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
Usr TC17 (talk | contribs)
19 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Tenderstories
Line 913: Line 913:


:@[[User:Mint0ri|Mint0ri]]: 'sigcov' is shorthand for [[WP:significant coverage|significant coverage]], which means that the source has written about the subject directly and in sufficient extent and detail, not just mentioning it in passing or incidentally in some other context. In simple terms, the article/programme/etc. must be ''about'' the subject, not merely name-checking the subject. HTH, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Mint0ri|Mint0ri]]: 'sigcov' is shorthand for [[WP:significant coverage|significant coverage]], which means that the source has written about the subject directly and in sufficient extent and detail, not just mentioning it in passing or incidentally in some other context. In simple terms, the article/programme/etc. must be ''about'' the subject, not merely name-checking the subject. HTH, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

== 10:28, 13 December 2023 review of submission by Usr TC17 ==
{{Lafc|username=Usr TC17|ts=10:28, 13 December 2023|draft=Draft:Tenderstories}}
Hello, about the rejection of the article, I'm trying to understand guidance on how to successfully get the page approved. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I've noticed that there are several filmmaking companies, such as Tenderstories, listed on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, this organization is referenced on various pages, including:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bones_and_All
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_(2022_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Bros._films_(2020%E2%80%932029)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films_(2020%E2%80%932029
Is there any information missing from the page? Have I forgotten something?
Could you help me?
Thanks in advance! [[User:Usr TC17|Usr TC17]] ([[User talk:Usr TC17|talk]]) 10:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:28, 13 December 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


December 7

00:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by LouieLumber

I'm confused, this person has White House press releases, Public Radio interviews, and has written laws signed by the Governor of Illinois.

What sources would be best to reference? Any help is appreciated! This is my first real article!

Thank you! LouieLumber (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LouieLumber, you may want to read WP:42 - which explains the standard for sources that confer notability. Essentially, you want 2-3 sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. For example, the first reference, a CBS article, is not in-depth, though it is reliable and probably independent. The second reference, the Illinois gov press release, is not in-depth nor independent, though it is reliable. Etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e

wiki page Gfs1234e (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfs1234e: that's not a question, and your draft isn't a viable article draft. What did you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 7 December 2023 review of submission by AnnaStoneG

Hi I recently edited this draft but my computer shut down. Is there any chance that you can see and send me the most recent version of this draft? I should be from yesterday or the day before that.

) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: We can't see anything unless you save it. The most recent revision is from November 25. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank for answering so quickly :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Fine art at heart

Hi,

My article had been rejected, how can I clean up the copy so it is approved? Fine art at heart (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine art at heart It was declined, not rejected. In the draft submission process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
The draft has several unsourced sections, some of which are highly promotional(especially the background section). Your first two sources are this establishment itself, which cannot be used to establish notability, that requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The independent sources provided only briefly mention this business, and one is an interview with its personnel, which is not independent. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rejected the draft, it is blatant advertising, with zero indication of notability and you have not declared your paid status despite repeated requests. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to delete this draft per G11 but admin conflicted with Seraphimblade. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Chris Mkhize

I am a musician and a film director and I need my page approved to be more credible Chris Mkhize (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mkhize Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career; Wikipedia cannot control if third parties use Wikipedia to confer credibility(they shouldn't). You only merit an article if you meet our criteria. See WP:AUTO and WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Jazzmonke

Hi, could you please tell me exactly why my article was not approved? is it because it is too long for an amateur artist? Please, I worked hard for this, tell me what i need to do to get this published. thanks alot Jazzmonke (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazzmonke: it's written in a promotional, non-encyclopaedic language; expressions like "captivating", "innate passion", "trajectory defined by unwavering dedication and artistic innovation", etc. are suitable for marketing collateral, but not for an encyclopaedia. Your job should be merely to describe, not promote, the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Text such as "Andy Penkow a multifaceted singer-songwriter with a captivating blend of country, Americana, alternative, and contemporary music, has emerged as a prominent figure in Australia's music landscape. Renowned for his evocative lyrics, soulful compositions, and distinctive vocal prowess, Penkow's musical journey spans an array of achievements, accolades, and chart-topping singles, solidifying his status as a revered artist within the Australian country music scene" is completely inappropriate prose for an encyclopedia article. Our essay on puffery has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understod, thanks for your feedback, I will make the neccesary changes and resubmit. Jazzmonke (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have managed to re-write it completely but still keep the inappropriate promotional tone...eg. Content like "Penkow is known for his dedication to music. His commitment to creating authentic, heartfelt music is reflected in his songwriting and performances. While much of his life is centered around music and his career, Outside his music, Penkow is passionate about health and fitness" is entirely promotional do you have a conflict of interest here by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jazzmonke You took a picture of Mr. Penkow and he posed for you- and it appears to be a professionally taken image. You must describe your connection with him. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, Yes, this picture is indeed a professionally taken photograph directly sourced from Mr Andy, by personally reaching out to him. I have no direct relationship to Mr Andy, however he is in a music domain where I am familiar with since I have been a country music fan for a long time. I chose Mr. Andy Penkow to write my first wikipedia article since I am familiar with this music domain and I have followed Andy's work closely for a while. The reason for me to invest my time on writing this wikipedia article is so that I can become an active contributor and to add this as sort of a personal achievement for myself, to have contributed to wikipedia. I await your further feedback on how to abide by the rules and regulations and I am happy to make necessary changes to make this article in accordance with all requirements. please do let me know if i need to acquire a different picture, and any other comments are welcome. thanks. Jazzmonke (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jazzmonke: if you haven't taken that photo yourself, then you shouldn't have uploaded it as your 'own work', because it clearly isn't. And by the same token, I'm assuming you don't own the copyright to it, either, and therefore should not be releasing it into the public domain under the Creative Commons licence, which I expect the copyright owner wouldn't be too happy about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo

Resubmission made after proper addition of citation. But targeted declining was made Abayan leo (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted with zero improvement (Times of India is not a reliable source) now rejected so will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
their blocked sock is asking for help on his user talk if you're so inclined @Theroadislong (I'm not). Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Science and such

A draft article has been (re)submitted because the first reviewer stated that the sources were not notable. Making careful use of Wikipedia notability guidelines, the following sources were added. Note: these are all stories whereby the subject of the article is the main featured subject: The New York Times The New York Times Magazine The New Yorker The Guardian The Telegraph The Times

This feedback was then returned: Unfortunately the approach taken since the first review has been to add unsourced material which is not notable. This does not help. For instance, being a research associate is certainly not notable.

ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Merlin_Sheldrake

So the question is: why are these sources (which are a small selection of the total) not notable?

Thank you 

Science and such (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Science and such, in order to count towards notability, sources must be reliable, independent, and in-depth. As such, any articles written by Sheldrake would not count, for example refs #6, #7, and #15, because they are not independent. Similarly, articles like refs #12 and #13 do not count, since they do not go into depth on Sheldrake. Etc. What are the three best sources that you have in the draft, according to these guidelines? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, to answer your question, the three "best" sources (most reputable?) according to these guidelines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/magazine/merlin-sheldrake-fungi.html
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-secrets-of-the-wood-wide-web
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/entangled-life-how-fungi-make-our-worlds-change-our-minds-and-shape-our-futures-merlin-sheldrake-review-8b9f3k65q Science and such (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sungodtemplean additional reference to answer your question:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/27/climate/climate-change-fungi.html Science and such (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a high-quality reference. The second one has too much interview to really count, maybe half a reference. The fourth one is only tangentially about Sheldrake and doesn't count. The third one is paywalled, so I cannot exactly tell, but based on the title, a book review, it might or might not count, based on the amount of author background it gives. If I were an Articles for Creation reviewer, I would decline the draft, but only barely. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Science and such: there's no such thing as 'notable sources'; notability is an attribute of the subject, not of the sources. You usually need to produce certain quality and quantity of sources to demonstrate notability, and in so doing some sources are 'better' then others (say, The Guardian trumps The Express, etc.). But even then, what the source says is just as important as what the source is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response(s).
Clear.
However, there are entire articles from notable sources which focus solely on the subject.
reference 4 is a complete article in The New Yorker solely about the subject
reference 8 is an entire piece in The New York Times Magazine entitled:
The Man Who Turned the World on to the Genius of Fungihttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/magazine/merlin-sheldrake-fungi.html
which is dedicated entirely to the subject at hand
reference 2 is from The Times and is a review solely addressing the subject's notability and expertise
I fail to see how these sources/ references do not qualify as Notable. Science and such (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question:
If I do not agree with the reviewer. I other words if I contend that these sources: The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Times, and The New Yorker are reliable, independent, and in-depth, what is the next step? Science and such (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMARY:
The Reviewer submitted this comment:
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced
However the person who is the subject of the article is the sole focus of multiple articles taken directly from the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for sources (generally reliable perennial sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources)
The sources (partial list) are:
1. The New York Times
2. The New York Times Magazine
3. The New Yorker
4. The Times
5. Time
Conclusion: these sources should adequately demonstrate that Notability guidelines are fulfilled by Reliable sources.
Question: is the (main) objection that a number of the articles referenced are written by the person who is the subject of the draft? There are also a number of academic research papers cited which were (also) written by the subject of the (draft) article.
Request: will the reviewer please address the issue of Notability taking these points into account?
Thank you Science and such (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 Science and such (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Science and such: I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you suggest; refs 2 and 4 are not really about the person, other than indirectly perhaps, although I agree that ref 8 certainly is. Without having done a thorough source analysis, I'd say this is probably borderline, in what comes to WP:GNG notability. Whether it would have a better chance of meeting some special notability (WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC?), I don't yet know.
In the meantime, there are a lot of other issues that need addressing, and I would suggest that you get on with those; they have been flagged up in the comments and with inline tags.
Also, what is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as relevant. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Mmalmborg30

