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
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
237,114 edits
edited by robot: archiving January 8
Toddkatz (talk | contribs)
396 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Clipperz_Password_Manager
Line 492: Line 492:


= January 14 =
= January 14 =

== 01:47, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Toddkatz ==
{{Lafc|username=Toddkatz|ts=01:47, 14 January 2024|draft=Draft:Clipperz_Password_Manager}}
Regarding this notation by the evaluator:

" This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (July 2023)"

Please know that I, as a long-time financial contributor to Wikipedia very much take exception to the insinuation by the evaluator that I created this article for an undisclosed payment, which is completely untrue, as I told him. Furthermore, the evaluator should at the very least point out the section(s) which caused him to come to reach this opinion. (Essentially, I am accused of cheating against Wikipedia rules.) Similarly, an example of what the evaluator sees as lack of a neutral perspective should be provided. I had to support the statements in the article with references … shouldn't the evaluator also adhere to that reasonable standard? [[User:Toddkatz|Toddkatz]] ([[User talk:Toddkatz|talk]]) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:47, 14 January 2024

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


January 8

04:40, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Hwickkid

Will I have the opportunity for a new submission when I acquire more reliable sources? Hwickkid (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwickkid: if I'm honest, I don't see much chance of this being accepted, especially considering the lack of progress through the last several reviews. This draft remains very far from an acceptable state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 134.41.167.171

I may have made a mistake when submitting this article. Mary Chilvers is a curling athlete with multiple national appearances. Most other curling athlete articles have limited references, but this article keeps being rejected. When I set this article up at first, I was new to wikipedia and may have selected the wrong category "notable people" or something like that.

Can you help me reclassify this article so that its about the athlete, and not a "famous person in society". 134.41.167.171 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had posted this before logging in. I had submitted this question. FenelonCurls (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a difference between "declined" and "rejected"; Rejected means that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.,
Not too long ago, the notability criteria for athletes was made less strict in that athletes need to meet the same definition of a notable person that any other person must meet- instead of meeting specific criteria(such as appearances in the Olympics or national championships). WP:NSPORT is now just a guide as to what things might make a person notable. This means that there are likely many inapprorpiate articles that no longer(or never did) meet the notability criteria and have simply not been addressed yet. This can't justify the addition of more inappropriate content, see other stuff exists. Note that "famous" is not the same thing as "notable"- someone can be famous but not notable, and notable but not famous. What matters is the coverage in independent reliable sources.
As noted, the main problem you have is that none of the sources you offer have significant coverage of Chilvers. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. I was wondering why all other articles had simply links to showing when they played an event" more than what was provided in my references. FenelonCurls (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested- and you don't need to be, just saying- you can help us address inappropriate articles by identifying them and their issues. This can be done via Page Curation or tools available via Twinkle. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 45.250.229.176

Raju Ahmed is a Bangladeshi film director who gained popularity by bringing Bangladeshi film actress Achol into his first film. Anchal has a Wikipedia page named after it. 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Did you have a question in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Why is Raju Ahmed page not being accepted? 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing [1]https://www.amarsangbad.com/print-entertainment/news-212293#:~:text=%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%81%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A6%20%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%20%E2%80%98%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2%E2%80%99%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%20%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B7%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%95%20%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%9F%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A5%E0%A6%AE%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%87%20%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8%20%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%9F%20%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%9B%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A5%A4
[2]https://www.ajkerpatrika.com/30115/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E2%80%98%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%9F%E2%80%99-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%82-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AA#:~:text=%E0%A7%A8%E0%A7%A6%E0%A7%A7%E0%A7%A7%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%81%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E2%80%98%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2%E2%80%99 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason given in the decline notice, specifically the grey box inside the large pink one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I will submit the news... 45.250.229.176 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a standalone article, the subject must meet either WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG criteria. Since he hasn't directed any notable films, he doesn't fulfill NDIRECTOR. Therefore, your draft must satisfy GNG, necessitating significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Currently, I don't see any GNG-worthy sources in your draft, so please add at least three reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer I am adding news 45.250.229.176 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News" may or may not be enough. Often (particularly in the entertainment field) a news story simply mentions somebody's name (not significant coverage) or is obviously just a regurgitated press release (not independent). You need to verify the each of your proposed sources on its own meets the three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Review Now I am editing some articles with news. 45.250.229.176 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not demand reviews, we are volunteers. Reviews may take up to three weeks. Qcne (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

I have some problem to modify the text.The text was defined as an "advertisment" which accordin^g to me was plain simple text without any exagerated quality that would made it as an advertisment. I took example of some other eârtist whos text were far more elitist or missing humility. Could someone help me to understand were did I make advertisment? Thank you for your help. I really like to have Jean-Pierre part of your beutiful encyclopedia. Jpgroppi (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgroppi: what makes it promotional is that this is you telling the world about yourself, rather than summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. See WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jpgroppi Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a moment,maybe I understand now why I have these problems. I am not writing a biography of myself. I am just writing a biography of an artist Jean-Pierre Groppi that I like to have on the Wikipedia as other artist are.I have a few painting of this artist and like to have some reference of the artist for others tat might know him as well. Jean-Pierre left some souvenir but not on the internet or very few. I made the login and create the jpgroppi to avoid to use my personal name.If this creates confusion or ambiguity I can make a new account from scratch. Will this help?
Thank you for your answer Jpgroppi (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:19B:683:7CE0:31C4:EC61:43B:2292

