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
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Ram_Krishna_Bantawa
Line 699: Line 699:


:@[[User:Regeneisen|Regeneisen]]: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per [[WP:GNG]]. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple ''secondary'' sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Regeneisen|Regeneisen]]: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per [[WP:GNG]]. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple ''secondary'' sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== 13:22, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha ==
{{Lafc|username=Rasilshrestha|ts=13:22, 3 July 2024|draft=Draft:Ram_Krishna_Bantawa}}
Hello. I did add reliable independent sources to my article. I also asked and added offline sources to my article. I have already editted the article. [[User:Rasilshrestha|Rasilshrestha]] ([[User talk:Rasilshrestha|talk]]) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:22, 3 July 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


June 27

00:19:36, 27 June 2024 review of submission by MauriceAgerOfficial

I represent Maurice Ager & we would like to update his wiki

MauriceAgerOfficial (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MauriceAgerOfficial: I think you've come to the wrong help desk, this is for new article drafts undergoing the AfC review process, which Maurice Ager (or for that matter, Sam Froling) isn't.
However, now that you're here, I need to tell you that you have a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed before you do any further editing. I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Note also that you are not allowed to edit directly articles to which your COI applies, you must instead make edit requests via the article talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Livvin1

This draft has been rejected several times. I made all necessary changes—there are quite literally no other sources I can use. He is a food influencer in which the only information I will get is from previous interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.). All sources I've used are credible. I've seen all of these used in other wiki pages for celebs as well, so I'm not really sure why this is continually rejected. I'd really appreciate any specific help that will get this pushed through. Livvin1 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Livvin1: firstly, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you can resubmit, once you've addressed the decline reasons).
Secondly, what other articles may exist, and how they may be sourced, is not the point: we are assessing this draft, and that is done by reference to the currently applicable guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
You say "interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.)." Interviews are not independent (or usually reliable), as they are the subject talking. Podcasts aren't much better. Forbes may be reliable, but usually isn't; see WP:FORBESCON. It seems that there is something of a gap between what you consider to be an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability, and what three experienced reviewers (with 300,000+ edits under their collective belt) think. As it is, I'm minded to side with the latter, but note that I haven't done a proper source analysis.
If, as you say, there aren't better sources available, then it probably isn't possible to have this published. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Virgilio lauro

Hello, good evening. How are you? I want to thank you in advance for your time and advice.

The reason for my message is to ask about the article I am creating about the musical artist Michael Q. Trucks.

I have already made several modifications to the draft and removed all the self-references that you kindly pointed out to me. I also revised the US NAVY honors, as I suppose they have no place in a musician's profile. Additionally, I adjusted the tone of the article to be more neutral and used references from reliable sources to avoid a lack of credibility.

Could you please review if all the information and additions are correct?

I am very interested in following all the guidelines to comply with your standards.

Thank you very much once again.

Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgilio lauro: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. However, having taken a quick look at your draft, the previous decline reasons are still there: it present no evidence that the subject is notable, and the whole thing is written in a promotional manner. Additionally, the referencing is wholly inadequate, eg. the entire 'Early life and education' section is unreferenced, and much of what is referenced is done so using unreliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I get it. Thank you very much for your comments. They really help me to include the necessary information to make it relevant for the platform. I appreciate your time and considerations.
Best, Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Sumanrsb2

This article which I have published is related to one of the popular Indian youtube and a contestor of popular OTT Show broadcasted on JIO Cinema named Bigg Boss. Allmost all the contestor have a Wikipedia page. kindly help in publishing it or help me in improving it. Allmost 100 relevant news article available on internet regarding this. Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanrsb2: Any reality show contestants - including and especially contestants on Big Brother and its variants (of which Bigg Boss is one) - need to be found notable independent of their reality show appearances due to them being designed to distort or exaggerate players' personality flaws for drama. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what notable means to you. having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article is not a criteria of notability ? Being contestor of a Popular OTT show is not a crtiteria for notability ? If you need I can cite all those news article related to this Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: the general notability guideline is given at WP:GNG, please study it carefully. That is the one that reviewers usually work to (unless there is a special guideline that applies instead).
And yes, "having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article" may prove notability, but it depends on more than just the number of sources; their quality matters just as much, as the GNG guideline makes clear. Besides, your draft does not cite 50 or 100 articles, it cites four sources (of varying quality) in total. Our job is not to go hunting for sources, that is entirely the responsibility of the draft authors and proponents; we merely review what is cited in the draft.
Having said which, please do not cite 50 or 100 articles, as that would be pure WP:REFBOMBING and as such counterproductive. Find the best 3-5 sources (per the GNG criteria), and summarise their coverage. That gives you both the appropriate content and the necessary proof of notability in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done the same despite you guys nominated for deletion. Its worth for Wikipedia. Kindly approve Sumanrsb2 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: you're only making matters worse by creating multiple versions of this. The published article has been nominated for deletion, and rightly so. Your draft will not be approved while there is no evidence of notability, and certainly not if you don't actually submit it for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: Your only sources are a YouTube channel (no editorial oversight) and three news stories about his appearance on a Bigg Boss season. The sourcing on the version I looked at yesterday had seven Bigg Boss-focussed sources. As I said above, you need to show he is notable outside of the reality show. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a popular Youtuber wh recently in news for Bigg Boss sensation why can't be treated as a notable personality ? There are thousand of Wiki article having no reliable coverage Sumanrsb2 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't give you licence to make another one. As as I've explained before, the reason we need sources that discuss them outside of the context of the reality show is because reality television is designed to exaggerate and distort peoples' actual personalities and actions to stir up drama and create a narrative; the "reality show" version of a person is effectively no different from a character in a scripted drama and should not be considered representative of how that person is off-camera. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 27 June 2024 review of submission by KBN College(Autonomous)

I have given general information about college in vijayawada but you are saying it seems like advertising , i have been added courses they offer , infrastructure , land area etc... i think it is an information about the college

please guide if anything wrong in my page post KBN College(Autonomous) (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked, draft G11'd.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Caspal

goodmorning, I've translated the dutch article form the Chassé Theater in Breda. the original had no references at all so when my translation was moved to draft I added different (dutch) references. now I also found some English. I have no idea what the criteria for wiki references are . the explanation in the draft description is 'to English' for me and I don't understand them. How can I summit the article about this theater to wiki. Caspal (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspal: WP:THREE gives a good rule of thumb. Note that we accept non-English sources, offline sources, and offline non-English sources, so where and in what language the source is written is irrelevant. What matters is that the sources are independent of the subject and its surrogates, discuss the subject at length, and have strong editorial oversight with competent fact-checking processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caspal: yes, I rather suspected it may have been a translation. You need to attribute the original article as the source, see WP:HOWTRANS.
For future reference, please bear in mind that the English-language Wikipedia has higher standards for referencing and notability than most if not all other language versions. It often happens that the sources cited in the original article are insufficient for publication here. For that reason, I would recommend that before even starting to translate, you check whether the sources meet our requirements, and if not, whether you can find more and better sources. If you cannot, then there is no point in proceeding further, as you are likely to be wasting your time and effort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Roggenrol

Can you review my draft, please? I don't get what's wrong with it exactly. Roggenrol (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roggenrol: the draft was reviewed, and consequently declined, for lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify the reason and get a more detailed answer. What do you mean exactly by lack of notability in my case? This article says too many things about this criteria. Roggenrol (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 27 June 2024 review of submission by STContributor

Hello,

I recently saw my submitted draft, Steptoe & Johnson, was declined and the Wikipedia article, "Steptoe LLP" was noted as the subject already existing. Steptoe & Johnson is a separate firm/entity from Steptoe LLP (even though part of their name is shared) which is why I thought the article would be helpful to distinguish the two law firms.