Trying to figure out which specific part did not have sources? I included sources for all information. Mmalmborg30 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmalmborg30 To start, you have an incomplete section in the draft, the sources need to be reliable, and independent of the subject matter. Also, the sources need to go in depth about the subject. Also, see the comment on the draft for more info. Seawolf35 T--C 17:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have it fixed now Mmalmborg30 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Rodeco

Why was it declined? Everything I said was factual Rodeco (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cited no reliable sources and state M-1500 does not exist. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Visaru

Hello! I am trying to publish this new article and have been told that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. From my understanding of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), the article does meet two notability criteria for academics: “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level” and “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research”. The sources I found for both of these are press releases, which to my understanding should count, since the guidelines say, “For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.” Could you help me understand why it doesn't meet the requirements? Do I need additional sources proving the notability of CUNY and The Fulbright program? Thanks! Visaru (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visaru I accepted the draft. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Elainekmixa

the page was refused for creation however, I have found wiki pages with businesses similar to TMS Digital in which the sources are skewed. Why can't a local company have a wikipedia page? why does it have to be a billion dollar company in order to have a wikipedia page? TMS Digital, (originally Tarheel Publishing) is Johnston County, NC's oldest privately owned advertising company. That should stand for something. Elainekmixa (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elainekmixa read WP:NCORP thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elainekmixa Wikipedia is not a business directory of businesses that exist. There are criteria for inclusion(the aforementioned WP:NCORP). Being a "billion dollar company" is not one of the criteria.
See other stuff exists. These other articles(not "pages", which has a broader meaning) you have seen may also be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss the importance of being the oldest advertising company in a particular county? There are thousands of counties in the United States. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your link. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Manushvalo

How can I re-submit this as an article? Please help, thanks. Manushvalo (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manushvalo you can click the blue resubmit button in the decline message but it will just be declined as you have cited no sources and nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. Most of it seems to be about father which is useless. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 7 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8

I wonder why a "a semi-active Indian Wikipedian" is qualified to reject an entry on a Canadian/American engineer who was a pioneer in computer design and has contributed significantly to the success of US national as well as international oceanographic research (see lists of Webb's awards and patents). Perhaps someone can advise on what the draft is missing. Does it need more references? a list of Webb's publications? Please help! 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they understand our guidelines and policies on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:ANYBIO. These guidelines have zero to do with locality of the subject. So I would recommend you read their advice and the links in my reply to better understand what is required. This approach above will not gain you any support here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

01:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Faaksee

Hi, I cited numerous sources including national and regional news outlets and the article was still declined. Faaksee (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not hace significant coverage of the league. As the last reviewer said, see WP:SIGCOV. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e

we need more pages Gfs1234e (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfs1234e: What's your question? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 64.38.183.36

I don’t know how to make this notable enough to get my page accepted, I only need it for my website to show information and to send to people when they ask questions in my community server. 64.38.183.36 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@64.38.183.36: If it's not notable (which this doesn't appear to be) there's nothing you can do unfortunately. Try another wiki or blogsite perhaps. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Thejus G Zachariah

How can I post a Wiki article about a brand? Thejus G Zachariah (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thejus G Zachariah: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:38, 8 December 2023 review of submission by KizzWRLD

I don’t know what exactly to use as draft title KizzWRLD (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KizzWRLD: Is Draft:KizzWRLD not the correct title of your draft? Regardless, from a quick Google search, it is highly unlikely this is notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 31204V

How my article can be chanded to be accepted? 31204V (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@31204V: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Your draft is written like an advertisement. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Dediggefedde

Hello! I tried to submit a draft, which is basically a translation of the German entry of Hans Geissel, which I also wrote together with Hans Geissel. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geissel However, the english draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Geissel) was declined because of missing references.

In a response to a different question on this page, I saw the statement "in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources" (by DoubleGrazing). The lack of such citations at times is also the case for this article, so I understand the decision for declining.


First question: How can I provide citations for biographical events that were not mentioned in publications?

I am in personal contact with Hans Geissel, but I see myself challenged finding public, independent citation sources for his biography data. In general, it seems difficult to prove where someone worked, studied or which experiment they build if there is no newspaper about it.

For example, the "DPG research grant 1982" does not seem to appear in any publication. I also didn't find any publications confirming his date or location of birth, or that he supervises students since 1985. I could leave everything like that out, but since there aren't many publications in general, the article not contain much biographical information. However, since he is the world record holder for the discovery of more than 280 new isotopes and for his other achievements, he is notable in my opinion and a detailed wiki page would be justified.


Second question: Which information does actually need references in practice?

The reviewer didn't specify which information requires citation, so I tried to look at other articles for reference, but it looks a bit inconsistent:

Dediggefedde First, if you are in contact with Mr. Geissel, you should declare a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any communication with, or even the knowledge of, the subject.
Second, what is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. The English version tends to be stricter than others.
Third, if you have no published reference for information, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Verification is an important principle of Wikipedia, and information without a reference cannot be verified. This is vital in articles about living people. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901

I don't know why my article being declined. I want Wikipedia to assist me to remove all the things others author stated so my article can go into public.


Thank You Sincerely,

Hiwakari ItsumoHiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: this draft is completely unreferenced, which not only is wholly unacceptable in what comes to articles on living people (WP:BLP), it also means there is zero evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Rcjqffm

I'm not sure what you mean by "The text of this has been mangled by a program." The text is, of course, taken from a Word file. So would you suggest deleting the whole entry and starting from scatch? Thanks for your help. 

Rcjqffm (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcjqffm: assuming the text is yours, ie. it came from your Word file and not some third party's, then I don't think that's a reason to TNT this; it just needs a bit of clean-up. I would be more interested in seeing you cite your sources via the usual method of inline citations and footnotes (see WP:REFB for advice), which makes it much easier for the reviewers, as well as future readers, to see where each bit of information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Loftt 01

How do I find reliable sources. there is little else than the sources i found for the article i wrote. does wikipedia even view the topic i wrote about as not worthy becuase its too new? like how would someone write a legitimate articles about this game for wikipedia? nothing i wrote is wrong, all info came from released information, this is just a summarised version from the gameplay demo and websites. Loftt 01 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Loftt 01: if, as you say, this is an "upcoming" game, then it almost certainly is not notable at this time. We are not interested in any pre-launch publicity materials and similar, we only want to see what independent and reliable sources have said. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of 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."

May I request Wikipedia to help me solve the problem, because I don't know what I can do to fix it and it is a lot. This person is well known, but have not list on Wikipedia, so I want to list him on Wikipedia and then there will be news and sources about him. Hiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: please don't start a new thread, I've already answered this a moment ago. We cannot accept unreferenced drafts, especially on living people. Where did all this information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Anonymousartuser

My draft got declined once. I do not understand what are the unreliable links. Please could you help me? Anonymousartuser (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousartuser: that decline reason ("not adequately supported by reliable sources") can mean two different things. Either the sources cited are not reliable, or the citations do not adequately support the draft contents. Both apply here: the sources include LinkedIn and a WordPress blog, which are both user-generated; and there is too much unreferenced content – in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship to the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gerrumicum

Hello there,

I am trying to publish the Draft for a known art curator in Frankfurt, Germany. After the first submission from mid November had been declined due to the "person not yet [showing] to meet notability guidelines", I sourced the article (especially the bio) in detail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franziska_Nori&oldid=1187477827)

Now my submission was declined, too, and the reasoning is "prof - Submission is about a professor not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franziska_Nori&oldid=1187858590)

I can see how the subject does not meet most of the eight academic-specific criteria, but on the other hand the sourcing seems to be fine? The internationally known curator is an art-professor, too, but that's not the focus of the article (or her work).

How can I revise the article and make sure, that it doesn't get declined because of her not being notable enough in the academic context of being a professor?

If necessary, I believe this could be omitted and the article should be focused on her work as art-curator.