How do I make this more notable? 2601:19B:683:7CE0:31C4:EC61:43B:2292 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You can't "make it notable"- it either is or it isn't. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Wikipedia is not for telling about something just created. This game must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, coverage that can be summarized in an article, showing how this game is notable. The draft was rejected because that seems unlikely to occur, if something fundamentally changes here, you must first appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Liv.unohchr

Hi there, would it be possible to have a review from someone before submitting the page again? Thank you in advance. Liv.unohchr (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liv.unohchr: we don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel that you've addressed the previous decline reasons, you can resubmit, and someone will assess it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft reads like a school essay and encyclopaedia articles NEVER ask questions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Liv.unohchr (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Olivia Harry

I wish to know the best tag to use on the draft article. The article is still more of developing subject. Olivia Harry (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unsure what the question you’re asking is. The submission was declined because there were not enough in-depth sources to show that the subject was notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz

I wanted to acknowledge the contribution of one of the journals. There are many entries in Wiki about various journal titles with different impact on science. Not all journals are Nature :) The one I added belongs to the group of quite good ones. For example, in the field of Social Sciences - Cultural Studies it is in the Q1 group (top 10%), which means that it is among the best, in other fields it is in Q2. There are no books or articles written about journals, their quality is proven by independent indicators and coefficients. It is external databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, Copernicus, etc.) that evaluate journals. You can verify important information there. Such links have been added to the entry - I tried to maintain the standard of other journals entries. Despite this, the entry was rejected. Can you point out a difference that I probably didn't notice, that is not present in my entry suggestion and in others that already appear on the Wiki? Thank you and best regards Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that may themselves be problematic has no bearing on your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz, please also read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Although this is an essay and not a formal policy or guideline, it will give you some insight into the thinking of editors who work on articles about academic journals. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Jdbtwo

I do not understand why my article submission doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The WKdm ( and WK class of algorithms ) is one of the two primary types of virtual compression algorithms, developed circa 1999 or 1997.

As for notability in real-world implementations, Apple has included WKdm virtual memory compression in its OS since OSX 10.9 Mavericks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory_compression#cite_note-Arstechnica-29 ) .

Wikipedia is full of hundreds of articles which describe algorithms that are used in just one particular operating system ( mainly Linux ) -- I don't understand why my submission isn't notable at least in this regard.

I know it's only mentioned, in detail, in two or three journal articles, but it's been referenced much more in the open source XNU mailing lists, similar to various Linux process scheduling algorithms, which have Wikipedia articles. Jdbtwo (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was declined because the sources did not sufficiently demonstrate notability. There are not enough secondary sources from reliable media publications to demonstrate the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other articles do is not relevant, see other stuff exists. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what Wikipedia means by notabilitym, Jdbtwo - it's is not fame, or importance, or influence, or popularity, or wideness of use. It is essentially the question "is there enough independent, reliably published information about the subject to base an article on?" (remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Tedleisenring

this is the message I got from my editor for my latest article on George H Rothacker: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I can't find more inline citations. Should I delete some of the content that may not have what they are looking for in references? what else can I do to get it published. it is all facts and good information Tedleisenring (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand; you need a citation for every substantive piece of information in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. Those citations need to be placed next to the information being cited. See referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tedleisenring, consider the first two paragraphs of the "Early life" section, which are entirely unreferenced. How is the reader supposed to verify the accuracy of that content? Verifiability is a core content policy. The same issue applies to vast swathes of unreferenced content throughout the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 8 January 2024 review of submission by JonJaySon

Hi I've just had an article accepted which is great. I've sourced two photos from the artist the article is about, both are referred to in the article. I've placed them in WIki Commons, but have no idea how to add them to the page. Can someone help with an idiots' guide? I'm from the typewriter era... Thank you, Jon JonJaySon (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JonJaySon: this isn't any longer an AfC matter, now that the article has been published. In any case, you seem to have managed to add one image, so I'm assuming you figured it out; now you can just repeat that process.
Having said which, I notice that you said when you uploaded these images that you've done so with the artist's permission. We need to see evidence that the artist has really released the image into the public domain. I would suggest that you read Commons:Licensing, if you haven't yet done so, and contact the relevant Commons help desk for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads up, I assumed things would be done on trust, but I guess that is very naive. I'll read the commons page and then contact the help desk. I stumbled on how to load the photo, will leave it at that for now, although Romney did release one other image (of the work that got her into so much trouble).
Also, I noticed the page is only available through Wikidata, which I'd not heard of. Is that an interim step prior to Google indexing the page, or a lesser version of Wikipedia for less known people? Once you open the data page and scroll down there are links to Pedia and Commons which do seem to work ok.
Anyway, thank you for responding and for your advice, which I'll follow now.
Jon JonJaySon (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 8 January 2024 review of submission by NickystheThicky

why was thus declined NickystheThicky (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickystheThicky: because it was inappropriate, which is also why it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

