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
233,505 edits
edited by robot: archiving March 25
Dolemites (talk | contribs)
136 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Society_for_Music_Analysis
Line 375: Line 375:


= March 31 =
= March 31 =

== 04:40, 31 March 2024 review of submission by Dolemites ==
{{Lafc|username=Dolemites|ts=04:40, 31 March 2024|draft=Draft:Society_for_Music_Analysis}}
I'm having trouble finding examples of non-neutral or peacock language in this draft. Could someone help?
[[User:Dolemites|Dolemites]] ([[User talk:Dolemites|talk]]) 04:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 31 March 2024

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


March 25

01:21, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Lily200101

I require assistance with this draft in terms of referencing. I have used the template given however after submitting the draft I was told it was wrong. Would it be possible to ask for an editor to fix the referencing issue? Lily200101 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lily200101: the only thing that is obviously missing, in terms of referencing, is that the date of birth must be supported by a reliable published source, or else removed, per WP:DOB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 25 March 2024 review of submission by 企業チェック

A Japanese version of Wikipedia does exist. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFE%E5%95%86%E4%BA%8B%E3%82%A8%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88% E3%83%AD%E3%83%8B%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9 I would like to post a translation of that content. What should I do? Or could you please post a translation instead? 企業チェック (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@企業チェック: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Watsii

in this case, what to do? Watsii (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@watsii: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the only actual usable source is this one. However, it cannot establish notability because it is almost entirely an interview (WP:INTERVIEW) can be helpful. TLAtlak 14:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 25 March 2024 review of submission by SYNTHWAVER MAN

How do I make the topic notable? Thanks. SYNTHWAVER MAN (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make it notable". If independent reliable sources on their own decide to give this topic significant coverage, summarizing what makes it important/significant/influential, then those sources can be summarized in an article. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar)

Hello I am Uttam Kumar. I create this post for public. Parbatia Thakurbari is new temple of hidu gods of Bishnu. This thakurbari is present in Jorhat, Assam, India. I write in this post history of Parbatia Thakurbari. Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar): okay, the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review; do you have a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Sir @DoubleGrazing Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Acorn syrup

I need to understand why these references do not meet the criteria (in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject )

1. https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/film/movies-cursing-profane-language-8922aab7 went in-depth with the study the article was referencing to, it's from a major news organization which is reliable, it is secondary and strictly independent from the subject.

2. https://pointerclicker.com/vidangel-alternatives/ went in-depth with what the topic of the the article can do, it was written by a tech writer, and it is secondary and strictly independent from the subject.

3. https://try.clearplay.com/history-of-being-legal-full-timeline/ went in-depth on how ClearPlay established the legitimacy of custom video streamer filters, and in terms of self-published sources, it stated events directly related to them. Acorn syrup (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Acorn syrup (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acorn syrup: I can't (easily) see the full WSJ piece as it's behind a paywall, but the beginning suggests it might not be entirely independent, as it's the CEO of Enjoy Movies Your Way talking.
Not sure how reliable Pointerclicker is, I'd need to look into that. But product reviews don't typically contribute much or anything towards the notability of the companies behind those products, which is what this draft is about.
Clearplay is a primary source. It also seems not to even mention Enjoy Movies Your Way.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 25 March 2024 review of submission by 192.181.167.81

Good evening, I saw that my Wikipedia article "Five Crowns (Card Game)" was recently declined. Will you please let me know where I could change it? Below are my mistakes on the article: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

When it states "in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)," I don't know how I can change it. Because I'm showing people how to play this game(Kind of like an instruction manual, so it's hard to go into detail per say. If you have any tips or examples for by situation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for your time! 192.181.167.81 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no sources other than those that describe how the game is played, or ratings given by merchants selling the game. None of these are appropriate for establishing that the game meets the definition of a notable product or even more broadly WP:GNG. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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) 11:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 25 March 2024 review of submission by GFR89


GFR89/sandbox

Hi, created first wiki draft page ever, GFR89/sandbox, @Jimfbleak seem to have deleted it. It is a page for our school. Not really sure what the issue is, other than a link you cited to a charities commission page. Happy to edit, but I cannot see the draft to be able to do that. Can you please restore the draft, and advise precisely what we need to do to make this page viable? GFR89 (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GFR89 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GFR89: "the issue" is, as per the notice posted on your talk page, that the draft was a blatant copyright violation of three different sources; we obviously cannot even host that, let alone accept it for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