Best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrumicum: the latter decline reason also includes the same WP:GNG notability standard which was the reason for the earlier decline; in other words, it is saying that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF or GNG. But I can add a comment there to advise the next reviewer to consider only GNG, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply and your offer!
If applicable, I think GNG should be more fitting as the subject is a art-curator with some (but not alot) co-published literature. If you see the article, do you come across anything that might result in another declining? Do I have to resubmit in order to get the article checked by another reviewer? (with focus on GNG)
best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerrumicum: yes, you have to resubmit, in order to get another review. (And I have added a note about GNG.) However, as I mentioned, the latest review also states that GNG is not met, so without somehow addressing that claim, it seems pointless to resubmit as this would probably be declined again. At the very least you should highlight (either here or on the draft talk page) the 3+ sources that you feel are strongest in terms of satisfying GNG. This would in any case help the next reviewer, as there are quite a few sources to go through otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Ruslan Sharipov

I have got the message "Submission declined on 22 November 2023 by Stuartyeates (talk)". But the user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates is said "This page does not exist". Is Stuartyeates a true legal reviewer? Ruslan Sharipov (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslan Sharipov: there is no obligation for users to have user pages; in this case, there used to be one, but it was deleted at the user's request. And yes, Stuartyeates is indeed a legitimate (and experienced) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered @Ruslan Sharipov at User_talk:Stuartyeates#Request_on_10:32:55,_8_December_2023_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Ruslan_Sharipov. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

I need to know the problem with the content of this page and why it is not getting accepted. Preksha30 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preksha30, it is a clear advert for Khatri. Thus, it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

I have made the required changes Preksha30 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Preksha30 No you didn't, it still reads like an advert so my rejection still stands. Qcne (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 36.85.4.18

Please help me with my article so that it can be accepted. Because it is the campus's job to create personal biodata on Wikipedia. 36.85.4.18 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor.
It is a shame you have been asked to make this article by your boss. Please have a read of WP:BOSS.
The draft you created has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Inyiyruma

My entry for VP Choice Awards was declined with the comment "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement." I'm uncertain about the issue. Could it be because our entry mentions brands and companies? As an award-giving entity, we recognize the people's choice in businesses, including brands and companies in the Philippines. I hope you can assist me in addressing this issue, as I might have overlooked something. Thank you. Inyiyruma (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Inyiyruma. Vast parts of the article is unsourced - you have a load of citations but they're hanging at the bottom of the article. They need to be in-line with the text.
However the wording of the article is problematic, it includes language that breaks our strict neutrality policy. Qcne (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! I've added reference links in the articles; I hope those are sufficient. Regarding the wording in the article, I've already rewritten it in the best neutral point of view possible. I would appreciate it if you could review it and let me know which parts need further attention or fixing. Inyiyruma (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things stand out to me, emphasis mine:
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?)
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak)
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?)
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term)
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply, really appreciated it. I have edited my wikipedia based on your remarks.
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?) - Removed this part.
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak) - Removed this part.
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?) - Removed this part.
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)- Rephrased to simply "attended by business personalities, celebrities and influencers.
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term) - Reworded this simply to: "Currently, the fifth VPCA....."
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. --I've reviewed the WP:GNG guideline, hope you can check further because the articles/write-ups from GMA Network, and or ABS-CBN should be considered independent entity because they are in no way related to VPCA. I have also added few more links from independent blogs and news outlet who wrote about the event in their own will.
If I have missed anything please let me know. Thanks so much for the assistance. Inyiyruma (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne, my entry is reviewed and declined again by another reviewer. Is it necessary? because it gets a bit more confusing on what to improve in the article :-( Hope you can give it a review again please. thanks so much Inyiyruma (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Theroadislong who is a very experienced reviewer and will hopefully be able to help. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and blogs are not suitable sources and "Village Pipol" is not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Jussmenaas

I keep getting declined- but I am trying to create a page on an American Author and Lawyer that has two published books. I am unsure what to do. Jussmenaas (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jussmenaas: for starters, you have to improve your referencing. As pointed out already, Goodreads, Amazon, Facebook and Instagram are not acceptable sources. And pretty much everything needs to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source – now eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is completely unreferenced.
Can you also please confirm that you have read and understood WP:AUTOBIO? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I have read that and am not writing about myself nor someone close to me. As this person has not received national coverage beyond events in a few states, it is difficult to pull various sources. Jussmenaas (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jussmenaas Your draft promotesthe perosn, rather than reporting om what is said in multiple reliable sources independent of her. Seeking to have her inherit notability from booms she has edited is inappropriate.
To proceed at all, find references that meet our needs. 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 🇺🇦 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Ahfgsojlguaol

erm.. why did my article get declined /_ \ Ahfgsojlguaol (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahfgsojlguaol: it wasn't declined, it was actually rejected, meaning this is the end of the road for it. There is no evidence that the subject is notable, and all the information is unreferenced, violating the core principles of notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 173.76.99.203

Hi, thank you for reviewing my article. I've only edited articles in the past and this is my first new post. If possible, I'd love to know if there is a section of this page that requires a more reputable source or if I need more reputable sources or if I used a non-reputable source that is the issue with my last submission. There are lots of news article that I can use as sources for this article but want to make sure I'm not just putting more news articles as sources if news papers and journals aren't considered reputable. Again, thank you for the help! 173.76.99.203 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I was logged out. the above question was from me. I'm logged in now. Sevenreading (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sevenreading: I don't think there is anything obviously wrong with regard to the reliability of your sources. My guess is rather that this was declined because there is unreferenced content, with several paragraphs without citations. Just to say that you can cite a source more than once, and indeed need to do so if the source supports several statements in the article (see WP:NAMEDREFS for advice). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
helpful. thank you! Sevenreading (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Inyiyruma

Good day! Thank you for reviewing my entry. I would appreciate it if you could provide details on the specific errors found in my wiki entry for VP Choice Awards. I've taken heed of the previous reviewer's (Qcne) comment and made efforts to:

1. Rewriten sentences in a more neutral manner to avoid the comment "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement." Please review and advise if further adjustments are necessary. 2. Included references in the article. Most of the references are sourced from significant multimedia and news outlets in the Philippines, such as ABS-CBN News, BusinessWeek Mindanao, and similar reputable sources.

Please guide me on the areas that require additional attention, as I'm still learning about Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your assistance. Inyiyruma (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 129.108.37.62

Can I have an update on the review of this submission? 129.108.37.62 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft does not exist? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 129.108.37.62

Can I have an update on the review of this submission? 129.108.37.62 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft does not exist? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:21, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Emanon17

I am requesting assistance to get clarification on why the article I created for UCINET was declined.

I know it's in relation to the citations and formatting. The citations issues I mostly understand, but it would be helpful to get a better idea of what additional citations might be needed in the context of SNA Software. The reviewer also left a note about needing to improve formatting, but I am unsure exactly what changes need to be made.

Kind regards, Emanon17 Emanon17 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanon17: this draft was declined because it presents no evidence that the subject is notable. Instead of citing the company's own website, you need to cite independent and reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for letting me know! I'll work on updating the references. I'm very new to this; thank you for the guidance. Emanon17 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

06:34, 9 December 2023 review of submission by Wwwww11114

What websites would qualify to help the page get approved? There is only one interview to draw from as the subject typically strays away from interviews and features. The main sources used to verify information have been their iMDB and involvement in Inspired Success Magazine. Wwwww11114 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wwwww11114: there are no 'websites' that would magically get a draft approved. You need to cite 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. You also need to make sure that pretty much everything you say is backed up by a reliable source, which currently isn't the case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 9 December 2023 review of submission by Nirmal Madhavan

I created a Wikipedia page Geoffrey Brooks in the month of July 2023 and have been closely monitoring its progress.

Initially, the submission for "Geoffrey Brooks" at Articles for Creation was accepted, as indicated in my user talk page. However, I later observed that the page was moved to the draft stage with the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geoffrey_Brooks. The comment accompanying this action was: "The first footnotes in this draft don't contain references to sources; they contain bare, meaningless references. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)".

I promptly addressed the concerns highlighted in the comment by making necessary amendments and improvements to the references on December 2. I would greatly appreciate an update on the current status of the page. Could you please provide guidance or any additional steps required to move the draft for Geoffrey Brooks to the next stage of review?