Can you let me know how I can make this more clear so that the article submission can be reconsidered for publication? STContributor (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't. Because you are trying to create a duplicate of Steptoe LLP. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 27 June 2024 review of submission by DhruvvMehra

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

I am writing to contest the speedy deletion tag placed on Draft Mindz. I believe the concerns raised under section G11 regarding promotional content can be addressed through necessary revisions to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Specifically, I have edited the draft to focus on encyclopedic information about Designer Mindz, highlighting its history, services, and notable achievements in a neutral tone. The revisions aim to provide verifiable and sourced content that adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

I kindly request a review of the updated draft to reconsider its deletion. I am committed to ensuring that the page meets Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and notability.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, DhruvvMehra DhruvvMehra (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DhruvvMehra It's pure spam and will shortly be deleted. Qcne (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DhruvvMehra: you have been warned already against trying to use Wikipedia to promote your business. You're getting close to being blocked. You also haven't made the required paid-editing disclosure (that I can find, at least); please make that as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 27 June 2024 review of submission by SandyTee

what does "one of the sources is a 404" mean? SandyTee (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyTee: HTTP 404 = page/file not found. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Taevchoi

Article was rejected, but I would like to argue that T-Money is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article and I urge you to reconsider. Looking at the discussion in the articles for deletion for the page that was live in 2016, I can tell that a huge concern was the absence of reliable sources. Furthermore, user Innisfree987 was trying to get in contact with the editor to help improve the page before it was deleted, but it seems they were not able to get in contact. I'd like to quote user Innisfree987, "Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards." I agree that the original Wikipedia article for T-Money was poorly written by a first time Wikipedia editor. As a first time editor myself, I initially thought all the article needed was more sources. Through the feedback of my peers, such as user Utopes and those at Teahouse, I realized the cadence and the integrity of the sources needed work as well. I also agree that T-Money's contribution to 80s hip-hop is rather significant to hip-hop history as a whole, especially since Original Concept was an early group signed to Def Jam. And outside of his group, he made a name for himself through hosting Yo! MTV Raps. I believe that T-Money qualifies for his own article because he meets numbers 1 and 10 of the guidelines. He is an important piece of Hip-Hop history, more specifically New York, which is the birthplace of hiphop. The sources I included in my draft are much stronger and more credible than the sources that were included in the 2016 draft. I am eager to hear your thoughts and consideration. Taevchoi (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have been working with the Teahouse members diligently for months regarding this draft, and no one ever voiced or had concerns that the draft would be rejected all together. More specifically, User Utopes was hopeful that my draft would be approved due to my improvements in the edits. The feedback I received was heavily about writing in an encyclopedic tone, which I am still learning to grasp. Thanks! Taevchoi (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taevchoi: sorry to hear you feel (I think?) like you've been mislead. The Teahouse crowd were probably trying to encourage and guide you, but as they (many of them, at least) don't do the actual reviewing, they don't necessarily look at drafts with the same critical eye and go into the same detail as AfC reviewers do. Also, they can't foresee the future, and what a draft eventually turns into.
If you wish to appeal against the rejection, you need to approach the rejecting reviewer directly. Just be sure to build your case on policy-based arguments, pointing out clearly which notability criteria your draft meets, and what evidence supports that.
You do also have the option, given that your account is autoconfirmed, of moving the draft into the mainspace yourself, as the AfC process is in most cases voluntary. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that you do that, because there was no doubt a good reason why the draft was rejected, but it is technically an option nevertheless. Just be aware that if New Page Patrol sends the article back to drafts, or worse moves to delete it, this will make it that much more difficult to have an article on this subject accepted in the future. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @DoubleGrazing! Appreciate your help! Taevchoi (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Seandavidfebre

Wikipedia Support Team,

I am writing to seek guidance on publishing a new Wikipedia page for Sean Febre, an entrepreneur and podcaster known for co-founding Febre Frameworks and co-hosting the Happy Hour Holidaze podcast.

I have drafted the article and gathered reliable sources, but I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. Could you please provide advice on the best steps to take to get this page published?

Thank you for your assistance. Seandavidfebre (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seandavidfebre: Aside from this being (almost certainly) an autobiography, anything the subject writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability and for biographical claims. Your "sources" are links to the homepages for his firm and his podcast. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave 'm my incredibly helpful deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 27 June 2024 review of submission by SkibidiFarage

why SkibidiFarage (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkibidiFarage: Because we don't have articles on random one-off meme mutations unless they've been reported on by multiple other outlets. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok SkibidiFarage (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 27 June 2024 review of submission by TheElectricEclectic

This is a notable creative artist from The Netherlands in both music and digital communications. TheElectricEclectic (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheElectricEclectic: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

05:59, 28 June 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Dear moderator added official sources from the company Can you help. Thank you Arahi991 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: as I told you already yesterday, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
I also asked you if you have a connection with Solyankich, who created Draft:Del Mar Energy, but you've not answered that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Official sources from the company" are completely irrelevant. 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) 09:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 28 June 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Hey there, This article has been declined, supposably due to lack of Reliable sources. However, Iv'e used highly regarded Israeli press and Forbes. Why was it declined again? can I receive some constructive assistance? עומר תשבי (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Discounting the sources tied to a contentious topic, most of your sources barely even discuss Meckenzie, with some not even mentioning him at all. We do not judge sources solely by the outlet that publishes them; we have to actually read them as well and judge them based on what they say and their context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 28 June 2024 review of submission by RUE4533

Greetings, my article was declined because the reviewer said All music, Discogs, and streaming services are not reliable sources. I used those sites as sources because I saw that other published music articles use them. Is there a more reliable source that I should use instead for music credits? Thank you so much for your time. RUE4533 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RUE4533: it is true that Discogs is not considered reliable, see WP:DISCOGS; it came close to being deprecated a few years ago. AllMusic is better (see WP:ALLMUSIC), but should be used with caution at best. You need to find sources that aren't user-generated, are secondary, and ideally put together by professional staff subject to editorial controls, fact-checking, etc. policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RUE4533: Credits are something that do not need to be cited if their work is properly credited (reading the credits is enough to verify the claim) but they do not contribute to notability. As to why the reviewer rejected those three outlets in particular, AllMusic is a dodgy source unless you're citing its reviews, Discogs is unusable full stop (no editorial oversight), and streaming services are unusable full stop (connexion to subject or unknown provenance depending on how above-board the service is). For the rest, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the detailed review Jéské. This has been a good learning experience thus far. I had modeled my article off of other music articles and their sources but I can see now the issues with that. Possibly Discogs and Allmusic were more reliable when those articles were approved, but not anymore. Good to know that credits do not need to be cited, when you say "reading the credits is enough to verify the claim", do you mean reading the physical cd liner notes? Or is that unusable because that is being provided by the artist and label (connexion to subject) like streaming service credits. RUE4533 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed mean reading the liner notes. However, being credited for a work doesn't help for notability in most circumstances, as (barring an Alan Smithee credit) being credited for work you've done is par for the course. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Positively. Thanks for taking a butchers and the chinwag. When/if the subject has more in depth coverage I will revisit. Until then, on to other topics RUE4533 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 28 June 2024 review of submission by QiaoYi-Huang