02:37, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Pnianatashakanon

Hello,I do wikipedia page for the first time. I need to post this wiki page,cause of copyright infringement. When you search in google for “empirey” you can see another band,and the most reason is that empirey’s song “21/6-76” will be added to Empyray( Armenian group) and it’s copyright infringement , but there is no way to prove this other than a Wikipedia page. I indicated the official Spotify of the empirey group, where there is a biography. I don't understand where the mistake is. Pnianatashakanon (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User talk:Pnianatashakanon § Your submission at Articles for creation: Empirey (January 9) 3 for my existing reply to this question. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pnianatashakanon: I don't understand where the mistake is. That is exactly why I always advise new editors not to even try to create a new article before they have spent a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Ingenuityscan

I cannot find more reliable reference about the article and I also feel that it is notable topic.please help me to improve the article quality and publish the article Ingenuityscan (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingenuityscan: hospitals are only notable if they satisfy the WP:ORG notability standard. This requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you cannot find such sources, then that suggests this hospital isn't, in fact, notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for guidance Ingenuityscan (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Dr.nassiri

I wrote a draft for article about : 'Irys Medical Clinic' but the reviewer found it not neutral. Could you please help me with it? Dr.nassiri (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.nassiri: this is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself or your business, because it can be very difficult to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner. One way around this is to forget what you know about the subject, and what you want to say, and instead base your draft purely on what independent secondary sources have said about it. Of course, if you cannot find such sources, which your draft suggests could well be a problem, then you won't be able to lean on them. But then, that also means that the subject isn't notable, and you cannot therefore publish an article on it in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Bonnychai

there is a need to split the article from Karen Mok 

Bonnychai (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonnychai: that is something that should be first discussed at Talk:Karen Mok, per WP:SPLITTING.
Other than that, do you have a question you would like to ask related to the drafting process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO Bonnychai (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Journalist0071

Could you please help review this article? It's my second article on Wikipedia - I would appreciate it :) Journalist0071 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Journalist0071: you have only just submitted it, please be patient; as it says on the top of the draft, reviews can take 2-3 weeks, as we have 900+ other drafts also awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Emi Ciprian

Hi there,

I'd like some advice to rewrite the article so it will comply with Wikipedia's policy. As I failed for a number of times to achieve this I am asking for your help. Thank you! Emi Ciprian (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emi Ciprian: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. If you wish to rewrite it entirely, that is your call, but as a paid editor the onus is very much on you to understand Wikipedia's policies and publication requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 2603:9000:5902:E056:91B7:1891:E40D:8BFB

Why was this rejected 2603:9000:5902:E056:91B7:1891:E40D:8BFB (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no indication that the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a social media or blogging platform where anyone can write what they want. We are an encyclopaedia, and only publish articles that meet our notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 47.11.206.1

Wikipedia is a useful source of background information that Pepole or students often use in the early stages of research.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. So here information is available. But this article not here. This is season. 47.11.206.1 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 47.11.206.1

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by volunteers to help people gain useful knowledge.

The reason for writing this article is that this post is not on Wikipedia. No such Article. 47.11.206.1 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an article, this was a random collection of unconnected content and general nonsense, presumably only put together so that you can add a spam link to it. And after it was deleted, you went ahead and recreated it. Leave it at that, please, or you will be prevented from editing, for contravening Wikipedia's terms of use. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Nuashall123

Is there any ways to add external link without flagging a spam? I dont know how to use

. If I understand correctly, then I can add external links for promotion? Nuashall123 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuashall123 Absolutely not. Wikipedia prohibits all forms of promotion, and must not be used as a way to promote topics. Your account will be blocked if you use Wikipedia solely to promote. Qcne (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Oysterperpetual36

I wonder whether the changes I made, upon the Editor's suggestion, are sufficient to warrant publication or whether I should change something more. Oysterperpetual36 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oysterperpetual36: the short answer is, the draft has been resubmitted so sooner or alter a reviewer will run the ruler over it, and you will receive feedback (or else it will be accepted without further ado).
The longer answer is, the sources aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, therefore you're left with WP:NACADEMIC. If you haven't yet done so, you need to look at that and decide which of the criteria 1-8 you think this person most likely meets, and make sure that you include evidence to support that. It's also not a bad idea to spell out this, so that the reviewer can specifically assess the draft against that particular criterion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks so much for the swift reply! Oysterperpetual36 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Nuashall123