Your assistance in this matter is immensely appreciated, and I eagerly await your response. Thank you for your time and support. Nirmal Madhavan (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmal Madhavan: the current status is that this draft has not been resubmitted since it was moved back to drafts, and is therefore not at present pending review. Would you like me to submit it for you?
Please note, I have posted a message on your talk page querying your relationship with the subject. Please read it, and respond as relevant. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, You can now submit it. Nirmal Madhavan (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 9 December 2023 review of submission by DavidDetson

This is the 3rd draft that I sent in and I don't know how I could improve it DavidDetson (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidDetson: I declined this, because there is no evidence that the subject is notable; the draft is also written in a promotional tone. (Subsequently another editor has also requested speedy deletion.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A message has been posted on your talk page asking you to disclose any conflict of interest you may have. You haven't responded to this yet; please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 9 December 2023 review of submission by 2400:1A00:BB10:8994:59B2:6F9:17B2:D876

Bhupendra Bam better known by stage name BEAIM is an nepalese rapper singer songwriter and record producer from Western Nepal he is the king of west side hiphop 2400:1A00:BB10:8994:59B2:6F9:17B2:D876 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question, and this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 9 December 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80

My draft Draft:İstiklal_Makzume_Anadolu_Lisesi was declined for the second time due to WP:GNG. At the same time my deletion nomination for Heritage High School (Brentwood, California) was reverted, citing WP:NEXIST. I am confused. Does Wikipedia have different standards for existing articles vs. new articles? Or is it due to differing opinions between editors? Any clarification or feedback for improving the draft would be appreciated. Gorkem80 Jacona ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is individually considered on its own merits. If you feel that policies have not been properly applied to your draft or with your PROD, please discuss that with the editors involved. All volunteers here try to do their best, but ultimately we are all different people with different perspectives. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is not about other stuff exists, it is about two recent decisions, which I think are not compatible. I tried to tag the two editors, did I do it correctly? Can they see the discussion and comment on it? Gorkem80 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you tagged them correctly, but it is probably best to approach them on their user talk pages directly and explain why you think they did not properly apply policies. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 9 December 2023 review of submission by Joshpaynesays

Comment left by the reviewer is unfounded. They cited a conflict of interest. I know the subject of the article purley because they are a community leader/ public servant within the area I live. This isn't a conflict of interest. The subject is a local political figure. Joshpaynesays (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying you have no connection to him other than him being the mayor of your community, okay, but the issues with the draft remain. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your only contributions here since May are related to Situ so it is reasonable to ask you to take a look at WP:COI. Either way, nothing suggests Situ can meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

04:36, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Revanth553

what are the reason for reject Revanth553 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably refers to  Courtesy link: User:Revanth553/sandbox, subsequently U5'd. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Girishpparmar

Greetings Kindly assist me with this page, first I had given references but got a review of reference bombing,, so i removed few of the references and resubmitted again. please let me know about independent references required and guide me in this endeavor to publish this page of the senior most sculptor in Asia pacific region

Raghav Kaneria is alive and currently living in USA.


Thank you Girishpparmar (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Girishpparmar, you'll need to be more specific than "let me know about independent references required and guide me in this endeavor" – what is it you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 10 December 2023 review of submission by StuartDouglas

I created this page over a week ago and it was rejected almost immediately by user Aviram7 as not notable. Believing that it is notable, I asked for more detail on his user page and was told it needed RS. Again, as I had used sources including newspaper sites, Edinburgh university sites and those of an award ody, I thought these were notable and asked for clariifaction, without reply (and in fact the page no which question sat has been deleted.).

It may well be that I am wrong and the subject of the page I created does not reach notability levels suitable for the Wiki, or that I do need more RS, but Aviram7 has already been pulled up recently for deleting pages too quickly and in error, for deciding to reject on grounds of notability for no reason (sample response to another user: 'I think this article is not notable, I don't have any reason why I think so, sorry, but we don't want to talk about it further,') and for not realising that RSs are in fact RS.

If someone could advise how I can improve the page, I would be grateful. 

StuartDouglas (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StuartDouglas: the draft has been resubmitted, so you will get another assessment shortly anyway; is there a reason why you need us to pre-review it here at the help desk (which isn't something we normally do)?
Also, just for the record, the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean the end of the road, decline simply means you need to address the issues highlighted, after which you can resubmit; it is an iterative process aimed at improving the draft, and should not be seen as a negative. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StuartDouglas, your draft was declined, not rejected, and that is an important distinction. The Scottish Nature Photography book awards allow anyone to vote, which means that it is of negligible significance, and certainly does not contribute to notability. Your references seem weak. Which independent reliable sources provide significant coverage of this person, as opposed to passing mentions, event announcements and the like? Cullen328 (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Seaquell

How can I insert pictures of Kim relevant to the entry? I tried to upload but it says I don't have permission. Seaquell (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seaquell New accounts cannot directly upload images. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Once your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, you can then worry about images. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Seaquell (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Punjabiplayer

i have created this draft and it is getting declined, i have added all the notable sources from Forbes, entrepreneur etc. May i please know what am i missing? Punjabiplayer (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabiplayer If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Be aware that editing about crypto/blockchain has its own special rules, I will notify you of these on your user talk page.
You are missing independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources are all brief mentions that do not discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about this company. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Forbes pieces are often paid promotional entries. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all 'sponsored' sources; plus, Republic World is deprecated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Punjabiplayer: you have failed to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG / WP:NCORP; your sources are pure churnalism.
You have also failed to disclose your COI with regard to this business. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 10 December 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

There are two aspects to my problem with getting this entry accepted, and although the first appears to be the major one, I think it might be solved if I can sort the second.

1) Notability - I accept this was fair criticism on my first draft, I had not put in enough detail. I have now added more information. 2) Finding referencing sources online, and not using blogs. I accept that taken overall blogs are not indicative of facts, but it does appear there is not an overall ban on referring to them, I want to be able to use them illustratively, of continuing recognition and referral to Fowke in the SF world.

Somehow I need to be able to distinguish what published sources there are, from the ones that could be treated as illustrative of a continuing interest in Fowke's work.

I really would welcome any help and assistance, as I don't seem to be making any real progress.

Many thanks Pinney 

PinneyFowke (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PinneyFowke: the problem with blogs is that they are user-generated, and therefore cannot be considered reliable; people can – and frequently do! – write whatever they want in their blogs. So even if blogs aren't expressly and categorically banned per se, they do not count as reliable sources, which is what article contents must be supported by. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 10 December 2023 review of submission by 105.242.231.131

I have added the requested references about individual online 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, there are no references on that draft at all. Qcne (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, you haven't added any references at all. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, go and find some sources to back up the statements made in the draft, and add those sources to the draft. Please do not waste reviewers time by resubmitting the draft until you have found and added some sources. Nthep (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to resubmit the article after improvements 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not improved it, there are no references. Therefore my rejection still stands and you cannot re-submit. Did you actually click Publish on your changes? Ping me if you manage to add sources and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating new topics and read the replies above. Qcne (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 10 December 2023 review of submission by 73.169.188.142

I'm at a loss. I have tried in earnest to address the issues, over the past 8 or 10 submissions. I need help to figure out what qualifies. 73.169.188.142 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You have not shown that he meets the definition of a notable musician with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Jah98000

Struggling to understand the reasons for rejections. Initially the reason was related to references (dont show significant coverage); then the lack of a formal tone of the article, now it's just ; "doesnt seem worthy of a wiki article" Seems like the goal posts keep moving.