Hello, I've put continuously made effort in sourcing reliable and notable references for a this page. However, my draft was declined upon resubmission. Could you please help me review the page and provide guidance on what specific additions or changes are necessary? Thank you. QiaoYi-Huang (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QiaoYi-Huang There are some terms which fail Wikipedia's Neutrality guideline, with terms like "best" and "aiming". Are you related with this company in some way? TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 28 June 2024 review of submission by Jack Tarre

I need assistance with references on this new, short article on performer and disability rights activist Jennifer Kumiyama. Three experienced Wiki editors have done a great job helping by reviewing, editing and moving the article along, but I'm a little stymied now. Of the 14 references in the article, which need upgrading and which meet Wiki standards? Thank you in advance. Please note that on the Wikipedia page for the Disney animated film "Wish" (Jennifer's most recent big screen performance) she is the only one of the eleven actors listed that does not link to a Wikipedia article. This was my initial motivation for creating the article. Jack Tarre (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two random sources and they didn't support the content that they followed. Please also note that YouTube is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked two more and they also didn't mention her, it is an absolute requirement that the content is supported by the sources, and please note that YouTube and interviews are not suitable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

03:58, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mashrafi H Antu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Ahmed_Swapan Username is not right that's why we have problem to mention on another page. Correct username is 'Feroz Ahammed Shapon' Mashrafi H Antu (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page from the original to your request. TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashrafi H Antu see WP:MV for instructions on how to 'rename' a page by moving it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Zainashrafofficial

How can I write data about Zain Ashraf Official that will be publicly available to the community on Wikipedia and also should be available in search. Zainashrafofficial (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zainashrafofficial: you should not write about yourself, and you also should not try to use Wikipedia to promote anything or anyone. Try somewhere like LinkedIn instead.
This draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Kastark

Hello! I've been referred to the help desk by User:SafariScribe who recently reviewed my submission. SafariScribe declined the submission without comment beyond the pro forma, and when I asked for clarity on their reasons on their talk page they were unwilling to explain further beyond stating that some sources were unreliable, and instead referred me here. Could anyone provide me some further insight on why the article failed to meet WP:RS? As I understand the policies, the article should now meet the criteria by including multiple reliable sources (in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent). I want to engage in the AfC process in good faith but without any meaningful explanation as to why the reviewer disagreed, I'm left unsure what the issue is and how to fix it. Kastark (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the draft seems to be about promoting the non notable game Lancer? Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment from involved editor) Hi @Kastark, your draft was declined because it lacks reliable sources to meet notability. It is not about having many sources in a particular article, it is having reliable and verifiable citations to support what you wrote. For example, a national newspaper, broadcasting channels, etc. Most of your sources are blogs which I showed you on my talk page. Please do not assert "unwilling" because I provided you all that you needed. Maintain civility. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm remaining civil here - when I said unwilling, it was because you said you didn't want to discuss it further and sent me here. I am very legitimately confused by your decision and I'm trying to understand what you mean - I think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the policy criteria. As I understand it, the policy is inclusive rather than exclusive, so simply finding one or two sources you think are unreliable isn't a good reason to decline the submission (particularly since some of the examples you brought up are actually notable news sources in the industry). In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article, so I'm very willing to accept that I might be wrong and regular AfC users might know better, but if that's the case I'd really appreciate an explanation as to what the issue is so I can understand the process better. Kastark (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have had an account here for about one month and your only edits have been to promote your own business, paid editors will always be held to a high standard. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have declared my COI and followed all appropriate policies, I'm very aware of wikipedia's justified skepticism but I don't think that's a reason to decline the article (in fact users with COIs are specifically instructed to use the AfC process). For reference and in full disclosure, this is not my business but I have worked with them on contract. Kastark (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article is a good stat. So, what's your previous account? I also believe Theroadislong is "absolutely" correct. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SafariScribe, as you know Wikipedia has always been welcoming of IP editors and I've never seen the reason to create an account until it was literally required to do so. I feel like I'm being attacked here without good reason and I'd like to ask folks to take a moment before accusing me of acting in bad faith. Kastark (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, is there anyone available who can answer my questions about policy and reliable sources? Specifically, have I misunderstood how WP:RS is supposed to work, and is there a reason that multiple articles from reputable news outlets aren't enough to establish notability? I would still like to improve the article and after the discussion above I've gone back to re-read WP:CS, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's still unclear to me what the actual roadblock here is. I would greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to explain this to me. Kastark (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a single reliable independent source in the draft

1 is a primary source, 2 is a blog (not reliable) 3 is about Lancer not Massif Press, 4 is a commercial link to purchase Lancer, 5 is about Lancer, 6 is about Lancer, 7 content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. 8 doesn’t mention Massif Press, 9 is about Lancer, 10 is an interview with publisher of Lancer so not independent, 11 is about Lancer, 12 is about Lancer, 13 is about Lancer, 14 is their own website so not independent, 15 passing mention, 16 unreliable, 17 topic not mentioned, 18 forum, not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to go through each of the sources and provide a breakdown, this is illustrative. By the way you've summarised these am I right to think that the issue is that the sources establish the notability of the game rather than the publisher? And would it therefore make sense to refactor the article to be about Lancer itself rather than Massif Press? Kastark (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a possibility. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! Thank you once again :) Kastark (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Anskrev