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know that you don't tolerate spam. I wonder if there is still any chance of publishing the article? Can you tell me how to add {{Advert|date=January 2024}}? Thanks! Nuashall123 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Qcne (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

How Can I make this biographyMore Visible Thevikastanwar (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar: you cannot, because this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 9 January 2024 review of submission by De Catamon

I have tried severally to upload this page but it's not working. Right now i don't have any idea on what to do or how to make this page live. De Catamon (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:De Catamon was rejected, the draft has zero sources and zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you concentrate on your music career and forget about Wikipedia; if you ever merit an article according to the definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually write it. You shouldn't write it yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:38, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Ceolarisama

HiCeolarisama (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

05:34, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Ankwasa Harlord

Hello Blessings for the continued zeal and passion to document important information all over the world, my draft (Draft: Ankwasa_Harlord) has been rejected and I here to seek help from any editor willing to write this on my behalf... I will be more than grateful... Thanks Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankwasa Harlord: firstly, your draft was only declined, not rejected; those two mean different things.
Secondly, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO.
Thirdly, and in direct answer to your question, we don't get involved in editing here at the help desk; the onus is very much on you to create your own drafts. If you have specific questions, you may ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification 😊 blessed day Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

Dear All,

How can I get support to translate an existing specific official page from Azerbaijani to English? Thank you for your time and recommendations. 

Jung808 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Answered below) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Zolakrystie

I recently submitted a page draft which got reject, reason stating I "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".

However, I have used third party independent sources throughout the citations for this page and kept it as factual as possible. Throughout the whole page, i only referenced their company website once, to identify the list of products they had. I also read the notability terms and don't understand which condition was breached.

Could someone look into this and provide further explanation on how to revise the article? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zolakrystie: "materials produced by the creator of the subject" isn't limited to just the company's website; many of the other sources you cite also originate with the company, even if they are hosted on third party sites.
This draft was declined (not 'rejected') as promotional. The decline message is standard boilerplate for that particular decline reason, not written uniquely for your draft. You need to look at the overall picture, and dial down the promotionality considerably. One effective way of doing this is to only summarise what independent secondary sources have said about the subject, rather than writing what you want to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

Dear All,

I need this page to be translated: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvin_Pa%C5%9Fayev Could you guide me, please how should I proceed? Thank you 

Jung808 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jung808: this question would be better asked at the Teahouse or the Help desk, but since you're here, take a look at WP:HOWTRANS where you should find pretty much everything you need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. Jung808 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Koukkukasi88

Hi, I'm trying to translate a Finnish Wikipedia page DL Bunuel (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Bunuel) into English, but can't seem to manage. The Finnish page has been approved. I'm the author of that one as well. For some reason I can't seem to find a way to either translate an article from Finnish to English nor create a new, English page for the subject and the connect these two. Please help, Koukkukasi88 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koukkukasi88: as I've already stated in my review comments, I believe the subject is notable, and in that sense you're pretty close to this being accepted. You need to improve the sources, however, as some of them are completely inappropriate for referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP) especially.
Note that the Finnish and English Wikipedias are entirely separate projects with their own policies and requirements. Just because this has been accepted into fiwiki says nothing about its prospects here on enwiki. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't create multiple drafts on the same subject, like you've just done with Draft:DJ Bunuel. Improve the existing draft instead. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Rmvika

Please advice on how to improve article? 

Rmvika (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmvika: you cannot, as this draft has now been rejected for complete lack of any proof of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6

2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you already, this will not be accepted. You're only getting your IP addresses blocked one by one. Unless that's what you're after, I suggest you stop now and find a more worthwhile pursuit (which shouldn't be too difficult). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop generating utterly garbage ChatGPT justifications as to why this should not be immediately deleted. Qcne (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Lektor2002

Kleros Submission Declined - questions as to why Greetings, I recently submitted an article to Wikipedia that has been outright declined for reasons of not having adequate references. I disagree, since some of the highest authorities on the topics of online dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution have spoken extremely highly of this experimental technology.

Draft:Kleros

Could you tell me what specifically is lacking here?