Help :-( Jah98000 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jah98000. Editors can decline for multiple reasons. I rejected based purely on the state of the article as it is now (but went for a reject instead of another decline as you've had eight chances): you have not proven notability under WP:NMUSICIAN. Lets go through your sources one by one:
  1. A WP:PRIMARY source, so cannot count towards notability.
  2. An interview, so cannot count towards notability.
  3. An interview, so cannot count towards notability.
  4. Discogs cannot be used to count towards notability.
  5. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
  6. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
  7. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
If you can fundamentally re-write this draft to include sources that are secondary, significant in coverage, not interviews, and independent of Matt let me know. But I think it is the end of the road for this draft, sorry. Qcne (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think youre looking at the wrong references.
  1. Is a link to AllMusic which I'm to understand is the source of music credits that publishers use.
  2. Is a link to the Academy Awards (Grammys) website that shows the Album was nominated for a Grammy. in the Best Contemporary Blues Album category. (NOT AN INTERVIEW)
  3. A link to Jaxsta (another music credits source) that shows he's credited on the movie Echo in the Canyon. NOTE: he's also credited within the wikipedia article (Echo in the Canyon) NOT AN INTERVIEW.
  4. Is a link to his Podcast in Spotify --- NOT Discogs
  5. is a link to a press release announcing his endorsement by the company. Not an interview, NOT A DATABASE
  6. Link to the company website, listing his endorsement (NOT A DB)
  7. Link to the company website, listing his endorsement (NOT A DB)
Are you sure you reviewed my most recent submission? Jah98000 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jah98000, no you are totally right. My bad. The External Links section should only be one or two links long, and while skimming it I misread it as the references section. Sorry about that. I'll go through your actual references..
  1. AllMusic: see WP:ALLMUSIC which states that entries without accompanying prose don't count towards notability.
  2. Grammy: unless I am not seeing it I cannot see Matt mentioned on this link? In any case if its just a credit it doesn't show WP:SIGCOV.
  3. Jaxta: again, a credit so not WP:SIGCOV.
  4. Spotify: WP:PRIMARY.
  5. DrummersReview: this looks to be a press release? If so, it doesn't count towards notability. If not a PR piece then it may work as a source.
  6. Paiste: Not independent of Matt, as they seem to be the supplier of his drumkit?
  7. As above.
What we're looking for is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary independent sources. Album and song reviews from reputable music websites; discussions, analysis, and interpretation of his work from music media. At the moment those sources don't have that. Qcne (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here is that you have a section of external links and a section of references. The external links are as Qcne describes them. The References section is as you describe it- but those things don't establish notability either; none of those are significant coverage of Mr. Tecu that discusses what makes him important/significant/influential. I see the album he worked on listed on the Grammys website, but his name is not mentioned. I believe he actually needs to be named as a nominee to be considered such(i.e he would have taken home a Grammy had he won). 331dot (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SO... lets discuss the Grammy nomination.
That was the point of the AllMusic reference to establish that he was credited on a nominated album. [1]
The GRAMMYs recognize anyone
The Recording Academy is pleased to offer customized participation certificates which recognize anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
Who is eligible?
Musicians, composers, publishers, studios, and labels may apply for a participation certificate with proof of participation in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
https://www.recordingacademy.com/awards/grammy-participation-certificates Jah98000 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note he is credited within the WikiPedia Article of the Echo in the Canyon movie Jah98000 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:MUSICBIO guidelines do state a person may be inherently notable if they are "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". However... I am not sure this counts in this instance as he is not mentioned on the Grammy page, and although the album was nominated he as a person was not. Qcne (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note again though, @Jah98000, I'd be willing to un-reject if you can prove notability. Even if it takes a few weeks, just ping me on my user talk page. Qcne (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you Un-reject based on the fact it was only my 6th Submission (not eight)?
I'll keep working on it.
BTW, This is kinda fun in an odd way. I'm learning a lot. Jah98000 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Proof of participation in a Grammy-award winning album is not the same thing as being awarded a Grammy. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share your source of this information for this assertion? (a reference please)
The Recording Academy is pleased to offer customized participation certificates which recognize anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
Who is eligible?
Musicians, composers, publishers, studios, and labels may apply for a participation certificate with proof of participation in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
https://www.recordingacademy.com/awards/grammy-participation-certificates
Jah98000 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My source of information is your own postings with some common sense. A participation certificate is not a Grammy trophy, nor would recipients of a certificate appear on stage or have their names called out during the ceremony. When an NFL team wins the Super Bowl, not everyone in the entire winning organization receives a ring and can say they "won the Super Bowl". They can say they worked on the team that won the Super Bowl. It's the same thing here, and in this case it means he's not notable, as he himself was not named as a nominee. Maybe others disagree, and you can certainly try resubmitting, but I don't think he's notable, sorry. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I think you are wrong.
To use your analogy though, the NFL awards the trophy to the "team" and the players get rings (participation awards).
In this case, SugarRay Rayford received the nomination for the album, and Matt was on a player 'on the team' who DIRECTLY helped create that album. The academy rightfully recognizes "anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording."
I assert this IS the same as being nominated.
And YES i will keep trying. Jah98000 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that issue aside, you still need independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about him. He might qualify under WP:BIO more broadly if such coverage exists, that discusses his personal influence. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out from the Grammy Rule Book (Contemporary Blues Album) Jah98000 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Matt contributed 100% to that album Jah98000 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading the Grammy rulebook, I do not believe that a participation certificate is equivalent to being awarded a Grammy. He needs to actually be named as a nominee. We'll just have to disagree there. If you have sources that discuss his contribution to or influence on the album, please summarize them in the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm making a bunch of silly mistakes today aren't I? As you asked nicely I will un-reject but don't submit it again until that notability has been proven. Qcne (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

I have made the required changes. how to submit the page for review? Preksha30 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, and my rejection still stands so you cannot. Qcne (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is totally unacceptable for an encyclopaedia article I concur with the rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

02:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by 74.64.97.57

not familiar with page creation 74.64.97.57 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:31, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Brownandorange

I have had a number of attempts to create a page about Matt Rutherford. Each attempt has been rejected by reviewers. I don't know how to improve it further. As far as I can see, all the information I have included in my draft page is well supported by contemporary news articles I have quoted as references, as well as the film (available on YouTube) which covers his remarkable voyage to be the first person to sole circumnavigate the Americas.

I'd be grateful if anyone could give me some hints about what else I could do to make my article acceptable to reviwers. Brownandorange (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brownandorange: of the five sources cited, only two (#1 and 3) count towards notability per WP:GNG, and we normally require three or more, so this is almost but not quite there. (It also doesn't help that #3 is being cited via YouTube, which makes it look like an unreliable source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brownandorange The movie itself is covered at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/movies/red-dot-on-the-ocean-the-journey-of-matt-rutherford.html . While it does lead to the question as to whether the movie should have an article as opposed to Rutherford, the New York times article is about as good as you are going to get and adding *that* as a reference should be enough for the article. You might also want to add https://www.wxxi.org/pressroom/2016/07/red-dot-ocean-matthew-rutherford-story. Naraht (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried to improve those references and reduced the size of the entry and hopefully now I'll get it across the line. Thanks again. Brownandorange (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Testnaya123

What is reason reject this article and how can fix it. Testnaya123 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Testnaya123: this has been declined (not 'rejected') for lack of evident notability, as detailed in the decline notice, just like all previous times. You can 'fix' this by demonstrating that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you improve it for me Testnaya123 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Testnaya123: in a word, no. The onus is on the draft author to improve their drafts up to an acceptable standard. I'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding the process. In any case, this draft is so far from what is required, that you may need to rewrite it pretty much completely.
BTW, what is your interest in this subject, and do you have some external relationship with it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Sathya Palaniyappan

Dear Wikipedia Staff,

I am writing to address the concerning issue of the Wikipedia article titled "K Annamalai (politician)" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Annamalai_(politician) ) not being indexed or displayed in Google search results. I implore you to urgently investigate and address why this specific article is not being indexed or displayed in Google search results.

Despite my repeated attempts through previous emails to seek clarification and assistance on this issue, I have yet to receive a satisfactory response or acknowledgment from your team. This lack of responsiveness to a critical matter is deeply concerning.

The current handling of user inquiries and the delay in addressing issues demonstrate a shocking level of neglect. I insist on a swift resolution and a drastic improvement in the service provided to users.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I look forward to a satisfactory resolution and improved service quality. Sathya Palaniyappan (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathya Palaniyappan: this is not a pending draft, and therefore has nothing whatever to do with the AfC process (except that, given your paid-editing disclosure, you should not have published it directly, but that's a separate matter to be dealt with). Moreover, it has been patrolled, and whether Google decides to index it is their business and nothing to do with Wikipedia. You can insist all you want, but you are barking up the wrong proverbial tree entirely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT created message, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the "insisting". Qcne (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'm grateful for their insisting, as this article might have otherwise slipped by unnoticed... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @Sathya Palaniyappan what exactly is your involvement in this matter? Your edit history shows precisely two edits, this one here, and the creation of your user talk page with nothing more than a link to this page. Are you, or have you previously been, editing under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sathya Palaniyappan, I live in California and the article in question shows up #3 in my Google search. That being said, Google decides their search results, not Wikipedia. In general, the more comprehensive a given Wikipedia article is, the higher it will display in Google search results. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Poonam0927

Why my draft rejected and how can i fix error please guide me Poonam0927 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is not a reliable source and your draft was rejected so will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: this was rejected for lack of evident notability, after multiple earlier declines. There is nothing to "fix"; this is the end of the road for this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how i resubmit the draft? Should i create new one? Poonam0927 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927 you can't re-submit the draft, and please do not create a new one. If you can re-write the draft with no sources from the Times of India let me know and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell me what should i do i want to create wikipedia article for actor Gaurav Paswala...please help me what to do now please guide me Poonam0927 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927 Edit your existing draft and remove all Times of India sources. Then find sources that prove notability under WP:NACTOR. Then WP:PING me here or my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i will edit my draft again..thank you Poonam0927 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrite re edited my draf please check it. Is this now okay? Poonam0927 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: you've been asked repeatedly to declare your COI, but you haven't. Please do so as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How i declare COI? Please guide me its request to you Poonam0927 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: you can either place the {{Connected contributor}} template on the talk page of the article/draft where you have a COI, and/or place the {{User COI}} template on your own user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay got it thanks ! but draft and references are okay? Please tell Poonam0927 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done..but when i can resubmit my draft? Please tell and help Poonam0927 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: as @Qcne told you, you cannot resubmit this draft, since it has been rejected. If and when you have new sources available which weren't considered previously, you may approach Qcne directly and they will take another look at it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i re edit the draft please do check and please guide me what should i do? Poonam0927 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poonam0927 What is your connection with this person? You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask the same. I've posted a COI query on @Poonam0927's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so should i edit the draft again and make it perfect Poonam0927 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm his fan and as a fan its my responsibility to create his wikitable article..and i tried...please tell me now what to do how can i create? Poonam0927 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you met with him and took his picture? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah me and my one photographer friend clicked his pictures Poonam0927 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a severe conflict of interest that you must disclose, see WP:COI. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. It seems that you are so much of a fan that you are disregarding our advice- there is nothing more you can do about this and you will need to move on from this topic- unless you can do as Qcne described and completely rewrite your draft to exclude information from The Times of India. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ! I will rewrite draft again thank you Poonam0927 (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After you disclose your COI. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI? Poonam0927 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest. You have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose on your user page, User:Poonam0927. See WP:COI for instructions on how to do that. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:36, 11 December 2023 review of draft by 75.134.124.192


75.134.124.192 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was

What is your question? Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Beth Wimmer

Hello Wikipedia Team

I have two questions, please. although first, a comment. simply that, i think i improve my article each time i work on, and resubmit it. i have been trying to make this article more solid for a couple of years now. perhaps it's not working as the references are mainly written in German, but the article is written in English. so, your advice please.