What sources are problematic and caused rejection of submission? Anskrev (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anskrev, your draft was declined and not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. The sources must be about the company and not it's founder. Also, your draft was written in a promotional tone that the sources doesn't credibly show the company's importance. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do suggest merge and redirect to Donnel Baird. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks for the feedback. My aim is to create a BlocPower page independent of the founder and then scale back the BlocPower content on the Donnel Baird page. I've edited the page and re-submitted for review. Anskrev (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission is declined again. You are not trying to understand the notability criteria of an organisation. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Twinkle1990, I have further removed Donnel Baird focused sources, other than the citations that Donnel Baird launched the company. Anskrev (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone will review it. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev no Declined with reasons given. Please do the work before resubmitting. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional secondary sources and attempted to remove promotional sounded content and re-submitted. Hopefully I understood the issues correctly. Anskrev (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev I have left a comment on the draft wth respect to the references you have chosen. I will not re-review it. Why are you in such haste? Work slower, and better, please.
We need references meeting these tough criteria:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
There is a great deal of work to do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for the links. When creating articles is there any process that facilitates seeing more granular feedback for problem areas of an article? Should I be starting much smaller? E.g. is any of the article okay?
Maybe I can break down my thought process on the first paragraph and see if I'm on the right track. BlocPower is active in city governments across the country and is the primary partner for the Green New Deal in Ithaca, which set some of the most ambitious climate targets in the country. In theory, that seems notable. So it seems like the primary issue here is my understanding of doing the referencing properly.
To begin the article I am aiming to state what the company is and what its businesses practices are and that it has attracted praise and critiques.
For the first paragraph the references I have are:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/03/blocpower-brings-energy-efficiency-to-low-moderate-income-families/
Cleantechnica has its own wikipedia article, so must have gone through some level of notability vetting. It doesn't appear to be an organization or author that is connected to BlocPower. The site does use advertisements, and I suppose it's possible they were paid for the article, but it doesn't disclose that if so. The article clearly does have a promotional tone, however, I am not sourcing it for the promotional content. I am sourcing it as a reference for the facts surrounding the BlocPower business (that they use SaaS software and provides financing, project management, etc.). I chose this as a secondary source.
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub209093.pdf#page=8
This publication from ORNL is certainly a reputable source, and has many authors listed and references. However, The project covered in this report is a partnership between ORNL and BlocPower, so I was unclear whether it would be considered a primary or secondary source. I am again using the publication to establish the facts of BlocPower's business activities. However, the publication details work on a specific project, while I am using the publication for the general business description it provides, which is tangential to publication's focus. This seems secondary?
https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/2023/2023-November/Featured-Articles/Equipment-Leasing-Unlocks-Electrification-for-Brooklyn-Co-op
Habitat has been around for decades, and like Cleantechnica, has an established wikipedia article. This article has passing mentions of BlocPower, however, the whole article is on leasing equipment and says that BlocPower is the company facilitating that, therefore the whole article is about the business activities of BlocPower, even though it's not mentioned by name extensively throughout the article. I sourced this as a secondary reference to support that BlocPower provides financing for building owners.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/brooklyn-based-company-helps-buildings-become-cleaner-and-greener/
This is an initiative out of Yale University, which should be reputable. I am again using this as a secondary source to establish that BlocPower provides financing.
In the next section I sought to establish that BlocPower has been reported on as being innovative in its approach to concurrently tackling climate change issues and helping marginalized communities.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/tech/blocpower-green-energy/index.html
This article is from CNN, a well-known established source. I used this as a secondary source to establish that building owners from lower-income communities were reported to have praised the company.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/workforce-diversity/this-innovative-cleantech-job-training-program-is-changing-lives
Canary Media advertises itself as an independent, nonprofit newsroom. It's an initiative of the decades old Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) that was launched three years ago. I used this as a secondary source to support the claim that BlocPower focuses on marginalized communities and uses reportedly innovative tactics in its business.
For the last sentence, I sought to establish that BlocPower has also been critiqued for its practices.
https://prospect.org/environment/2023-09-06-energy-insufficiency-blocpower/
The American Prospect has a wikipedia article. I used this as a secondary source to establish that there have been reports of customers not seeing the savings they were expecting.
https://nysfocus.com/2023/01/23/ithaca-blocpower-goldman-sachs-green-new-deal
NY Focus has a wikipedia article and is purportedly a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News. I used this as a secondary source to establish that there is disputed understanding regarding BlocPower's fees.
https://www.thecornellreview.org/blocpower-svb-and-the-decarbonization-dilemma/
Cornell Review is a well-established student newspaper at Cornell University, with a wikipedia article. I used this as a secondary source to establish that the costs may not be as upfront as they seem.
So, for that first paragraph, am I on the right track with my thinking in regard to how I am using these sources?
I don't have any particular haste on this article (it has been in draft for 3 months). I'm just trying to separate it from Donnel Baird. Several reviewers encouraged expanding the Donnel Baird article's BlocPower section, which I don't understand. It seems like without BlocPower, the Donnel Baird article wouldn't be notable. It's possible to find coverage of BlocPower independent of Baird, while the reverse may be harder. So if there is one article it seems like it should be a BlocPower article (with much of the Donnel Baird content moved to the BlocPower history section).
Cheers!
P.S. Stumbled upon this which is a little apropos ;) https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/climate-crisis/wikipedia-has-a-climatetech-problem Anskrev (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev I fear you have started in the wrong place. Read this essay, one of many that deal with creating an article, and look at the process.
We have to start with the references, then build a storyboard from them, and write in our own words what the references tell us.
Forgive me if I do not respond directly to your carefully thought out text above. I could do so, but it will not be valuable for you. For the present, restart your draft from the references up. Find, and chose to select or reject references. Only then write the prose. Be succinct, but do not use close paraphrasing of what the reference says.
If the draft ends up shorter, then it ends up shorter. All you want, all, is to prove by the referencing that the topic is notable. That is your sole objective. Length is a side issue. Long drafts may be awesome, or poor. The referencing decides. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mckenziedavid011

I don't know what im supposed to do by a simple article Mckenziedavid011 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to demonstrate that the subject "Teams with the most championshipts in NA Sports" has had enough published about it to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You should also cite sources for all the numbers. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 80.7.88.94

It’s a horror story it Hass to be good and juicy 80.7.88.94 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopaedia, not a website for creative writing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Google Fonts was a reliable source!

It was sourced in Product Sans! 2600:1016:A102:27A9:503A:59DE:C4D:4443 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to establish notability, a source must be independent of the topic and devote significant coverage to the topic, as well as being reliable. In addition, references to multiple high quality sources are required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In striking contrast to Product Sans, your Draft:Yarndings is only a single sentence, and your single reference is to a source that is not independent and does not devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Next time I will have reliable sources. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same person. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 220.255.242.109

Please see comments on the article. Thanks you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further, and there is no point in appealing here. The only possible way of continuing with it is for you to appeal directly to the reviewer that rejected it, Zoglophie, and convincing them that something has changed to make it worth considering again. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

Hello I request advice on how i can make the article better. Clare Nassanga (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the need of general nobility of biography of people. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

01:27, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Deven Reddy10

I created a wiki page for an Indian National highway called "National Highway 930P". But I named the page as Dev Reddy instead of "National Highway 930P". I think publishing of the page got rejected due to that error. Now I want to republish the same page by changing the title name as ""National Highway 930P" instead of "Dev Reddy" could someone help me on this ? Thank you Deven Reddy10 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deven Reddy10. The current title of a draft has no impact on its review. AFC reviewers know how to give an accepted article its proper title. Draft:Dev Reddy has not been rejected. It has been declined instead, which is a very different thing. So, forget about the current name of the draft and instead focus on improving the draft as recommended by the reviewers. Pay close attention to their comments. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:35, 30 June 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012

I cannot resubmit my draft. 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikiPhil012. Your draft has been resubmitted but is unlikely to be accepted. It is very poorly referenced and needs major improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:09, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran

It says to be qualified there needs to be multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, though my submission was denied. But the reviewer said The Hill and NYT, which is multiple, so I'm confused. Quote Veteran (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran: we normally require three such sources; hence why the reviewer said this is "close to showing notability". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I have added another profile from Delaware Today. There was also a well-done profile from the Post. It says you are a new page reviewer, would you mind reviewing it? Thanks in advance. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran: looks like another reviewer got there first, while I was catching some ZZZs. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks for the help. Will make sure to add all the sources I can next time. Quote Veteran (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Jasonkumarlopchan