09:04, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Seeners

Hello

Kindly let me know what can be added to make the topic notable. Seeners (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with her, since you took her picture?
Rejection typically means there is nothing more that can be done. You have summarized her activities, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You've said what she's done, but not described what sources see as her particular influence/importance/significance. If you can do that, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Shahvishal0106

I have created the page for MoneyView. Previously, it was not showing any content, but now it's displaying. There is already one page. Can someone guide me on how to merge the content and make the page live? Shahvishal0106 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahvishal0106: it's a manual editing process, you just need to compare the draft to the published article, identify what relevant and well-referenced new information the draft provides, and add that to the article. (The draft should remain as it is, there is no need to edit that any further.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The article you are asking me to merge looks like promotional content. Should I replace the article and publish my content directly? Shahvishal0106 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Aisha saleh Hadejia

i want to contribute more and more Aisha saleh Hadejia (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whta the problems with article help me guide me how can i solved it Aisha saleh Hadejia (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft User:Aisha saleh Hadejia/sandbox has no usable content? Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, I am going to block this editor for their obvious UPE/COI editing, and for their, eh, well see WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but it useful to young politician in Nigeria they can see how can the improve there works Aisha Saleh Fantai (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as if you have the common misunderstanding that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with how somebody presents themselves on the internet. A Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally: it is not controlled by its subject and (particularly if there is any controversy involving the subject) it may say things that the subject would not want. ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Hachi1F2345

Why Was My Page Draft Nathaniel WIlliams Declined Could you Help Like Dose this need Media Coverage and Sources Could you Help Thanks? Hachi1F2345 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hachi1F2345: this draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely a) it is unreferenced, and b) there is no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Guy help me with my Draft Hachi1F2345 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 26 March 2024 review of submission by TheRealLee5555

This article was declined and it was suggested it needed multiple sources that meet the four criteria. However, every sentence (with the exception of one that did not have a third party source, but had a publicly-issued news release) in the article was referenced to a third-party source (ie secondary and independent - two of the criteria) that were recognized industry or business publications or sites (ie in-depth and reliable). I would appreciate understanding how I can improve the references so the article can be published. This company is mentioned on a Wikipedia page (List of REITS in Canada) and the reason for this page is to provide information to link to that Wikipedia page so there is more fulsome information. The information on the submission is strictly factual and objective. TheRealLee5555 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like a run of the mill kind of write-up of a company lacking proper sourcing. No, things like this and this cannot be called independent, secondary sources. They look like press releases/Rolodex entries, with prose and perhaps date likely supplied by the company itself. This is another one of those "profiles", and this this, and this look like the trade journal-version of a press release. That leaves the press release on the company's own website, and finally this, which looks (as far as I can see it) like a news item in a trade publication from the CoStar Group, and that will not go far in terms of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance. I am not clear on why trade publications are not considered reliable third party references. Can you please elaborate? They provide significant coverage, are independent, reliable and secondary. So Car & Driver magazine would not be considered a reliable source for a car company because it is a trade magazine? I get that the company news release is not, but there was no other third party source for that information and I have seen other Wiki pages use a company's website profile or release for one or two references. TheRealLee5555 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for what other articles do: that is not relevant. We evaluate a draft on its own merits. Unfortunately Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. Ideally, somebody would go through these improving them or deleting them, but as this is a volunteer project, it doesn't happen. See OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheRealLee5555: for a source to count towards WP:GNG / WP:NCORP notability, it must be at once reliable and independent and secondary and provide significant coverage of the subject. I don't believe any of the sources cited in this draft meet all those criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Mojdotcom

Please help me improve to the right level. I will appreciate every advice! 

Mojdotcom (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojdotcom: this draft has been rejected outright, and is pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Sameem razs

Wanted to get published the details on Karnataka Book of Records to help people to showcase there talent Sameem razs (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to "showcase talent", it's here to have articles. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Northfox2019

How to create proper blog. i want to create informative blog only. Northfox2019 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia not a blog publisher. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 26 March 2024 review of submission by Northfox2019

I have been trying to make a article on our company Keyos Beauty, but it's been rejected, can you please let me know what I should do to make the page live on Wikipedia Northfox2019 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do your company clearly doesn't pass WP:NCORP so doesn't warrant an article at this time. Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP now blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

05:30, 27 March 2024 review of submission by T.rabia

Hello,

I wanted to know how I could help the process and get the article published. Have I not cited enough sources? The subject of the article is a very well-known investor and entrepreneur with F1 investments and more. The topic of the article seems notable as per the Notability guidelines.

