can't access Wikipedia because it's blocked, how can I get in touch with an administrator who can study and help me? If you can, why don't you help me? Thank you . Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Vandeep243

There's a draft Guroudev Bhalla. Can someone improve it and make it ready for submission? Please let me know then will try to submit to review. Thanks Vandeep243 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vandeep243 Why don't you do it? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking a volunteer to choose to spend a considerable amount of their own time working on improving a draft about a subject which is of interest to you, and who you have not shown to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
It is possible that somebody might be willing to do this, but you have made no attempt to engage anybody's interest, simply asked somebody to do a load of work to achieve your purpose. Why would you expect anybody to agree? ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:6C5D:5BF0:A2F0:182C:4B99:14C6:687

i need help putting aimkid on here please 2600:6C5D:5BF0:A2F0:182C:4B99:14C6:687 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero indication this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Try making an article on youtube.fandom.com Qcne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Dhrubajit61

Hello my last article (Ladli Behna Yojana) was legitimate article. You can check all popular news website about this scheme. Reviewer has commented that 'I don't know about this'. Is this a reason to decline the article!! Plz gather some information and recheck it. Thanks! Dhrubajit61 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dhrubajit61. The draft was correctly declined. Wikipedia articles must provide context to readers with little familiarity of the subject: your draft is incomprehensible to someone outside of India. However it should also be noted that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is the second reason why your draft fails. Qcne (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 184.88.156.114

please say okay to my business 184.88.156.114 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is an encyclopaedia for notable topics, not ..whatever your draft is meant to be. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Mohammad Z. Islam

So, what should I do please suggest me. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @Mohammad Z. Islam. The article(s) you have submitted have been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are various institution share there information. It is a non profit organization that help the industry worker. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I upload it by native language bn. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to write for other language Wikipedia projects: they are all different projects with different guidelines and policies. Qcne (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 13 November 2023 review of submission by TlonicChronic

Hi! I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor (this is my first time attempting to create a stub). I was hoping to go through a few labels' catalogues and create stubs for the releases that didn't have articles, and let other fans and editors flesh them out as they wish. I was wondering if I could get some assistance knowing what sort of citations would be required to create a stub? I'm guessing nearly all the info I'll be attempting to add will be on the records themselves. Can I cite Discogs, which has usually has photos of the albums? Thank you very much for your time! TlonicChronic (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TlonicChronic. Unfortunately you can't cite Discogs, though you can add it as an External Link. Instead cite music magazines (including offline copies), review websites, books and the like. Basically anything that is published with some authority and editorial control. Qcne (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Is there any way of simply citing the release itself? The track listing (or titles), credits, copyright, etc. are under the direct authority and control of the licensed owner of the material. TlonicChronic (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly use primary sources to cite the release itself, but to pass our WP:NALBUM notability threshold we'd need some secondary sources too. Unfortunately only topics that pass that threshold should have an article written about them. We have thousands and thousands of poor-quality articles that already exist and should not, and we don't want to add to that amount by creating more articles with no/poor sources.
If you can't find those secondary sources, then I am afraid the album wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia at the moment. Please don't let that discourage you, though. Qcne (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! TlonicChronic (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 109.99.212.171

I don't know history,players,kit numbers positions from the club 109.99.212.171 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion would just be academic; the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Mypoetry2023

Our bio was declined due to: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject .

How can I present or submit reliable secondary sources that are not available online? We have letters from all the awarding bodies, but there are no websites dedicated to my awards. thanks Mypoetry2023 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mypoetry2023 Who is "our"? Only a single person should have access to and be operating your account. If you are Mr. Drummond, you should not allow anyone else to use your account.
A letter from a body that gave Mr. Drummond an award would be a primary source- any awards must be discussed in independent reliable sources like news reports. Additionally, the award itself needs to merit an article(like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) to contribute towards notability. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources that establishes you meet the special definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mypoetry2023, I would ask that you read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

00:09, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Tdlin

One of the comments left by the reviewer who declined my article was that I needed to cite date of birth. The subject was born in 1931 and I've been unable to find any articles that cite his date of birth? How do I resolve that issue? Also, I understand that my sources are somewhat obscure (e.g. the Hearing Journal); but the subject was involved in a narrow, yet important, technology sector of the 1970s not widely covered by large organizations or outlets that have digitized their records from that era? How do I work toward developing more reliable sources when much of the information comes from hard copies of articles written in newspapers and journals that do not have an online presence? Tdlin (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tdlin. If you cannot find a published source for a date of birth, you must remove the date of birth from the article. How did you know he was born in 1931? Do you know Scott?
It is completely fine to use offline sources (hard copies of books, magazines, journals, etc). The only criteria for sources is that they are published and reliable (i.e., not a random Facebook post discussing this person). It looks like Scott may indeed pass our WP:NPEOPLE notability threshold if you say he was covered in multiple newspapers and journals. Just cite them offline and make sure to cite every statement. If you can't find a citation that backs up the statement, the statement should be removed. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:37, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 크로스픽쳐스