Hello, I have posted all the reference articles that covered the news about our film. But my submission is being denied. Please help ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkumarlopchan: there isn't much we can do to help. If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then this draft cannot be accepted.
You have been asked twice already to disclose your conflict of interest. Please do so as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of evidence are we talking about ? Could you help me please ? I have already listed out media articles related to the movie as well as the IMDB page of the movie. Help please ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: the kind of evidence which is described in the decline notice, that has now been posted three times on top of the draft. Have you read any of it? We're looking for something to show that the film satisfies either the WP:NFILM or WP:GNG guidelines. Your draft cites precisely three sources: IMDB, which is completely useless, and two pre-release publicity pieces; none of these contribute anything towards notability.
And one more time: please disclose your conflict of interest now, I'd rather not have to ask again. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh Okay. I'm a media journalist here in Nepal and I came upon a screening of this movie and I quite loved it. The movie was really grounded as one can tell they're a massive independent makers. The movie is also the first ever Nepali movie to be shot entirely on Iphone. So, its kind of an achievement for our Nepali Cinema landscape. My only interest is to provide information about this movie to the people out there and help it reach world wide audiences as well. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: are you trying to say you have no connection to this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. But I'm doing this on my own. Not under their influence or for some financial gain. I'm just doing it for the love of movies and to expand the landscape of our Nepali cinema. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "I do" what – you do have a connection to this film? Like, might you be the Jason Lopchan that the draft says wrote, directed and edited this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've tried wikipedia. I opened this account and tried to write out about the movie just to help out the team and the movie. I told you I'm a local media journalist in Nepal. You might think I'm doing it financial gain but no it's simply just as I told you above. These guys are new in the film making line of Nepal. I just want to help them grow. I provided you with information regarding media articles, I know you said they are pre release publicity pieces but the movie hasn't releases so what am I supposed to provide you ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I still don't know what your relationship with this subject is. Maybe someone else can better interpret your evasive comments and get to the bottom of this.
If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then it's probably not notable. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are film-makers and I'm a media personnel. That's the relationship. And I have been asking you the same question, what evidence should I provide you ? Can you be specific ? cause it looks like to me that you want it to be not notable. Everyone here in Nepal knows about the movie and I'm only trying to get in on wiki hoping people outside notice as well. What exact evidence should I provide about a movie that hasn't been released yet ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "Hasn't been released yet" is the start and end of your problems. Unless there's something wildly unusual about the production (i.e. deaths or legal issues) it's highly unlikely a film that hasn't been released yet gets an article simply because the sources that would be available are all the usual personnel and marketeering crap that every movie and their set dog gets. You're better off waiting until the film releases and gets professional reviews; we can cite those to build an article. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator by design, and our readers both understand this and get torqued off when an article seems to be trying to advertize to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thank you for your explanation. This is the explanation I was hoping to get from @DoubleGrazing. I have already gone through the guidelines but I was having trouble which is why I came to help desk. I was hoping to get it clear instead of referring me to the notability guidelines link. Anyways, hope you do better job at helping others than you did to me. Be clear and help others instead of trying to sound cocky. Thank you @Jéské Couriano again for your reply and helping out. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasonkumarlopchan It's hard to judge tone from text on a screen. Trying to sound clear and consise is easy to confuse with cockiness. Please assume people are trying to help you. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your experience is very common for new editors of Wikipedia who attempt the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary skills. Writing for an encyclopaedia is very different from journalism.
I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent a few weeks or months improving existing articles, and learning about how Wikipedia works. Once they have an understanding of fundamental concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully, and try creating an article. If they try before that, they are likely to have the same frustrating experience as you are having. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I have already explained that you need to show evidence that the film meets either of the relevant notability guidelines, WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Consistently throughout this process these have been pointed out to you, and yet you're still here asking what sort of evidence is needed. You will need to read and understand these guidelines yourself, I cannot understand them for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA

Hi there, my draft was denied in March. I have corrected the external links but it hasn't been reviewed. Help please 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have significant portions of uncited text. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with rationale. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the exhibitions of this artist do not have an online source that can be cited because they took place when there very little or none online presence. I removed the ones that I couldn't cite however there are many more that I could cite with reliable sources. Please reconsider. 2600:1700:2540:B700:F594:3704:3F9B:D72E (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if cited with enough information to look them up in a library or offline archive.
  • For magazines or newspapers we use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} and require the outlet name, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the page(s) the article is on;
  • For books we use {{cite book}} and require the title, author, year of publication, publisher, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at this huge list of exhibitions. Does it add value to the artist's notability or is it just a large list. Generally we select the most significant, where the reference is about the artist. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a strong preference for independent sources. If the only published material you can find about a particular exhibition comes from the artist, or the gallery, so no independent commentator has noted it, then Wikipedia is probably not interested in that exhibition either. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Tscharschmidt

I would be grateful for help addressing the question of adequate references. It would be helpful to have specific examples of the deficiencies. For the revised March 2024 version, I added references documenting Granoff’s contributions from primary, secondary and tertiary sources, including textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific articles and review articles in scientific journals; also PDF downloaded from websites of International organizations such as the American Society of Microbiology and Medical Schools. Thanks very much Tscharschmidt (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tscharschmidt I view the subject's notability as proven. I am about to accept this draft. Improvements may be made later. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tscharschmidt Accepted. Please try to allow the community to edit this to its hearts content. We father articles, we do not mother them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Elise9876

Hi Help Desk! Hope you are well. I am working on a Wikipedia entry on the late activist, organizer, and editor Joan Gibbs. Gibbs received obituaries in New York's Amsterdam News and Gay City News and the national publications Gay USA and thebody.com, an HIV/AIDS publication. Her work has been documented by several academics. I would be grateful for any advice about what additional kind of articles or coverage would prove notability. Thanks! Best, Elise Harris Elise9876 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elise9876 put simply:
For a living or recently deceased person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Your objective may surprise you. It is simply to show that Gibbs passes WP:BIO for acceptance. Embellishments may come later 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will work on locating more secondary sources that are recognized by Wikipedia. Elise9876 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran

I'm here again sorry because I don't get why this was declined. DoubleGrazing said three good sources are usually necessary for approval, and yet this article with multiple sources on a well-known historical foundation was rejected. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran I would like to hear from @SafariScribe who declined it, since I view it as a potentially valid stub article. I don't want to jump I and accept it because I value their opinion. As reviewers we are entitled to have different opinions; we are human, after all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well another person noted that an independent source was needed for a claim, so I've added two sources for that. NYT is surely go-to. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran I suggest you resubmit it since you have added material 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so, shall I resubmit my article on the BB Foundation? Quote Veteran (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran Accepted. I have no comment to make on the BB Foundation, save that you should use mature judgement. I have not examined it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Timtrent. I was about doing that but found out it has been moved. @Quote Veteran, thanks for your contributions too. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I didn't wish to pre-empt you, but the additions were compelling. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's not a problem. Once more, I appreciate the help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7

How can I find better sources for this? 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By research. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

00:10, 1 July 2024 review of submission by HisotricalHoundofHistory

The sources I did were completely wrong, No AI generation; just I have no clue how to use this site, I don't think. This is a pretty niche part of history and I can point you into the direction of the correct sources that are reliable and credible. Just need help, thank you. HisotricalHoundofHistory (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HisotricalHoundofHistory: If the sources were wrong, where did you get the information from? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article here Turicum, you can edit that, with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most new editors have no clue how to use this site. Those who, being new editors and having no clue, plunge straight into the very challenging task of creating a new article, very often have a frustrating time. My advice is always to not even think of creating a new article before spending several weeks or months improving articles and gradually learning how Wikipedia works. When they have an understanding of core concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully and try creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Jeremias2545