Your guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. T.rabia (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T.rabia: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you believe it was rejected incorrectly, you may discuss this directly with the rejecting reviewer, although please be aware that you will need to show how and why the rejection was unjustified, not simply that you disagreed with it (and the subject being a "well-known investor" etc. is not sufficient, as this is not a recognised notability criterion). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I will talk to the rejecting reviewer and try to get their perspective. T.rabia (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Fellow22

Kindly requesting what it will take for this page to get approved by Wikipedia, all complaints have been reviewed, but it still has not been reviewed, can you please look into this? Fellow22 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellow22: this draft hasn't been resubmitted, that's why it hasn't been reviewed again. What's more, it has been rejected, which means the end of the road – time to move on, and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 27 March 2024 review of submission by 50.234.189.47

Hi, I wonder if anyone can review this draft and give some feedback? 50.234.189.47 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted for review. In time, a reviewer will get to it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Digitalaudioworkstation

My draft article was rejected because of a lack of reliable sources. I have tried reaching out to the editor who reviewed and rejected the article but have had no luck. I am seeking assistance in determining which sources in the article are not considered reliable so that I can remove/replace them and re-submit the article. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Digitalaudioworkstation (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain the picture of him? The file page says a photoscan and that Mr. Tat is the photographer, but the image is not a selfie. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources seem to document his work and accomplishments, but do not seem to be significant coverage of Mr. Tat that shows how he is (narrowly) a notable creative professional or (broadly) a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 27 March 2024 review of submission by AlexOYz

how to i create perfect wiki AlexOYz (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. Asking "how do I create a Wikipedia article"(not a "wiki" which is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is but one example) is like asking "how do I build a house?" without knowing anything about land acquisition, permitting, construction, plumbing, electrical work, etc. Please take the time to learn more about Wikipedia by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you- history, science, government officials, math, etc. Also using the new user tutorial may help you. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 27 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:47:4B02:7220:9DD3:5BC8:8665:85B6

This page has been queuing for months, is it possible to get a review? A short blurb about one of my favorite composers. 2601:47:4B02:7220:9DD3:5BC8:8665:85B6 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You only submitted it today, not months ago, There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Avempati1015

why is this top for speedy deletion and why was it declined? I don't see how it is promotional at all. I am not associated to the individual at all. Avempati1015 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to get past the first line, "has etched an enduring legacy in the realm of badminton" is highly promotional. Articles should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible. Sources also need to be in line with the text they are supporting, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:23, 27 March 2024 review of submission by JNOJ1423

can you help me so get appecting JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JNOJ1423: not sure what you're asking... what help do you need? This draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i mean do have any advice be appect it JNOJ1423 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

05:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 79.110.130.73

We are continuing to work on the resubmission of the article. However, it appears that it has already been written from a neutral point of view and references a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Could you please provide more specific details about the parts of the article that need to be rewritten to ensure compliance with the policies? 79.110.130.73 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has not been edited since it was declined nearly five months ago.
Who is "we"? And what is your relationship with this business?
If you are Upstream99, please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 103.172.73.129

I don't know now what to publish. I think I need 3 years degree course to publish anything on Wikipedia. It's all a waste of time. 103.172.73.129 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional platform for your non-notable business.
Please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 28 March 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423

I have submitted my article's review request almost a week ago, but haven't gotten a response. Every time before this, it would only take like 2 days. What's wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: nothing is wrong, except that there are many drafts awaiting review. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,045 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That your other reviews were quick was likely just pure chance. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthPole5423 your draft is poorly sourced and promotional... "The magazine is known for its diverse and vibrant content, which includes stories, novels, poems, quizzes, magic tricks, adventure tales, travelogues, scientific articles, jokes, and a variety of other engaging features" is CLEARLY not neutral tone! Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Kicks of seven