Thank you very much in advance. Lektor2002 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektor2002: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, not for inadequate references.
To save us sifting through 25 sources, perhaps you could point out the 3-5 that are strongest in terms of meeting the WP:GNG notability standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, allow me to expound on this from a notability standpoint.
-"On 28 May 2021, for the first time in blockchain arbitration history, Mexican courts enforced an arbitral award relying on a blockchain arbitration protocol (“Blockchain Arbitral Award”), as explored in the report found here (“Carrera Report”) (see the Appendix for the Blockchain Arbitral Award, which is in Spanish). "
- Maxime Chevalier on Kluwer Arbitration Blog, one of the key solutions for international arbitration, seen here: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/03/04/arbitration-tech-toolbox-is-a-mexican-court-decision-the-first-stone-to-bridging-the-blockchain-arbitral-order-with-national-legal-orders/
-Kleros design has also been analyzed in depth by Janet Martinez, one of the leading experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution, who is also the Former Director, Gould Alternative Dispute Resolution Research Initiative in her paper "Designing Online Dispute Resolution" that can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=jdr. You will notice that Kleros design is compared to eBay's dispute resolution, as well as state based dispute resolution mechanisms.
-Proof of Humanity, one of the first blockchain based decentralized digital identity platforms ever, created by Kleros has been covered by Time Magazine: https://time.com/6142810/proof-of-humanity/
-Furthermore, from an academic standpoint, Kleros has been the topic of in depth research by Amy Schmitz (again, a leader in the field of dispute resolution research and Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law) and Colin Rule (creator of eBay's dispute resolution system). Their research can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=facpubs
-Kleros is making such waves in the ODR space that it was even featured in the UNCTAD Report directed at consumer protection agencies as a key case study in the blockchain field: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tcsditcinf2023d5_en.pdf
Let me know if more sources are needed to point this out, Google Scholar and other platforms have many different academic sources to derive information about Kleros from. Lektor2002 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you associated with Kleros in some way? Also note that due to past disruption, there are special rules when editing about blockchain or crypto, I will post these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with Kleros in any official capacity, I'm working in mediation and Kleros is one of the projects that I've been doing deep dives on and following for a couple of years already.
If you can, please let me know what are these special rules, given that as far as I see it as an academic, there should be no barriers for Kleros to be part of Wikipedia. Lektor2002 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula

where can I copy the link for my article? 

Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula, You cannot do anything with this draft as it has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD U5 criteria because an reviewer considered it a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog site where you can post anything. It is a free encyclopedia that accepts quality content on notable subjects. I recommend reading WP:Five pillars and WP:What Wikipedia is not for a better understanding. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Damarsa

My submission on February 23rd 2023 was declined saying "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However the sources I mention are reliable and verifiable. I would like to know exactly what resources are being referred as not adequately supported. Damarsa (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damarsa: much (most?) of the content is unreferenced. 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. In other words, it's not so much a problem with the sources not being reliable (although LinkedIn certainly isn't, as it's user-generated), but rather with sources not being cited frequently enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Damarsa. The entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to allow a reader (anywhere, any time) to verify the information it is supporting. If the reference has not been reliably published (eg on LinkedIn) it does not serve this purpose, as people can say anything about themselves on LinkedIn (similarly other social media, and user-generated sites like iMDB and, yes, Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Sloboda is not accurate on her LinkedIn account; I'm saying that there is no way that a reader can know whether or not to trust it).
A citation to a book, without a page (or at least a chapter), is pretty useless: are you expecting the reader to read the whole book to look for where the information ? In any case, a book edited by the subject of the article is a weak source: with the best of wills, an involved editor is likely to choose writers, texts, and forms of expression, that favour themselves and their version of events.
A short biography published by his employer is another very weak source: it is likely that the text was written by him or his close colleagues - again, not independent. It also fails to verify the information it immediately follows (it nowhere says that he has held that post since 2002).
I won't go on. But your job in writing a draft about Hunt is first to find several sources each of which is all three of reliably published, wholly independent of Hunt and his associates and institutions, and contains significant coverage of Hunt. Then, forget anything you may know about Hunt, and write an article based solely on what those independent sources say. If that gives you a viable article, then you can add a small amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-indpendent sources - things like dates and locations. But if any substantial matter - a job, a responsibility, an event - is not mentioned in any independent source, it's not clear that it belongs in the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 103.176.185.160

how can i create this.kindly guide 103.176.185.160 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 161.77.45.162

Why isn't this suitable? 161.77.45.162 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of reasons:
  • We only publish articles on subjects which are considered notable, and there is nothing to suggest this is.
  • Everything has to be backed up by reliable published sources, especially in articles on living people, but nothing in this draft is.
  • If this is about you, then per WP:AUTOBIO, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Trainrobber66

I don't know if the article now has enough sufficient data to have an article. Can you review it and see what more I can add to this? Trainrobber66 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Deepfriedokra, the rejecting reviewer. This shop made a bit of a brief dent in mainstream media in the UK, so I'm 50/50 on the notability. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may well be notable. Social media posts are not useful, generally. Alas, I am not the rejecter. Just the commenter.. Ah, news sources added... Maybe now. Maybe just locally notable? @KylieTastic: done the deed. 50/50? Is 50/50 likelihood of survival at WP:AFD still the threshold? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or was that 50% of 50%? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I don't know why I thought you were the rejector...! Hallucination!? Qcne (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now stupid TikTok trends that fill in slow news days are "50/50 on the notability" - Please stop the world I want to get off!! I came to work on an online encyclopedia to find some value in life and the human endeavour, but this is where we are... I turned the reject into a decline.... now where's that drink? KylieTastic (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Allo002

I simply cannot find reliable sources because such research may never been documented... Please find such reliable sources... Allo002 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, @Allo002. But if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. It's up to you as the editor to find reliable sources, but it simply might be this topic has not been documented. Once it becomes more documented, maybe you could try again. Qcne (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Thinkelise

Hi! I suspected the reason for the first submission's rejection was due to insufficiently "reliable" or "independent" qualities of the reference sources. Quite a few of the references do show "significant" coverage as they are exclusively about the subject. This article is about a budding talent so when the BBC later published an interview about them, I added the BBC reference.