Hello, in my article I have included a couple of references of which the first two are not considered independent and therefore do not contribute to the notability. My question is: Should I delete these references and leave only the correct one? Since they are the only references I have. Thank you. Jeremias2545 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremias2545: sources can do two things, they can establish notability, and/or they can verify information in the article. Even if a source doesn't contribute towards the former, it can still be needed for the latter. So only remove a source if it does neither (in which case, it shouldn't really be there in the first place).
In this draft, all three sources are there just to support the statements that this person has appeared in the media. I struggle somewhat to see the point of such statements, and therefore the usefulness of these sources, at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entiendo, mi idea de incluirlas era precisamente respladar y verificar la informacion del articulo. Para dejarlo claro, recomiendas eliminar las 3? Jeremias2545 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeremias2545: let's keep this in English, given that we're on the English-language Wikipedia.
I'm saying that these sources only support content that isn't particularly relevant. In other words, if you remove that content, and these sources along with it, the draft will be none the worse for it.
Your main task is to show that this person is notable per WP:GNG. You do that by finding a few sources that meet this GNG standard, summarise what they say (and forget what she wants you to write), and cite those sources agains the information they have provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Fatima Mukarrama

I want to know that what are errors found in my article and how can it be eridicated in order to get published?? Fatima Mukarrama (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatima Mukarrama: we don't know where this information is coming from. You list some possible sources at the end and call them 'references', but they're not referred to anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on the preferred referencing method of inline citations and footnotes. Also, use the {{cite news}} and/or {{cite web}} templates, to ensure that the results are correctly formatted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 July 2024 review of submission by GJamesT

I wrote a Wikipedia post about Savic Motorcycles which is about to launch in Australia but it was rejected in a few minutes saying it is not notable enough. What do I do now as I think it is definitely interesting. 

GJamesT (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GJamesT: It was rejected because it's written as an investor-fishing piece and 60% of its sources are Wikipedia articles. (If you're trying to link to another Wikipedia page, [[square brackets]] will do that.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 1 July 2024 review of submission by BarbaraS97

Hello, my translation for an article originally in Croatian was denied twice. I followed the rules that state my sources need to be objective and not associated with the subject, but the article was still denied. I was wondering if I could get a more detailed explanation as to why my sources don't meet the criteria? If you could pinpoint me to the sources that cause the article to not be approved? Thank you, Barbara BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BarbaraS97 Please understand that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
The main claim to notability you seem to be making is that he's been given some recognition/awards. However, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award or Academy Award). Leaving that stuff aside, the draft only tells about his activities- this does not establish that he meets the definition of a notable person. You must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage, sources that go into detail about what makes this man important/significant/influential as a person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for you reply. The issue here is that as a founder of one of the biggest FMCG companies in the Balkan region, he has made a significant impact on the economy of the region but is a relatively private person and therefore the coverage is simply not there. At least not to the extent that it is with other businessmen who, unlike him, have had very public scandals and affairs. Do you think a shorter article with only the basics which are somewhat covered in Croatian media could be approved? Again, thank you for your help. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources that discuss what they see as important about him, there can't be an article about him on this Wikipedia. Whether he is a private person or not isn't relevant to this. What matters is what others unaffiliated with him write about him, and not based on materials associated with him(like interviews, company press releases, etc.) Just basic information isn't sufficient, this is not a directory of people, but an encyclopedia.
If this article is acceptable on the Croatian Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, I work at his company. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: in that case, you must make a paid-editing disclosure as soon as possible; I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply even if editing is just on my own accord and not a part of my job description? BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does not require specific payment or instructions to edit. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: yes, you're writing about your employer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you both for the information. @331dot@DoubleGrazing BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 1 July 2024 review of submission by LouisCSV

Need help or support in getting this article approved, lots of sources provided! LouisCSV (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisCSV: you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting another review, please be patient.
Indeed, lots of sources, but I didn't immediately see anything that would establish notability. That said, I didn't analyse them in detail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, @DoubleGrazing The notability in this article is that the Plymouth Chronicle is Plymouth's largest newspaper by distribution, a print newspaper by it's own is fairly notable nowadays, thanks for the prompt on this as I will try to cite from the newspaper printers LouisCSV (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV: just to make sure we're both on the same page regarding notability, being the 'largest' or 'oldest' or 'first of its kind' etc. may make a subject 'famous' or 'important' or 'popular' or something like that, but notability has a very specific definition in the Wikipedia context, and none of those attributes come into it at all; it is solely a question of whether independent and reliable secondary sources have provided significant coverage of the subject. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight on this, much appreciated. LouisCSV (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LouisCSV What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I am employed at Cornerstone Vision which publishes the Plymouth Chronicle Newspaper. As a notable newspaper print publication I am trying to get listed alongside similar papers such as The Herald (Plymouth) and Western Morning News. LouisCSV (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV As an employee of the publisher you need to read WP:PAID in detail. Your COI declaration needs to migrate to a declaration of paid editing, please.
I appreciate you have been as transparent as you have been able to with the information available to you. Please go the extra mile. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for highlighting this, I have adjusted my user page to comply with this. Many thanks and kind regards. LouisCSV (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just FYI you can remove the COI notice in favor of the paid notice. The paid notice covers both. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 1 July 2024 review of submission by MsSalsaFish

I am not associated with Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley yet was declined by a reviewer for not being "formal" or having a neutral tone. Please provide assistance. MsSalsaFish (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MsSalsaFish The connection or otherwise with the topic is not relevant to the reviewer's decline of the draft. It is not written as an article for Wikipedia. It is written as a magazine article, and as a PR piece, and remains so even after your recent edits.
In an edit summary you said 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party'. Please define what you mean with precision. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish no Declined for reasons given on the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for assistance with this page. I am reporting on the Promise Neighborhood organization per observation and research. It is not intended to be a press release or article, rather to introduce readers to the organization. I. have worked more this morning to write with a Wiki mindset and would appreciate feedback. MsSalsaFish (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish That isn't really what this Helpdesk is for. We offer advice, but generally do not leap in and edit, unless, by serendipity, the subject matter interests one of us. You need to work thinking "If it's to be, it's up to me!" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware 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.
You need to start by finding several places where people wholly unconnected twit hte organisation have chosen, unprompted, to write at some length about the organisation, and been published in reliable places.
If you cannot find at least three such pieces, then give up, as the organisation does not currently meed Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you can find them, the next step is to forget everything you know about the organisation, and especially forget everything that you want the world to know about it, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish I remain concerned by 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party', something you have not commented on. Are you writing this professionally, for reward? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement "The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party" was in response to the initial question of neutrality. Perhaps poorly worded, it was my way of saying that I am a Wiki contributor. I am very new to this process and am attempting to learn the nuances of the Wiki world. It has a very steep learning curve. MsSalsaFish (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically in this context "third party" would mean someone other than yourself or us. That's why we're a little confused.
It is true that writing a new article for Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, it is the most difficult task to perform here. It is usually recommended that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them(with almost 7 million to choose from) so that they learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Diving right in to creating articles is akin to knocking on the door of Carnegie Hall and asking to give a violin recital without ever having played the violin before. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 1 July 2024 review of submission by OskuDev

I have all of the information that exists about Screri Gaem because I made it. I can not think of anything else to put in the page. OskuDev (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it is time for you to move on to other things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: Wikipedia and its readers have zero tolerance for advertizing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Rajibarber

Greetings There!