1. my article isn't passing. would you agree, suggest, or at least condone (smile) that i rewrite my article to be instead about the Recording Studio (Little Big Beat Studios in Liechtenstein) as a place/entity, rather than about a living person whose noteworthiness i've been trying to prove.

2. should the article be changed from the English Wikipedia pages to the German pages of Wikipedia, since the references tend to be in the German language?

also - this time i didn't receive an email from Wikipedia, at the end of September, when my article was most recently rejected. i just today logged on and found out.

i truly thank you for your attention, and your dedication to communication. my best wishes Beth Wimmer Beth Wimmer (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beth Wimmer:
The sources you're referencing can be in any language, they don't need to be in English, and either way this has no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted.
If you wish to drop this subject (seeing as it has been rejected no fewer than three times already...) and write about a different, related subject instead, you're of course welcome to do that. Do please consider first, though, whether that other subject is notable, given that this one has been consistently declined for lack of evident notability.
The different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely different projects, with their own rules and requirements. I cannot comment on whether an article on either subject would be acceptable at the German-language Wikipedia; you would need to ask them. Anecdotally, the English-language Wikipedia seems to have the most onerous requirements for article acceptance, so in that sense your chances may increase by switching to a different language version instead.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you much for your feedback! i just may change to the subject of the studio itself, instead. i'll consider it, yes. are you able to tell me, for how long will my current Draft be kept intact/active here in Wikipedia, for potential editing still? thanks again very much. -Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beth Wimmer: drafts get deleted when six months have passed since the last human edit, and you get a warning a month before that happens. So if you make an edit every five or so months, the draft could in theory at least be retained indefinitely. Of course, someone may conclude that the draft qualifies for deletion, either by the speedy method or via community discussion, but you will again be notified of that (albeit that in the case of speedy, the notice may not be very long!). If you want to play it safe, you should copy the contents into a text file and save locally on your device. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
again, DoubleGrazing, thank you for your input and advice. you've been helpful. have a super week! Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Aimjfindia786

Hello sir and respected writer i haved writen the articles of above mentioned page but recently i submitted and it was declined again, citing a reason of 'not a reliable source' and 'looks like advertisement' by 2 different editors please kindly look into my article and help me out as i am a begineer. Aimjfindia786 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aimjfindia786 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. What specific help are you looking for? Have you read the pages linked to in the decline messages? Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi sir, i understand but this Biography was written by "times of india newspaper" senior editor and shorted and modified with Chat GDP with proper guideline and rules of Wikipedia terms Aimjfindia786 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimjfindia786: apart from the many problems with this draft, I must advise you against submitting content written by anyone but yourself, as well as against using ChatGPT (assuming that's what you meant?) for any editing on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guiding i will surely re-write the entire biography and resubmit it Aimjfindia786 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 11 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:246:5F00:750F:0:0:0:7B

Hello!

I updated the references in this draft article to point to news articles and not patents, but it was still rejected. The editor only said it was not an improvement, so I'm not sure what they are looking for. Can I get some more clarity? 2601:246:5F00:750F:0:0:0:7B (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the decline notice, we are looking for multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 11 December 2023 review of submission by BloxFruitsLover69

Pls why you reject i want to sublit blocksfruits draft so my dad cna seee it. BloxFruitsLover69 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BloxFruitsLover69 only topics that are notable may have a Wikipedia article. We have content guidelines, the relevant one of which is WP:NVIDEOGAME. Qcne (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Pushingrocks

Hello! I am on my 4th draft of this page, and after the most recent rejection, I am really unsure what to improve. The most recent reviewer left no additional explanation beyond the official reason for rejection (Lack of sourcing), and I am lost as to what sections need more/better sources.

At this point I would be happy to just remove the offending sections and hopefully be able to get a shorter version of the page approved that just discusses his published works and the reaction to them which seems to me at least to have pretty ironclad sourcing. But in order to do that I would need to know what the offending sections are. Hopefully, you can offer some help in that regard. Thank you for your time 

Pushingrocks (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pushingrocks: given that the person has died only c. 15 months ago, this subject is possibly still governed by the WP:BLP rules, which require inline citations to support pretty much every material statement you make, especially anything that is potentially contentious, as well as all private personal and family details. This means that as the bare minimum, every paragraph must have at least one citation, and that is only sufficient for very short paragraphs where the cited source genuinely supports everything in that paragraph. The reader should never find themselves asking "wonder who said that", or "wonder if that's really true", or any question like that, because there should be at that point in the text an inline citation to a source which verifies that statement. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. As far as I can tell I do have multiple citations for every paragraph unless there is something i am completely missing. I guess I need more specific help determining what the offending sections are. Pushingrocks (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pushingrocks (ec) Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Pushingrocks (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar

hi guys Guys basically its a persons story and all the lines are said by him only so i couldnt change completely all the sentences but i made few changes. So please consider that the lines and paragraph cant be changes So please publish as soon as possible Thanking You Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulbumperkumar, since you have not bothered to learn how to reference properly I have rejected the draft and it will now not be published to Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 11 December 2023 review of submission by BurakATurk

I think the information is enough to creation. Many other Kyokushin karate players like Ewerton Teixeira had their own page which used the almost same news sources. I dont know why drop down my page many times. BurakATurk (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BurakATurk please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are plenty of existing articles that do not meet today's criteria which is generally more strict than even a couple years ago, especially for athletes. In order for the draft to be acceptable, it needs to meet the general criteria. You have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take look but if it doesn't meet the outlined guidelines, it will be declined again. S0091 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Messianicdisciple

This article has been expanded. Does the article now have sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter? 

Messianicdisciple (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like original research which is not allowed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone thinks this article is original research, but it is not, it is actually a very old thing being revealed. This idea of original research should be support by reference to some statement. What exactly causes the thinking that this is original research? Moreover, original question was not answered. Messianicdisciple (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia article requires research to provide citations. Every article is started by an individual, which is an origin. If original research is prohibited then Wikipedia itself is prohibited. Is *looks like original research* simply a way to boot off someone that you do not agree with? Messianicdisciple (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messianicdisciple It has nothing to do with agreeing with you or not. Wikipedia articles do not merely post research- they summarize what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet the notability criteria. Articles do not draw conclusions, as your draft does. If you have sources that state the conclusions you make, we need those sources, not you making the conclusions yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not open a new section with every post you make-please edit this existing section to reply. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to know exactly what the issue is with the article submitted. I have reviewed the pillars of the purpose of Wikipedia, and have no idea what the issue is. Messianicdisciple (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section with every post. Click "edit" in the section header or at the top, not "add topic" or "ask a question". 331dot (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've told you what the issue is, what is the difficulty you are having with understanding it? 331dot (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Messianicdisciple if whatever it is you are revealing gets discussed in mainstream reputable journals, newspapers, and books- then an article may be created. In it's current form your draft is pure original research which is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to write this very important article in an encyclopedic style. I am taken aback that is was rejected. My first submission said I needed more context. But, when I added context, I was rejected. I totally do not get what is going on here. On of the rules is to not bite the new guys. Do you already have the topic already covered somewhere else? Messianicdisciple (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messianicdisciple Once more, do not start a new section with every post. This is disruptive. Click "edit" in the section header to edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not biting the newcomers does not mean to allow them to do whatever they wish. We have explained the issue to you; original research is not permitted here. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Editohub

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of 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 am not understanding this. What should I do now to be accepted properly? Editohub (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it specifically you do not understand @Editohub. Have you read our WP:NBASIC criteria? Your draft is the kind of thing for a Facebook page, not an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editohub read through all the linked material in the decline's gray box which provides information about Wikipedia's sourcing and inclusion criteria. See also WP:RSPYT for using YouTube which is generally an unreliable source as is social media because they are both largely user generated. @Qcne I am not sure how they would know about WP:NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Jmekis

Question: I believe all "reliable sources" & "primary source" complaints were addressed by adding independent and several secondary sources, yet "decline to publish" continues. What else specifically is needed to clear complaints and get this article published??

Stated facts ARE backed-up by reliable sources, the #2 reference (which is primary) also has an independent secondary, and unlike the published German page of the same name, I used in-line referencing.

In a comment, editor Stuartyeates suggested "stealing the sources" from the German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Job_Definition_Format (which I hadn't known existed). The primary author of that published article contributed a couple of his references and complimented my article, but it was still declined by editors.