What can I do for my draft umarjaum to be included on Wikipedia please check my draft umarjaum and then reply me. Kicks of seven (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kicks of seven: nothing, because I've rejected that draft. We only publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable, and your draft presents zero evidence that this is the case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I should delete it? Maybe I can improve the "Kishor Alo" section on the "Prothom Alo" article. SouthPole5423 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthPole5423 you don't need to delete Draft:Umarjaum. I did an in-depth look online and could find nothing that can establish notability. Perhaps one day there will be some good sources.
Those who reviewed Draft:Kishor Alo gave you some good advice. The first step would be to remove the Medium article, apollo.io source, the mawbiz.com.bd source, because all of them are primary. The rest don't look too good either so please look at the reviewers' comments so you can acquire better sourcing. TLAtlak 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Agri2024

Please re check this submission Agri2024 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Agri2024: this draft was rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you believe that new evidence of notability has become available which wasn't previously considered, you may make an appeal to the reviewer who rejected this. (Note, though, that neither the JP appointment nor the parliamentary candidacy confer any automatic notability.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Skblole

I don't understand what the problem is here. There's over 60 sources on this article and it's structured exactly the same way as every previous season that's been approved. I need to know more about what I'm expected to do with this if I am supposed to fix it. Skblole (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skblole: what do you mean "over 60 sources"? This draft cites two sources, each only once, leaving the vast majority of the information unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single game, competition and transfer is sourced. You're just looking at the ones showing up in the footnotes. Skblole (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skblole: correct, that is all I'm looking at. That is this draft's referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be. It doesn't have to be. It's perfectly fine to have the referencing in immediate proximity to the sourced information, and it's in fact the standard for these football pages on Wikipedia. Skblole (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. If you think that you are following guidelines, why are you using this (usually) voluntary process?
I only see two sources. Sources are indeed supposed to be in line with the text they are supporting, I don't see that here. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "what about that one?" argument isn't a good one but I think it's a little different when the argument is "what about every other football season article on Wikipedia?". I have never seen one of these citing each and every game in the footnotes and I think the reason for that is that it would be a mess. It's always done with a link to an official match report next to the game it's referencing. What do you mean you only see two sources? If you think most of them are presented the wrong way that's one thing, but surely you can see that the links are there? And if there's a source that's not in line with something I'm obviously happy to change that. The reason I'm using this process is that I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia operates beyond writing and updating articles, so when my article was removed and made into a draft I saw a link to this page and it made sense to ask about it. I apologize if I took this issue to the wrong place. Skblole (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see places where you have "source" then a link, this isn't the standard format as I understand it, though my experience with sports related articles is limited. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Vkaralewich

Hi, the article I wrote was denied for significant mention by Nearlyevil665. I was just wondering if this was because I listed the guy's company website as one of the sources. If I remove that will I be fine to resubmit since he does have significant mention in multiple news articles in Hoboken as cited in the sources? Should I find more articles of him? I'm not sure if the reviewer just saw the one bad source and denied it for that reason Vkaralewich (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vkaralewich: primary sources don't establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recommend that I delete the article or continue to develop it and find more articles that indicate notability. This guy has a lot of articles about him and he has ads all over hoboken/nyc so everyone knows about him which is why I figured I'd write an article. I think I met the notability unless you think there are specific items within the wikipedia notability article that I am missing? Thanks sorry I am trying to get into Wikipedia Vkaralewich (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take the image of him as you claimed when you uploaded it? It appears to be professionally taken. It's not necessary to delete the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy

what did I do wrong and what can improve? Girdyguy (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girdyguy: what you did wrong was that you resubmitted an already rejected draft. Please don't do that again, thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girdyguy: Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up in school one day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which has articles on notable subjects, not a free web host for pages on micronations which nobody cares about except for their creators. --Finngall talk 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't made in a day it took weeks, and me and my friends didint make it up.if its a hoax then delete all the other mriconation Wikipedia pages List of micronations Girdyguy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is this a hoax? Girdyguy (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? Anyway, it has now been deleted.
Please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Cosmiclatte.sro