I'm relatively new here and have been learning all through before joining here as an editor.

I finished creating an article with the forestated about four days ago and pushed it for AFC review, it was however rejected the following day. A number of reasons were alluded to the rejection.

I have noted all the points raised by the reviewer and planning to incorporate all his suggestions.

My prayer is that, can anyone here please help me make a review of the drafted article and check whether there are some other wrongs with the draft?

Thanks. 

Rajibarber (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: that's a curious expression, "have been learning all through before joining here as an editor", what did you mean by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean before even creating an account here, I have been studying the how to; perhaps I have not studied enough and I am sure ready to learn till death.
Thanks Dear @DoubleGrazing Rajibarber (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: have you edited under other accounts before registering this one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No at all sir Rajibarber (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I have been keenly following and observing how things are done here, without any attempt to edit anything. Rajibarber (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: Let's have a look at your sources (refer to my /Decode subpage, linked as "critiques" in my signature). For the avoidance of doubt I will also assess your external links as if they were sources:
You have nothing that's significant coverage of her. Two sources name her as winning an award, but that's all they do, which leaves you otherwise with nothing to base an article off of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am blown off Dear erudite @Jéské Couriano.
That's why I mentioned that I am here to learn, sincerely, most of the issues you raised were new to me, but are all noted now.
I can't thank you enough.
Gratias
Regards Rajibarber (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Viwong731

Hi. I'm creating a page for the first time and I'm unsure how to properly reference and cite. I was hoping to get assistance doing so if possible. Thank you. Viwong731 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viwong731: you have created several citations more or less correctly, there just aren't enough of them, as most of the content remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I'll add more. Thanks! Viwong731 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For every piece of information in your draft, ask yourself, "Where did I get that information from?". If it was a reliable published source, wholly independent of Lillis, cite the source. If it was a reliable published source connected with Lillis, consider whether it was the kind of information allowed by SPS, and if so, cite the source. In any other case, remove the information.
(Note that finding sources before writing any text often avoids wasted effort. See BACKWARDS). ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Nanou41

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to receive feedback on the specific source links I have added to the article. I have produced a source assess table to assist with trying to figure it out: (Malformed source assessment tables deleted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques)Nanou41 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the malformed templates (as they were impossible to read and a massive wall o' text) and will assess your sources directly. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

Most of your sources are useless, thus the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 2

07:34, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Nurebz001

We faced issues with two paid editors due to lack of awareness of all policies. Our first editor's work got drafted when it was discovered he was paid. The second editor faced the same issue when GSS assumed it was the same person. Although we fired the first editor and hired a second person. Now, we have submitted our own page, but GSS drafted it again. We are trying to comply with all policies and have disclosed our COI. I believe GSS is being unreasonable, and may be thinking that I am one of the previous editors. I am a direct employee of RSP Architects and can verify my identity with a company email. Can someone help resolve this situation? The page was live for a month without issues. All I am asking is to submit the page to AFC. Here is the page link Draft:RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Nurebz001 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by the marketing department to promote every thing the company has ever done, that is not how articles are written here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I'm confused. If I understand this correctly, you, as an employee of the company you're writing about, paid 2 editors, both of whom are blocked now, to promote your company, before you fired both of them and decided to do it yourself? Wikipedia is not for companies to tell the world about themselves, and the draft will almost certainly be declined again if resubmitted. Regardless, you need to disclose your paid editing status now by following the directions on the message I left on your talk page, or you may be blocked like the 2 other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Turini2

I've posted three times on the talk page of the draft article that it is too soon for the article, and that fundamental errors and mistakes remain in their draft. Another editor (Joeyconnick) reverted previous edits for being unsourced. The editor continues to submit for AFC regardless! Can someone decline this draft, and encourage some concrete steps on how the editor can improve (i.e. talk to people rather than ignoring talk page comments!)? Turini2 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: not sure what good declining will do, if the author (and it probably is the author, editing as IPs after they were blocked – maybe that's something that could be looked into?) is insistent; they can just resubmit again. Only a rejection would put an end to that, but I'm not sure that's justified. That said, I'm happy to decline this on the basis of notability, if you think that would help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - maybe directing them to the talk page, or seeking a mentor? Turini2 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Dear Moderator Put in more official sources I will add what I need Check the article and can publish Arahi991 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: for the third time (in the space of a week), this draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have appealed to me but the company still does not meet notability so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Arahi991 we have little interest in 'official sources', as they do not establish notability nor are considered reliable and independent. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. In addition, to reiterate, do you have any connection with Solyankich (talk · contribs)? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Absolutely none of your sources are any good, with the vast majority of them being sources we couldn't cite under any circumstance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Np 7 13

Hello, I would like to please ask for more assistance on the reasoning behind the rejection on. I thought the citations were legitimate and reliable news resources and their format was auto-created by Wikipedia. I wish to improve this article therefore any additional more specific feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Np 7 13! It looks as if your first step is to disclose your conflict of interest| in relation to this topic – as far as I can see, every edit you've made in the last six years has been to promote it in one way or another. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 2 July 2024 review of submission by 212.139.32.254

hello. this from the donald team ahs been a problem. we have worked about. 5 days on this article. not for it to be deleted by a BOT POWERED BY AI. please accept. we need this for our work document . so accept it and the references might be fake. BUT that doesnt matter at all. it only matters if you Accept it.. FROM THE DONALD FOUNDATION 212.139.32.254 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough. I've issued you an only warning. Keep this up, and you can expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is absolute garbage and there are no bots editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troll blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

13:22, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego

This article has over 21,000 bytes, 47 sources, and has enough information to be a notable and useful article. While only causing minimal damage, there is still enough information in it for it to become a standalone article. It is most likely only written as minimal damage as there is no monetary damage written down from St Vincent or St Lucia, so it is likely that there was a fair amount of damage, and the sources found in the article would agree with that. In conclusion, i believe that this article in notable, and with this much information, I'm not sure why it hasn't been published. Shmego (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reviewer cited WP:DENY but I'm not sure why. This process is (usually) voluntary. If you feel that the reviewers got it wrong(have you asked them directly about it?) you are free to move it to they encyclopedia yourself, but then you run the risk of an WP:AFD discussion being started. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: From the looks of it this draft's been edited by an LTA in the past, so it might be that an admin familiar with that LTA's behaviour is leery of accepting a draft they've targeted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not asked them. Thanks for the help, I may try to move it to the mainspace. Shmego (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala

I request for assistance to help me review and if necessary edit this draft on biography of a living person for onward publication into the Wikipedia main space. Thank you for your help. Frankincense Diala (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankincense Diala: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will be getting a review once a reviewer happens to pick it up. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can ask them here, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I considered reviewing it. Instead I flagged the picture on Commons as a copyright violation. That puts me right off reviewing a draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I decided to swallow my distaste for drafts embellished by copyright pictures, and no Declined this draft, with a very full rationale. You have substantial work to do. Please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay . I actually asked for help Frankincense Diala (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 2 July 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012