I would appreciate any guidance around what types of content will help this article pass review. Thank you. Thinkelise (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Budding talent", "rising", and "up and coming" are all terms that usually indicate a topic does not yet merit an article. A topic must have already arrived and be noticed in order to receive the significant coverage needed to sustain an article. Interviews are not independent sources and do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - thanks. I'll wait until there's more press coverage on F1 Academy. Thinkelise (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Seihlanunez22

I was wondering what citations I am missing to make the article better. Seihlanunez22 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has no citations. Why should a reader believe it? (Note that I'm not impugning your veracity: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Suppose this draft were accepted. Next month somebody comes along and changes that paragraph - maybe because they have newer information, or they misunderstood something, or maybe they were vandalising: now how can a reader tell that the information is correct?)
The next paragraph has two citations: one to a publisher's page that doesn't mention him anywhere. The other to an actual journal, that actually mentions him, in the list of members of the editorial board. Congratulations: we have actually got to a piece of information that is verified by a source. Of course, since it is only a listing, we have no way of evaluating whether or not this is of any importance or significance.
Do you begin to see the problem? Please have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and at WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

02:10, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:85:C581:A30:7035:8940:89BA:B6E0

Hi folks, I'm trying to figure out how to get better sources for this article but am having trouble. The company produces hundreds of board games, multiple award winning stuff, but all of the sources I have are lower quality than I need. The one good source I have doesn't seem to exist on the internet (a Tampa Tribune article from May 8, 2001), and the rest are bloggers or boardgamegeek.com or the like. How should I proceed on this? 2601:85:C581:A30:7035:8940:89BA:B6E0 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said, if there are no sources, then there is nothing to summarise, and no article can be created. Worth also noting that having created hundreds of products does not necessarily make a company notable, nor does their products having won awards, so it is possible that this company simply does not justify an article at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Vedicandhra

I edited all the references and consolidated the notability of the article as per the suggestions of the reviewer and a live helper from the wikipedia channel. Thank you for your time and help!! Vedicandhra (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Rmvika

How to publish my article ? Rmvika (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmvika: you cannot, as this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Shaon609

It seems like you're requesting assistance with modifying content related to a person and their websites for a Wikipedia page. However, I cannot directly access or modify Wikipedia content. If you have specific information or details you would like to share, I can help you draft a neutral and non-promotional version suitable for a Wikipedia article. Please provide more information about the person, their achievements, and any notable contributions or events related to them, and I'll do my best to assist you. Shaon609 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? ltbdl (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the bot told you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shaon609 This is not the forum to offer or advertise your editing services. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's, rather hilariously, a boilerplate response from ChatGPT or another LLM chatbot. Qcne (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things happen... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 62.228.125.221

Submission declined because: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.

Hi, could you please help, because I am in stuck. It’s not clear from the manual what the mistake is. At first glance, the links are correctly designed, and their layout coincides with many current Wikipedia articles.

Could you please provide more details and I will update asap. 62.228.125.221 (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on living people (see WP:BLP) have strict referencing requirements. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently this draft is mostly unreferenced. For example, which source provides the person's DOB, or the recognition listed in the 'Awards' section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Anchorteam

Hi, I would like to add a company description to my draft (the rectangle in the upper right on Wikipedia) but I can not find the possibility to add the description. Could you help me? Thanks in advance! Anchorteam (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anchorteam: do you mean the infobox, such as the one in eg. IBM? This is created using {{Infobox company}}.
That said, if I were you I would solely focus on establishing the notability of this subject, which is the biggest hurdle to overcome for any draft, and also where previous attempts have fallen. Infoboxes and other proverbial bells & whistles can come later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
thank you very much for your answer! That is exactly what i meant. Alright, thanks for the hint - then I will focus on creating notability first.
Thank you Anchorteam (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I have used this far are good for creating notability, right? Anchorteam (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: I wouldn't say so, no. They seem to be based on some publicity materials, ie. not independent.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject, and/or the organisations associated with it? Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make the necessary disclosures before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my understanding: How are other companies creating their Wiki sites as they do not have independent sources as well? Anchorteam (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: there are plenty of independent sources on all sorts of companies. In any case, companies don't create their Wikipedia articles, individual editors do. And if they are writing about a company that they are employed by or otherwise have an external relationship with, they need to disclose this.
Apropos of which, I repeat my earlier question: what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I know, however for companies like Einhell or IBM, that are on Wikipedia, are not really independet sources given on he sites - so how come that there is no problem publishing their sites?
I am using their battery system for all of my projects at home and really like the concept they are following as I can use their battery for most of my products I own Anchorteam (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: there are no 'sites' in Wikipedia, there are encyclopaedia articles on subjects which are deemed notable.
The IBM article cites plenty of independent sources. Entire books have been written on it. There is nothing to indicate that anyone from IBM wrote that article, and in any case it was created over 20 years ago when publishing requirements were different from what they are today. I haven't checked the Einhell article, but if you believe it or any other article doesn't demonstrate notability, you're more than welcome to improve it, or if this cannot be done, to instigate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Einhell article could use some work, it looks like the article in German is more extensive, and I've added Template:Expand German to it. I'm pretty sure that it would survive a proposed deletion though.Naraht (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm at about the right level of indent here. I'd say that this is something that notability can be found. References don't need to be in English, but company websites and press releases don't show notability, but there are some relatively neutral articles out there. There are wikipedia users that will put the bells and whistles (or at least explain how) for an article that has shown notability and been published to mainspace, If submitted as of the last time I looked at it, I'd decline it, but definitely *not* reject this. Keep going with adding independent refs for notability and I think you are on the right path.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(User indeffed as a sock, draft deleted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Vedicandhra