Which reference or references do you find objectionable, and why? Thank you, - Jim 

Jmekis (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the subject and am still new to this myself, but i think the "why XJDF" section in your article can easily be seen as opinionated, even if you have sources i think it needs to not have that as the reader needs to determine whether or not they should choose it. Hope this helps. MusicGene (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 11 December 2023 review of submission by MusicGene

how to add it to a singers discography? MusicGene (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should be less concerned with adding to the discography and much more concerned to adding reliable sources that have written in-depth about the collection. None of the sources meet the notability criteria because they are not reliable much less the other three criteria outlined in the decline a source needs to meet in order to contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

04:32, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Cmfsumeetjain

What all changes should be made in my draft? so that it passes the review. Cmfsumeetjain (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu Raghavan Alingkil

Not sure if this is a right place to ask, but i just accepted this draft which looked good enough to me, only to realise 5 minutes later about it's multiple recreations by the sockfarm. Am I right in accepting this article which according to me looks to pass WP: GNG? zoglophie•talk• 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

previous recreation under Jishnu Raghavan.zoglophie•talk• 05:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Zoglophie. I am involved so wanted to bring you up to speed. You likely didn't see it because the SOCK farm attempted to create it under a different title (the actual title is locked from creation). You can see the thread at COIN here and the SPI here. I moved back to draftspace to keep SOCK from linking to dozens of other pages (less work to undo once they are blocked). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:49, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Vicky Kumar26

He was one of the notable actor in Malayalam Cinema. But he was passed away on 2016. acted more than 20 films including one tamil and one Hindi film. He was very popular for his first film Nammal Vicky Kumar26 (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See previous thread.
Draft deleted, user blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 12 December 2023 review of submission by DIYer2023

I have tried to find reliable sources but there are no available sources from books etc. about the alliance - I guess because it is still very young. I added all sources I could from the internet and was also able to find sources from the 'Handelsblatt' which is a highly reliable german source. But I am not able to find other sources - what am I supposed to do now? DIYer2023 (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYer2023: if you cannot find sufficient sources, then it isn't possible to create an article at this time. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable published sources have said. Hence, if there are no sources to summarise, there can be no article. This is pretty much the whole concept of notability in a nutshell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources are sufficient and I summarised the articles, but they are from the companies website or press releases. In my understanding the, especially technical aspects, cannot be more reliable than the information from the company. However I of course did not add the marketing wordings etc from the company - only the hard facts about the alliance. Shouldn't that be ok and seen as a sufficient source? Thanks for the explanation. DIYer2023 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have little interest in what their own website says or what press releases say, we need independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIYer2023 This company is a German company; I don't know if you are German but if you are, this may be acceptable on the German Wikipedia, which is a separate project with different editors and policies. It just is not acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Thank you! But are german sources still ok here? As it is a german company DIYer2023 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources do not need to be in English, they need only be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Shivin09

I want to create Gaurav Paswala draft how can i Shivin09 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivin09: what do you mean "create draft"? This has been created, back in October. And since then, declined several times, and finally rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes the draft has been created in October but may i create new one if old one gets delete? Shivin09 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the draft is rejected therefore i am asking for creating new one. If the draft has been rejected then please i request you delete the draft..cuz after delete someone can create new draft properly Shivin09 (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shivin09 Were you recruited here by the creator of the draft, or are you the creator of the draft with a different account? You seem to have created your account for the expressed purpose of editing this draft.
What can you do differently that the creator of the draft was not able to do? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No ! And i am here for create draft name Gaurav Paswala but just because of old one draft which was created by someone is rejected and just because of tht i am unable to create new draft therefore am asking you for delete draft. Can you? Shivin09 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know it exists. How did you come to want to edit about this seemingly non-notable actor?
You didn't answer my question; what will you do differently that the creator of the draft didn't do? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will make perfect one and actor's films are gonaa release soon therefore i thought his Wikipedia article is necessary... Shivin09 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Gujarat and the actor is Gujarati therefore i know...and when i started to create his draft there wr already one rejected draft and that's why i ping you...hope you understand Shivin09 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not same usee..and yeah if i able to create new draft I'll create perfect one I've read all the guidelines from Wikipedia i read how to create article biography and therfore its my request please delete old draft..cuz after delete i will able to create new one  ! Thank you Shivin09 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still are not answering my question, and until you can, there is no pathway forward to creating a draft about this seemingly non-notable actor. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which question? Shivin09 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will make better article draft thn old one..which will follow all the guideline of Wikipedia Shivin09 (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you what specifically you will do differently that the creator of the current draft did not do. I don't need you to promise you will follow all the guidelines, the creator of the draft thought they were doing that too, and they didn't. Again, what specifically will you do differently? 331dot (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will make proper Wikipedia article for him and in this the creator of draft failed their draft declined and rejected but mine will not ! I will make proper and notable! Thank you Shivin09 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shivin09: firstly, you have no right to ask a draft that someone created to be deleted, so you can drop that idea right now.
Secondly, and more to the point, this draft wasn't declined and eventually rejected because of who created/edited it, but because the subject was deemed non-notable. That is likely to be the outcome whoever creates a draft on this subject. You have no magical powers to fathom notability out of thin air, I assume? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you continue to refuse to answer my question, I will not be able to help you further. We need to know what specifically you will do differently in order to permit you to resubmit a draft on this topic(whether or not the existing one is deleted). 331dot (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer - Gaurav Paswala is an Indian actor who predominantly works in the Gujarati film industry. He made his debut with the horror film 6-5=2 (2014). Later, he acted in movies like Je Pan Kahish E Sachuj Kahish (2016) and. up! Zindagi (2017). And after also so many films and webseries . So his work is notable i think there would be an article of him and i just want to make it ! That's the difference Shivin09 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shivin09: that's no different to the previous attempt; that's just doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but just permit me to resubmit will make notable draft will make something different i have no words how to explain and what to say all i would say is its my request permit me to resubmit or create new one something new and different will come sure ! Shivin09 (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has been rejected and will not be considered further until it can be shown what will be fundamentally different about a new attempt. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 212.63.102.230

HOW TO REFERENCE PRESS CLIPPINGS I have completed a submission for a new Wikipedia entry about renowned Spanish contemporary artist Francesca Marti, after making the various edits as suggested by various Wikipedia editors. I was asked for extra references. I provided those that were missing. The submission has been rejected on copyrights grounds because I have formatted the new links to press clippings incorrectly. Each is simply a photo of the relevant article as it was published. I want to know how I correctly insert references/links to the images of the different published articles/reviews in newspapers which prove each of the artist's exhibitions I mention. I have physically gathered the press clippings (beginning from 1990) with the name of the journal, date, author, etc. I don't have the URLs for these, but have made a separate photograph of each newspaper page, which I uploaded, providing all the relevant publication details. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I don't wish the submission to be disqualified. Jetfoundation

Below is my previous query to the editors Thank you, I am sincerely confused about how to show newspaper articles published about artist Francesca Marti', when specifically referencing those exhibitions I mention in the proposed Wikipedia entry. These are all newspaper clippings beginning in 1990, which I have physically collected from archives over the past months - and since these clippings don't have URLs, I cannot provide these links. How should I submit these newspaper clippings correctly? I have received similar rejection notifications from several Wikipedia editors. Best Jetfoundation Jetfoundation (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) 212.63.102.230 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You don't need to show us the clippings, but you need to properly reference them by providing sufficient information for someone to locate them, such as publication, author, publisher, publication date, page number, etc. See referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Grandeur123

The figure is not a politician but an activist. I note not all political activists on Wikipedia hold public offices such as: Greta Thunberg, Emma Gonz, Bryan Stevenson.

I believe Ashton Charvetto as an activist within the ALP is a worthy submission as he also has articles written about him and is an integral influential figure within student activism. Please review. Grandeur123 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grandeur123 We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target in double brackets, as I've done here; it keeps pages cleaner and doesn't lock readers into a particular version of Wikipedia that may differ from their preferred(mobile or desktop).
The draft was rejected, which typically means it will not be considered further. If you would like the reviewer to reconsider on the basis that the broader WP:BIO should be the guideline over the narrower WP:NPOLITICIAN, please discuss that with the reviewer directly. Personally I'm not seeing that this person passes WP:BIO either; no independent reliable sources with significant coverage are summarized in the draft; allusions are made to their beliefs but no discussion as to their specific influence or importance. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair advice. Noted. I appreciate your time. I will keep that in mind for any further edits. Grandeur123 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandeur123 I wasn't particularly clear in my rejection notice, sorry about that. But the person does not pass WP:NBASIC either. If you can prove notability under WP:NPERSON let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Md Maruf Hossain 1

Why this is rejected? Maruf (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Md Maruf Hossain 1: it hasn't been rejected, only declined; the reason is given in the decline notice posted on top of the draft as well as on your talk page. Namely, the draft presents no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Alesia stud

Hello! I wanted to add in article about Taro new section - pests and diseases, but I was told that 'The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Taro#Cultivation'. I agree to add it there - could you please tell me how could I do that? Thank you very much! Alesia stud (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 12 December 2023 review of submission by JackMorley23

Article declined Good afternoon,

I've just had a article declined however I'm wondering how I add the primary source into the changes in order for it to be accepted. I have multiple primary and secondary sources to add.