The article is rejected because the references are thought to be part of a paid or press campaign. Most of the references in the article are from independent websites that write about similar products. Before I edit and resubmit the article for another review, is there a way to understand exactly which one of the references should be removed from the article? Cosmiclatte.sro (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmiclatte.sro: when a publication, even a seemingly reliable one, does a product review or roundup, provides pricing etc. details and a link to the supplier, and overtly or covertly takes a commission from resultant sales, that's not journalism, that's affiliate marketing, and the source cannot be regarded as either independent or genuinely reliable. Churnalism is not much better; it may not act as a sales channel, but is effectively paid promotion, all the same. I haven't analysed the sources in any great detail (you may need to ask the reviewer directly), but they all seemed more or less flaky to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 28 March 2024 review of submission by TruckRacingFan1

I would like to know how to create a good article on this topic TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TruckRacingFan1: probably too late now that the draft has been rejected, but for future reference:
  1. Start by finding a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard.
  2. Summarise (in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things) what they say about the subject.
  3. Cite each source against the information it has provided.
This gives you the appropriate content, required references, and proof of notability, all in one fell swoop. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy

Its not a hoax and the only reason why I made a second was because they deleted the first one when I was gonna fix it. so my I please have help on what to fix so I don't make the same mistake again. Girdyguy (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5

Hello, could you five me more details on why the article was declined and what I can do to get it compliant and approved. Thanks! 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting. If you are the creator of the draft, you declared a conflict of interest; what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I further note that you claim to have taken the image of Mr. Chanchaleune, but it appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

02:32, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Samnyasa

I am curious about publishing. The draft is sitting for months, and I don't want it to be rejected. Samnyasa (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted and pending. Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient, there is no way to "jump the line". 331dot (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 29 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull

hello, we prepared this draft ourselves as a university, I don't understand why it was rejected, we were rejected for the 2nd time. everything was prepared correctly and carefully Cem Barut 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@İstbull, I haven't found any GNG-worthy sources. Plus, a significant portion of the draft lacks proper sourcing. You've included every small detail about the university, so please remove any unnecessary unsourced material or provide citations for them. Additionally, there's no lead section in your draft; please add one. Also, you mentioned preparing this draft yourselves as a university. Does this mean that multiple persons use this account? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Yuliia Vireye

Hello! The article about the game was not agreed because as you pointed out reliable secondary sources are needed. However, the sources indicate examples of media that have already written about this game. You can see that these media are not involved, and wrote on their own initiative. Also, these media have been working since 2005+, and for so many years of work, they have earned trust and high ratings. In addition, these publications mention the activity and representation of the game at major international events (not as a mention, but a specific story about the game). Yuliia Vireye (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuliia Vireye: sources 1 and 4 are the same, just in a different language, meaning they're clearly based on a press release or similar. Source 2 is the same. The only one which might (emphasis on might) be okay is no. 3, but that alone is far from enough to establish notability.
You must also disclose your paid editing; I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Luckydigs

Hi, Can you tell me what elements this article needs the most, in order for it get approved? More press? More verified biographical info? Thank you! Luckydigs (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be notable having been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums they pass WP:NARTIST I'm happy to accept if you re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Amp-e728

This is the response I received telling me the article had been rejected, "References not formatted in the appropriate way." I used visual editor and added links to all material that was referenced. There must be 30 links. How am I supposed to know what the reviewer objected to. Amp-e728 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected see WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources and note that we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Tracy Pun Palandjian. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what this means? (apologies if that's a dumb question, but aren't all citations external links?) Amp-e728 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can be but they are formatted to appear at the end of the article under the reference section. See WP:REFB for how to do that. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. i wil read about citations again. if i'm honest, when i read about inline citations on wikipedia pages i don't see a restriction about external links identified, but maybe i missed that somehow. Amp-e728 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:External links also. Theroadislong (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

01:17, 30 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:800:63F2:93CA:D07B:31A7:BD84:1A53

went wat 2402:800:63F2:93CA:D07B:31A7:BD84:1A53 (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means, but the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Divinxx

Article was rejected, but there is a significant sample size of articles for Edmonton City Councillors with much less information and less reliable sources about the Councillor. Examples, Ben Henderson (politician), Jane Batty, Bryan Anderson (politician). In the edit history of Druh Farrell, there is an overturned deletion request about Farrell not being deemed "notable" where the argument was a councillor of the major city of Calgary was in fact notable enough. Janz is a councillor of Edmonton, which is just as major of a city as Calgary, and in fact the capital city of Alberta.