I was wondering if the edits made now qualified this as an article Vedicandhra (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedicandhra: you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting review; sooner or later, a reviewer will pick it up and give you their assessment. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Jonathan Urey

Hi, I would like to insert a infobox - but I can't seem to insert a Dutch language infobox only an English language one. What do I need to do to change this?

Thank you,

J. Jonathan Urey (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating a Dutch-language draft in English Wikipedia? You should be working in Dutch Wikipedia. There are no facilities that I am aware of for moving a page between different Wikipedias: you'll need to copy (the source) into a page on nl-wiki.
As for the infobox: naturally, en-wiki does not contain infoboxes in other languages. You'll want to use nl:Sjabloon:Infobox bedrijf, but of course that is only available in Dutch Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 73.169.188.142

I need a mentor to assist me in drafting a musician page that will be accepted for publication 

73.169.188.142 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I doubt that any experienced editor will be willing to spend any time on this draft (which has been rejected) unless you can show that sufficient sources exist to establish that Tecu meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Remember that each of the sources you offer must meet all the conditions in WP:42; and that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 12

01:03, 12 January 2024 review of submission by AinaSyazzween

Why does my article keep being rejected? AinaSyazzween (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

read the decline notices. ltbdl (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:52, 12 January 2024 review of submission by ENew Media

First time writer. ENew Media (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ENew Media: okay, that's not a question, though – did you have one in mind?
Before you ask, this draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 12 January 2024 review of submission by Risingjournalist

Which source shall I provide in reference so that it can be accepted? I have certificate from NotionPress, Podcasts featurings, Books Published by Ink Of Knowledge, Genius Words, and Self-Published books, also, Author Profiles on Goodreads, LibraryThing, and many more. All of the links have been already provided, what more shall I provide? Or which trusted source shall I put in? Risingjournalist (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risingjournalist: I don't see anything in the draft that would suggest the subject is notable. If you can find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, then that could demonstrate notability, but a quick scan through the ones currently cited suggests they fall well short of that.
Also, if you are the person in question, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:42 for an explanation of the kind of sources required. They need to be all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subejct. Not one of the things you have mentioned above meets these criteria. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 12 January 2024 review of submission by JHCOOOOO

Need help getting draft approved. JHCOOOOO (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JHCOOOOO: you need to show that this business is notable, as detailed in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

For Review of Draft Page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mira-Bhayander,_Vasai-Virar_Police#

i want to get review for the Draft Page - Draft:Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police#

And If it is not yet suitable to get published then please tell me how this page (compare the pages Below, with Above) are published with low information and low references and citations -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagpur_Police

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune_Police

Pratik.S2005 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: you get a review when you resubmit your draft; we don't provide on-demand reviews or pre-reviews here at the help desk.
We also don't compare drafts to existing articles, we compare them to the currently applicable guidelines and policies. If you're unhappy with those two articles, you're welcome to improve them, or if they cannot be improved, to initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sure Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted the Draft for a Review, please do share the feedback Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:29, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Yotrages

I created the page with good and reliable sources, and I need a review. Yotrages (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yotrages: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Rema discography, then no, that isn't pending a review, since you haven't yet submitted it. You need to click on that blue button to submit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you, I just submitted it now, I think I already submitted. I'm still waiting for the review. Yotrages (talk) 9:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

08:59, 13 January 2024 review of submission by DVINTHEHOUSEMAN

My draft was rejected because there weren't enough secondary sources. Most of the sources cited comes from other entities than Motorola or the U.S. Patent Office. The only reliable secondary sources I could find, I listed, and those secondary sources cover a lot of the article, even if the citation list looks fairly bare for its length. Since this isn't a particularly well covered topic (long since obsolete two way radio encryption products) and is quite obscure today, some information is contained in old forum posts as there is no other source for information other than "such and such product exists". I'm unsure on how to write a complete article on this topic without also including information from unpublished or unreliable sources since there isn't enough interest in the topic to generate a published, reliable source about the covered material.