Thanks, JackMorley23 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackMorley23 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Primary sources do not contribute to notability(though they can be used for other purposes). You are welcome to add your secondary sources and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Usr TC17

Is it possible to change the name of a draft article? Because the entered title 'Tenderstories UK' is incorrect, it should just be called 'Tenderstories'. Can you help me? Usr TC17 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

checkY done. Qcne (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 12 December 2023 review of submission by EGrace1602

I need to change the draft name but I can't figure out how to do so. None of the wikipedia articles on making drafts or edits have been helpful. EGrace1602 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are renamed via the WP:MOVE feature. Qcne (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the specific title of a draft is not that important. The reviewer, if they accept the draft, will place it at the proper title(though a note on the draft talk page can help) 331dot (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 150.129.164.136

my artical is not submited 150.129.164.136 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I rejected your draft as there is no evidence Vimal meets our special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Did you have a specific question? Qcne (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 86.167.216.44

A Bare bones draft was declined despite well defined notability, and numerous secondary sources. (only 2 are required, and not a single event)

Can anyone help resolve the issue before I resubmit as the reason given is confusing.

Theres no point fleshing it out at this point with recent work, just the facts needed to publish.

Then it can be brought to good article status, picture etc.. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a new editor, I'd recommend you to read WP:YFA. It is easy to swiftly create a draft and submit it, but for it to become an article, there are many considerations in place. If the reviewer has declined it, please read what they said and improve your draft. Submitting without any improvements would likely coerce another reviewer to reject your draft. zoglophie•talk• 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "well defined" notability you speak of? The sources certainly don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well defined meaning, the references are above minimum requirements. Please can you be concise in exactly what is wrong with the references. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the rule that says two sources are enough to establish notability, as you seem to think.
And my point was that if you're asserting general notability per WP:GNG, that requires significant coverage in reliable and indepedent secondary sources, which this draft cites none of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree. There aren't enough sources to justify how notable this person is. I would recommend them reading the instructions and then trying again in a couple of days. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noob.
I just had a relay chat and they think one reference is good, so one more is required. There are four references and I disagree his publishers website is not a good enough source. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask, what are you basing all this on? It isn't up to you to define whether a source is "good enough", or how many sources are required. Several editors and reviewers are trying to tell you something, but you don't seem to be interested in their advice, you just know better.
As it stands, this draft is not ready to be published. Simple as that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further context: Talk:Royal Conservatoire of Scotland#Grae Cleugh (Protected Edit Request), User talk:Primefac#Grae Cleugh —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by "good enough". I disagree that Bloomsbury, his publishers website is not a valid reference, but a second reference at Doolee.com is added anyway, and they verify each other, in terms of facts. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jéské Couriano; I think that pretty much concludes this repartee. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 12 December 2023 review of submission by 185.127.183.128

Hello. This is the first time that I contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know why my contribution. I would appreciate your support in helping me with this issue. 185.127.183.128 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is practically unreferenced, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Islandtime

Hi there, I have added many sources for this article, and I'm not sure how much more reliable you can get than IMDb, Amazon, Roku, Apple TV, Tubi, etc. all some of the biggest sites on the internet that reference the show. Yet it has been denied for lack of "reliable" sources. In addition, it mentions not being reliable because one of the sources is an interview with the creators, yet that is simply an additional source for a quote about the production of the show. I'm just confused how the references cited aren't sufficient. Islandtime (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandtime: just to be clear, this draft was declined for lack of evident notability, not for insufficient sources per se. Notability depends much more on the quality of the sources, than quantity. And 'quality' in turn doesn't just mean whether the publication or media outlet is reliable, but whether they have provided significant coverage of the subject. The WP:GNG general notability guideline requires multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. This draft cites no such source.
And yes, you certainly can get much more reliable than IMDb, Amazon, Roku, Apple TV, etc. IMDb is actually considered unreliable (see WP:IMDB), and the others are merely sales channels. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Ethanabelar

I believe that all of the details in this article are independently verified through my sources. My most recent submission was rejected for not having any changes to source inclusion; but I have provided several new resources, including articles, books, and web pages, that substantiate my writing about the Brooklyn Zen Center.

If this is still not enough, please let me know what additional changes I can make to have this page submitted. As a member of Brooklyn Zen Center, I wish for my entry to be without bias or intent to advertise. Thank you very much. Ethan Abelar 21:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ethanabelar: whether or not the contents are verifiable from the sources cited (which I can't comment on as I haven't checked), that's not the problem here. The problem is that the sources do not establish notability of the subject according to the WP:GNG notability guideline. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and fully independent of the subject. Arguably none of the sources cited in this draft meets that standard (with the possible exception of the Lion's Roar piece, but in any case it alone isn't enough). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please delete the duplicate of this draft from your user page, leaving only the COI disclosure there. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 December 2023 review of submission by CoryHReynolds

Hello, I am pretty new to Wikipedia. My first page was accepted. My second, on Nadja Tesich, was not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nadja_Tesich I did add 20 citations. Can you tell me where I went wrong? Do I need to shorten the entry so that everything is cited? I am so mad at myself -- I am hoping you can help! Thanks a lot. CoryHReynolds (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryHReynolds: although this person is long since dead and no longer covered by the WP:BLP rules, we still need to be able to verify the information, and the preferred way of providing for that is referencing by inline citations. And there aren't enough of them in this draft, with whole paragraphs entirely unreferenced. So yes, please do tell us where all that info is coming from, by adding many more citations throughout (or alternatively, by removing some of the unreferenced content, if you cannot support it with referencing).
Also, if you're citing a book, cite it in its own right using {{Cite book}}; don't 'cite' a bookseller selling that book.
Finally, bear in mind that IMDb is user-generated therefore generally not reliable, see WP:IMDB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 December 2023 review of submission by Iamhumaneditor

Are books considered reliable sources, given that they are published by professional educators? Iamhumaneditor (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamhumaneditor: depends on the book. Standard textbooks usually are, yes. I wouldn't take Harry Potter literally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:47, 13 December 2023 review of submission by 73.14.88.241

Trying to build out my Wiki page. Figured I was notable enough to have one exist since I'm currently running professionally and would like to begin applying for things that require notability online. I am failing the notability test per the last user to review, although I don't believe those stipulations apply to me, since I was a NCAA Division 2 athlete and not a Division 1 athlete. The awards I won in division 2 should be sufficient to get the draft accepted. What else do I need to add? 73.14.88.241 (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is not forbidden, it is highly advised that people not write about themselves, please read WP:AUTO. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Unfortunately the notability criteria specify Division 1, not 2. I don't see any national awards that you won discussed in tbe draft. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 13 December 2023 review of submission by YoyoFSI

The person that I want to make an article for is a very famous person in Bangladesh, but all the wiki mods think that he isn't "notable" enough, what should I do? YoyoFSI (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YoyoFSI: what you should do is produce evidence that demonstrates this person's notability. So far you haven't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 13 December 2023 review of submission by VIMALKUMAR PAREKH

why this article rejected ? VIMALKUMAR PAREKH (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VIMALKUMAR PAREKH: this draft was rejected because there is no suggestion, let alone evidence, of notability. In any case, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. Try LinkedIn or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 13 December 2023 review of submission by Whatchaknowaboutrollindownindadeep

I actually just translated this page from Russian Wikipedia using the translation tool, which sometimes does not meet other wikipedia's requirements. It did contain some strange definitions, like a "military expert" or "strategic development". I removed them, but I don't know what to do next to get it accepted. Whatchaknowaboutrollindownindadeep (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatchaknowaboutrollindownindadeep: this has been declined for non-encyclopaedic language, which probably means that sort of staccato text of incomplete sentences like "In 2007, retired to military reserve from the army." and "Born on 30 March, 1966 in Dresden, East Germany." Please rewrite in complete sentences adn grammatically correct language.
Also, the referencing is inadequate, both in terms of insufficient citations, as well as many of the sources being unreliable (namely, YouTube).
This is a good illustration of a common problem in translating articles between different language versions of Wikipedia: it is seldom enough to merely translate; you usually have to adapt and supplement to meet the standards of the target Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 13 December 2023 review of submission by 41.116.87.194

Why aren't is it published 41.116.87.194 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted as a hoax. Don't create any more like this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 13 December 2023 review of submission by Mint0ri

On November 7, 2023, my draft article for the Glen Echo Park Aquarium was rejected by a staff member simply for "no WP:SIGCOV," which seems to mean significant notability of reliable sources to the topic at hand. I wanted more clarification on this, as I feel that I have provided my due diligence with primary sources from the actual newspaper of the town where this establishment is located, mostly for the history section. I will try my best to find more sources, but I can't guarantee that they'll be especially helpful to the history section, which I may just cut/modify to have a better resubmission chance. Mint0ri (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mint0ri: 'sigcov' is shorthand for significant coverage, which means that the source has written about the subject directly and in sufficient extent and detail, not just mentioning it in passing or incidentally in some other context. In simple terms, the article/programme/etc. must be about the subject, not merely name-checking the subject. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 13 December 2023 review of submission by Usr TC17

Hello, about the rejection of the article, I'm trying to understand guidance on how to successfully get the page approved. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I've noticed that there are several filmmaking companies, such as Tenderstories, listed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this organization is referenced on various pages, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bones_and_All https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_(2022_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Bros._films_(2020%E2%80%932029) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films_(2020%E2%80%932029 Is there any information missing from the page? Have I forgotten something? Could you help me? Thanks in advance! Usr TC17 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1189686880"