How do I resubmit while sharing these things as information to take into account, rather than firing off another submission which won't have these things considered? Divinxx (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divinxx The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the submission process, that a draff may not be resubmitted. Declined meams that it may be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. Other poor articles existing cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
As noted by the reviewer, local politicians do not merit articles merely for being a politician. You will need to show that this councilor meets the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Shivanrai1

Why my page creation got declined? Shivanrai1 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivanrai1 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. I restored the previous decline message(it must remain until the draft is accepted) so you could see it. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Noble banji

What do I do Noble banji (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking for assistance with the draft submission process, not for asking questions about articles that are actually in the encyclopedia. Please use the more general Help Desk for questions about an article. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also at Draft:Samuel Oladele where it has been rejected, I have sent Pastor S.O Oladele to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Dreamboy3143

Hi, A detailed bio (article) of the artist has been published by a prestige independent magazine. here is the link: https://www.mesam.org.tr/UserFiles/files/Dergi/34_Vizyon.pdf page.46-47 user:Dreamboy3143 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamboy3143 If you want to have the rejection of your draft undone, you should start by contacting S0091, the person who rejected it, on their talk page Mach61 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will user:Dreamboy3143 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Memevietnam98

This article is eligible to appear on Wikipedia, see User talk:Memevietnam98 to understand clearly. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Memevietnam98: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. And if you wish to argue otherwise, you will have to make more of a case than saying something on your talk page may or may not support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, please also refer to the user's talk page where several AfC reviewers have made no small effort to try and explain general notability and reliable source rules to the above user and been met with a less than welcome reception. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Akhare 2024

My Draft has been declined a couple of times, I just rewrote it with a neutral point of view. Please let me know what else needs to be done Akhare 2024 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Patwomfcs

What can be better so that this submission is granted? This is an individual who is a Division 1 Football coach and the first female coach in several instances in the NCAA and the NFL. Patwomfcs (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patwomfcs: you need to show that this person is notable according to the criteria described in the decline notice on top of the draft (the grey box inside the large pink one). Being a football coach is not inherently notable, nor is the first-anything (such as first female coach). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on Division 1 position football coaches. Nothing linked was notable as in all university articles or press releases. Patwomfcs (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you able to review sources? Patwomfcs (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first female head coach might be notable, as it would likely get a lot of coverage in reliable sources; I'm less sure about assistant coaches. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Gcwcd

Hi. I've been working on a draft of a new article and a comment was made, 'Article needs a lead. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)'. Please can you help with advice on how I can rectify this? Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By adding a lead section? The draft doesn't suggest how the person is notable in Wikipedia terms, the lead section should do this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm submitting a draft article and mistakenly put links to external web pages within the main article. Having read the Help articles on this subject, my understanding is that relevant and acceptable web pages can be linked to, but an inline citation should be used and then the link should be included in the References section. Please can you confirm that my understanding is correct before I resubmit my draft? Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any external links in the body of the text, except as citations for information presented. Relevant external links can go in a separate section at the end of the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a separate section for every question; please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Nemesia345

I believe all comments have been addressed to enable publication of this page. That said, I would like to check with experienced editors to see if any changes should be made before resubmitting for publication.

The previous comments on draft that have now been addressed are as follows:

1. Completely unreferenced advantages: New references added to this section and throughout article to address.

2. table with exclusively external links: This was a formatting error due to limited author Wiki experience. Table has been updated to use appropriate references format.

3. Based on how this article currently exists, it does not seem as if its unique existence is warranted, and would be better served on a glossary of terms as suggested by AngusWOOF: Respectfully disagree. Closed-loop geothermal is a large category of research and commercial development highlighted in US Department of Energy and other highly reputable source reports, with associated content extending well beyond level of the geothermal 'glossary of terms' page. Further, I have posted the need to break this topic into a separate page on the Enhanced Geothermal Systems talk page, with no responses for nearly 6 months indicating the talk page is inactive. There is no relevant active talk page on which to discuss this, making this comment un-actionable.

Thank you for your consideration and advice. Nemesia345 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Witejere

I need some help as I'm not sure what other information, I need to add or remove from the content I've provided. I'm fine if someone can correct/update my work.

Thanks Witejere (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

04:40, 31 March 2024 review of submission by Dolemites

I'm having trouble finding examples of non-neutral or peacock language in this draft. Could someone help? 

Dolemites (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1216464591"