I'm not sure what to do with this article. DVINTHEHOUSEMAN (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DVINTHEHOUSEMAN: this draft was only declined, not rejected; reject means that you cannot resubmit it, decline only means it isn't yet ready to be accepted, and you should work on it further and resubmit at a later time.
That said, if you cannot find sufficient sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable, then it may not be possible to accept this at all. Wikipedia articles only summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and from that it follows that if no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them to create an article.
Note that sources do not need to be online, and they do not need to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Razrsharpest

I am a new contributor trying to create an article about a video game developer. I want to know if it is ok to write about the investments received by the developer or would it be considered promotion. Razrsharpest (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Razrsharpest: no, I wouldn't say that mentioning investment raised is promotion, per se, but it is pretty useless, both in the sense of not really providing any encyclopaedic value, and also in that it's routine business reporting which doesn't contribute anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

Maybe I understand now why I have these problems. I am not writing a biography of myself. I am just writing a biography of an artist Jean-Pierre Groppi who died 20 years ago. Id like to have on the Wikipedia as other artist are.It is my way to keep alive his painting and help someone to understand who was he. I have a few painting of this artist and like to have some reference of the artist for others tat might know him as well. Jean-Pierre left some souvenir but not on the internet or very few. I made the login and create the name as jpgroppi to avoid to use my personal name.If this creates confusion or ambiguity I can make a new account from scratch. Will this help? Should I start all over with another login name? Thank you for an answer. Jpgroppi (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgroppi You do not need to use your personal name or any proper name; your username must be unique to you. You may request that your account be renamed at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If there are few sources about him, though, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 13 January 2024 review of submission by IonaFyne

Hello, May I resubmit the article, revised, with no photos or illustrations at all? I ask this because trying to understand how to tag photos/illustrations, showing I have the copyright, and working out what happens here and what happens on Commons, is taking me a lot of time. I don't want to delay the six-months 'window' for editing and resubmitting the draft. I'd like to have deleted all photos/illustrations that I have so far uploaded, as I feel it has become messy and further confused me. I'd rather have the article approved, and then make a fresh start, separately, to add illustrations at a later date, properly tagged and chosen so that everything can be clear on whatever needs to be confirmed. Thank you, IonaFyne 

IonaFyne (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonaFyne: that does indeed sound like a plan. Images have no bearing (or at least, no positive one) on a draft's prospects, so you might as well leave them out for now, esp. if there are potential copyright etc. issues that could get in the way of things. As you say, you can always add such bells & whistles later on, once the draft has been accepted (assuming). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Deanjbyrne28

How do I declare a COI on a page? I have created a page and am awaiting review, but would like to disclose the COI for transparency and cannot seem to find how. I have note this at the top of the page in any case. Thank you. Deanjbyrne28 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deanjbyrne28: for making your disclosure on the article/draft talk page, use {{Connected contributor}}. Alternatively, you can place the disclosure on your own user page with {{User COI}}. Or for belt & braces, you can do both. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Filmshack (renamed user, apparently) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I will try that. yes I have been approved for renaming. Filmshack (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

It does match the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, But yet it is not getting published and I hope the approval may be given by an Indian approver only...... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: it self-evidently does not match our notability guidelines, and consequently has been rejected. It will therefore not be considered further, but a reviewer of any nationality. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Neolithicgambler

Dear whom it may concern,

I am wondering what is wrong with the submission I have made regarding this film's wikipedia profile - I added references and links to secondary sources proving its existence. I have no problem making adjustments where necessary, I am just a little confused as to what needs to be rectified before I submit it again? Neolithicgambler (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only have two sources, to pass this process we usually look for at least three sources. The production section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neolithicgambler: "proving its existence" isn't really the point; proving its notability, either per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, is what we're looking for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 13 January 2024 review of submission by 88.88.76.229

There is no online sources covering Open BSL. I'm one of the people who made it, so it thought it would be enough to make myself a source. How can i solve this? 88.88.76.229 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, but any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, your personal word is insufficient, especially with a conflict of interest as you have. This is why the draft qas rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about what they do. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Wikipcontributor800

Help needed!

I am bit confounded. Want to create article "Jožo Nižnánsky" whoch is presently "Draft:Wikipcontributor800"

What to do? Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

01:47, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Toddkatz

Regarding this notation by the evaluator:

" This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (July 2023)"

Please know that I, as a long-time financial contributor to Wikipedia very much take exception to the insinuation by the evaluator that I created this article for an undisclosed payment, which is completely untrue, as I told him. Furthermore, the evaluator should at the very least point out the section(s) which caused him to come to reach this opinion. (Essentially, I am accused of cheating against Wikipedia rules.) Similarly, an example of what the evaluator sees as lack of a neutral perspective should be provided. I had to support the statements in the article with references … shouldn't the evaluator also adhere to that reasonable standard? Toddkatz (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1195488631"