We don't understand exactly what is more needed for this article. The answers that we've got in the Talk's Page is too vague. 크로스픽쳐스 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@크로스픽쳐스 check the film criteria at WP:NFILM. You need multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the film. I actually think your draft is borderline acceptable, it just needs one or two more sources that are independent. Add them and re-submit. Qcne (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Geetamehrotra12

Please someone help me editing this draft! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how can i contribute much to this draft but i guess it should be published to wikipedia so can anyone help me! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geetamehrotra12 you've not actually submitted the draft for review yet. You need to click the blue Submit the draft for review! button.
However: it is pointless to submit it for review as your draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia in it's current form. Only organisations that pass our strict WP:NORG criteria may have articles written about them. Ezee2Host does not pass this criteria. The draft is also written in a promotional way which is prohibited: please advertise this company on Facebook or something, not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

Hello, the draft of this page was rejected several times, but we have no idea what is missing? We think we have provided all information needed to fulfill the requirements. A more specific reasoning would help to improve. The current situation is disappointing because it only leads to people offering their help and they ask for money. Is this a business model? One guy rejects and then the next offers paid help?

Please let us know why it was rejected?

Many thanks and kindest regards. StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StrangeBrotherhood. If you have been contacted outside Wikipedia and offered an article review for money, please be aware this is a scam. Please read WP:SCAM. Wikipedia does not operate on this model - everything here is completely free and no one will ask you for money. Unfortunately organised scamming groups target users like you.
Onto your draft: it has been rejected as there is no evidence it passes our WP:NTEAM criteria. Have a read of that criteria. If you believe you can prove notability using sources that are independent, secondary, and reliable, then please contact the rejecting reviewer @M4V3R1CK32 and appeal to them to have another look at the draft. Qcne (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

Why is it not notable? Are you kidding me? StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. Qcne (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 27.33.233.138

How to get this article to be accepted 27.33.233.138 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to appeal to the reviewer @Pbritti directly. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Ashvin29

I have a Wikipedia editor free service, my page updated this time. attached my imdb here link Ashvin29 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ashvin29. I do not understand your question, could you rephrase?
I have declined your draft as there is no evidence you meet our special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia articles are not like LinkedIn or other social media websites. Only people who meet this special definition may have an article written about them. Qcne (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Thebackgammoner

Hi editors. My first time creating an article, hoping to get a pointer. I rewrote someone else's draft with a neutral POV. My submission was declined because of insufficient citations.

I've Googled lightyear and they've had coverage in other papers like AltiFi, irish times, cityAM, etc. I can see these publications are cited in the articles for Freetrade, Traderepublic, etc - should I add some of these as sources? I've so far avoided citing their blog or VC press releases, in favour of secondary stuff - is this the right approach? Thanks Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thebackgammoner. My issue with some of your sources is that they are regurgitating press releases - you can tell as they all include something like "CEO stated...", "Cofounder told...". I wonder if you can find a couple of sources that offer analysis/interpretation/review/discussion of the platform? Those would be more suitable. Definitely don't cite their blog or the actual press release, but really the sources you've chosen are just the press releases one step removed, so not really adding much value. Qcne (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner How did you discover this draft? It's not easy to find a draft unless one already knows it exists. Before this, you hadn't edited since 2017. The draft was the only edit of the editor that created it, who seemed to create their account specifically to do so. If you are connected to Lightyear, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you are employed by them or receive any form of compensation from them, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did an advanced search for 'lightyear' (i.e. drafts ticked) and it was the first result. Seemed easier than writing it from scratch. I'm not connected to Lightyear, though I do use it. Fair enough about the citations - I'll have another look at some point, see if there's anything suitable. Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons(that you uploaded). You did not provide copyright information- and Commons cannot generally host logos. Logos must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. "Fair use" does carry some restrictions, like being unable to be used in drafts.
In any event, images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about adding the logo until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopdia. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Intmig öa

Dear Reviewers, I'm relatively new to writing Wiki articles, but my first article on the same topic which I wrote in German was accepted without any interventions and now I don't know, what's wrong with the article in question. The comment to the last rejection wasn't completely right, since I did change something, what I supposed to be incomplete, which was the tags for the article. But obviously, something else is missing or not right and I would like to understand it. Any of your help is very appreciated. Kind regards Johann Intmig öa (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intmig öa Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. Here, it is insufficient to merely tell about an organization and what it does- an article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa I think this was probably rejected too soon, so I have undone the rejection by @Jovanmilic97 Qcne (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I think upon a review you are probably right about it being too soon, but at that moment I felt it was appropriate as literally *nothing* has been changed since the decline. I know the OP here says there was a change, but the page history says otherwise. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about it, I've done the same. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97 Excuse me, if I wasn't precise enough. I added the tags to the article as I thought it could be the problem for it not being accepted because of being incomplete. I don't know, if such changes appear in the page history. I hope you understand, that I didn't mean to deceive anybody. I'm new to editing here and appreciate an indulgent and patient communication. Intmig öa (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reply. Intmig öa (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Elfredsoon

how do i make it a official page？ 

Elfredsoon (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elfredsoon: this draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. We don't have "official pages" here. We have articles about notable topics that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1185093122"