What should I do if one of my independant sources is an pdf with no author? Should I just write the name of the university who made it? 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012: "an [sic] pdf with no author" is not a source that will contribute anything towards notability, so you might as well ignore that.
You should study the WP:GNG guideline, and find sources that meet it.
You also need to review WP:REFB about referencing in general.
And if you're citing offline sources, you need to provide full bibliographical details, see WP:OFFLINE for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this helped a lot. WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012 no Declined If you can find no references there is a strong probability (0.99) that the topic has not yet achieved notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Zahidhasanshuhan1

article submission has been rejected Zahidhasanshuhan1 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahidhasanshuhan1: that's correct, and also speedily deleted. If you're writing about yourself, don't – see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Bcarpenterr

What can i do to get my article published? Bcarpenterr (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcarpenterr Dump YouTube and Discogs as references. They do not meet our criteria. Seek better references. Do not seek more, seek better.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Can't find references, proper ones? Then the subject is not yet ready for an article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Li-reg

Hello, I am writing here since I need help. I'm afraid there is a reviewer whom his actions seems not professional and I would love help with this. I am sure all can be read so i wont copy it but in cases like this, what can be done? Also, I must point out, I have expressed my wish to correct everything needed, I asked help and I am still willing&want but I do believe what this reviewer is doing is not okay and too personal. Thank you, Li-reg (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Li-reg Please do not make accusations about other editors. They say more about you than they do about anyone else. I see two reviews, neither of which is personal. This brief tirade of yours is likely to put other reviewers off reviewing lest they feel the sharp edge of your discontent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg I have chosen to disregard the potential for your making further accusations. I have no Declined this draft with a full rationale. Wikipedia does not tolerate accusations. If you have something to complain about please use one of the formal complaint mechanisms. This is not the place to do it. Meanwhile, even when doing that, you are required to assume good faith. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do not submit the wrong question. Lucas Pat (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Pat Then do not submit it. Do you have a question? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

08:35, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Chanan12

I am seeking guidance to ensure that the draft article for Chanan Zevin meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and formatting standards before submission for review. Chanan12 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanan12 why are you referring to yourself in third person? The draft is a promotional autobiography and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted User:Chanan12/sandbox, and will get an assessment when a reviewer picks it up.
Also noting here that Draft:Chanan Zevin was recently rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Never mind, that was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. And the draft has been put forward for speedy deletion.
Also, I've deleted your duplicate thread, you only need to ask your question once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 3 July 2024 review of submission by RoobaG

I would like to create an article about Talent Quest for India which is actively engaged in social works. Can you please assist how can I improve this article? RoobaG (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoobaG: as per the decline notice, you need to demonstrate notability according to the WP:ORG guideline, and you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, supported by reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

Hello,

I was kindly requesting for advice regarding the draft article Nicholas Omonuk. Clare Nassanga (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: you need to specify what advice you want. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request for assistance on how i can identify the references that have notability about the subject. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: please don't open a new thread with every comment, just add to your previous one. In any case, you're just repeating your earlier question. Did you not read my reply? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected. What is the step forward. Clare Nassanga (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clare Nassanga: no, rejection means the end of the road. If evidence of notability comes to light later which wasn't considered as part of these reviews, you may be able to appeal the rejection by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly, but that evidence does need to be substantially stronger than what is there now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Simon Tuliameni

What more can i do if my article is rejected? Simon Tuliameni (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Tuliameni: nothing, that's it, the end of the road. You may want to try one of the many blogging or social media platforms out there instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
add some refrence and reliable source to your article. Kunalmasson (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson

Subject: Request for Analysis and Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Draft on Shri Dharm Paul

Dear Wikipedia Help Team,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Massson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.


Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson 

Kunalmasson (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunalmasson: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so it will be assessed when a reviewer comes along to take a look.
Sources don't have to be online, as long as they are of sufficient quality in terms of reliability etc. If citing offline sources, you need to provide complete bibliographical information so that the source can be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Sources also don't have to be in English, just so you're aware. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 3 July 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley

Difficulty understanding the 'Notability Guideline' in reference to this draft page.

I'm returning to this draft, and hope to resolve any queries this time around. Help me to understand why there should be an entry for, say LJ Ross, a contemporary fiction writer, yet this page dealing with the eponymous 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' is being refused. The work is referenced from within Wikipedia, from pages referring to the different authors involved. Several existing pages all point to 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' as being the medium for their work. The publication remained in print for over a hundred (100 years) from 1834 to 1963, and was published by a number of organisations, including the publishing arm of Sir Walter Scott. It differs from the discussion of the originator, Wilson, in that it incorporated work by other authors, and includes material of verifiable veracity, disguised within the 'fictional' overall guideline.

My difficulty seems to be that by the time of the digital age, it was so pervasive that it was/is no longer talked about, though copies are to be found in public libraries and repositories across the UK.

I appreciate that some of the discussion could be on the page related to Wilson, but that would avoid, or duplicate, material on the other author's pages.


I mentioned a contemporary author above, the page is a list of her published work, and referenced to contemporary reviews. Does this cloud of puffery indicate 'notability?' A phenomenon commencing in 1834 predates there being such material that can form 'references' of this type. References to the recently published Autobiography, and recent republications have been given. The 'peak' of discussion about the publication I would guess to be in the late 1830's.

How do I square this circle to the satisfaction of the 'bot' reviewing the submission?

Thanks, 

DerekMuttley (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there are no "bots" involved in reviews, we are ALL human beings. Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: if you're calling me a 'bot', then I assume I shouldn't bother even trying to answer this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as above - So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things.
I've been involved in making 'real' automated responses since back in the last century, so I know how not intelligent the current fashion for planet eating algorithms are.
But then, if you were a bot, that's just the kind of thing you'd say.
Let's not go there. I'm merely a grasshopper, seeking for answers from the Masters.. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: okay, well, I shall leave it for you to work out whether or not I am a bot, and will meanwhile try to explain why I declined this draft.
If I've interpreted the sources correctly, all but two of them are referencing the book itself, and the subject cannot obviously make itself notable. The other two sources, nos. 4 and 8, seem to reference other books, but of these, I can't find information on the former (I tried a few ways of searching for the ISBN, but they all returned errors), and whatever the latter is, it alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially as it appears to be somewhat close to the subject.
Notability for books is established either by sources that satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or by citing reliable evidence that show the book meeting one or more of the five criteria enumerated in the WP:BOOKCRIT section of the special WP:NBOOK guideline. (My hunch, FWIW, is that this latter guideline, NBOOK, is your better bet of the two, given what you say about the book being old, and all that.) But absent sufficient sources or other evidence to satisfying either guideline, I had no option but to decline the draft.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Masson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson Kunalmasson (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalmasson: you posted this same question not even 20 minutes ago. Please read my reply to that, rather than posting the same thing again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Regeneisen

Hello,

I have attempted to create a Wikipedia article twice, but unfortunately, it has been declined both times. This is my first experience with creating an article, and I am making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Before I proceed with editing my article again, I would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice on how to improve it so that it meets the necessary criteria for acceptance.

Thank you in advance for your help. Regeneisen (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Regeneisen: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

Hello. I did add reliable independent sources to my article. I also asked and added offline sources to my article. I have already editted the article. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1232382214"