Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2409:4063:4292:c4b4::23f5:20ad (talk) at 06:18, 17 September 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


September 11

08:16:57, 11 September 2022 review of submission by Davidt1510


Hi there, I have taken references from other wikipedia articles on the same topic category such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridgespan_Group, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company. I did a major overhaul to ensure neutrality...

Kindly advise so I can re-write it better, thanks! Davidt1510 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidt1510:
First and foremost, this has been rejected and won't be considered further.
Second, using other articles as your yardstick is just asking for trouble; you should instead follow the various guidelines.
In any case, neutral tone and NPOV isn't really something you copy from other articles, it comes from you as the author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:26, 11 September 2022 review of submission by MrScottyNotter54


MrScottyNotter54 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This shit again?! You get no sympathy from me.
This is the same tired fucking song and dance as the repeatedly-spammed-to-death attempts to get a BfDI article, and honestly we're fucking sick of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough analysis but settle down there, Jéské. I'm sure this editor, who has now been blocked, is unaware of previous efforts to get an article on BfDI subjects on to the project. We can't assume that inexperienced editors are familiar with the trials of the good folks at AFC who've seen many versions of these articles pass through review. It's great that you spent the so much time to go through all of these inadequate sources in detail but if doing so makes you this angry and frustrated, it's probably best to take a pass, especially if it looks like the editor won't be here for long. Experienced and knowledgeable editors are too valuable to lose! Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "angry and frustrated" part is more about this being attempt number I-lost-count to push a BfDI-related article, not because of the source assessment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano But do these editors know that? Or should they? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they bothered to do any research, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:06, 11 September 2022 review of submission by MrScottyNotter54


MrScottyNotter54 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:43:58, 11 September 2022 review of submission by Lindleygallegos


Hi! I'd love to get some help with my page "Rasmus Bach" I haven't been accepted. I would love some help editing it and adding citiations. Somehow I'm in a developer view as well. I don’t know how to see the simple view. Please help! Thanks Lindley

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasmus Bach
Before we start, I'm going to have a look at the sources you do cite. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
Now, you do have some sources, so that's good. The bad news is that this is a biography of a living person, so you need at least one source for literally every claim the article makes. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. I will refer you again to /Decode:
  • (July 22, 1995) - Source? (Dates of birth are considered controversial information due to ageism in professional settings; while this generally does not apply to sports we have to request a source here.)
  • Rasmus Bach attended high school in Austin, Texas (Anderson High School)[...] - Source?
  • [...]played his NCAA Division II basketball for Fort Lewis College in the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference in Durango, Colorado. Cite the Durango Herald source here (see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once).
  • Bach scored 1,702 points in his FLC career, which ranks third all-time in Fort Lewis College history. - Source?
  • Alex Herrera is second with 1,758 points, and DeAndre Lansdowne is first with 1,861. - The specific figures are irrelevant. I'd actually replace the full stop in the last sentence with a standard stop, and write the two thus: Bach scored 1,702 points in his Fort Lewis College career, ranking third in all-time points behind Alex Herrera and DeAndre Lansdowne. You would still need to provide a source that backs up these claims.
  • Bach won numerous Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference awards, including for academics, in his senior season her was named NABC Honors Court, D2CCA All-Region Second Team, All-RMAC First Team, Academic All-RMAC First Team, and RMAC Player of the Week. - Lists of stuff fall into what I call "promotion-by-overdetail", and unless it's absolutely essential to understanding who someone is and what they do and have done, it should be left out or winnowed to the most important stuff. The source here was also dismissed above; you need a different one.
  • He made the All-RMAC team every year and was named Freshman of the Year in 2014. - Need a source for each claim (All-RMAC team every year and Frosh of the Year).
  • Under captain, Rasmus Bach, his team won two regular season championships in 2017 and 2018. - This sentence scans badly and seems to be very ambiguous as to its meaning. Rewrite it to be more clear. We need a source for each championship.
  • Rasmus Bach played two and half seasons (2019-2021) in the Danish National League where he played for Randers Cimbria. - Source? (We accept non-English sources and automated translation doesn't do too terribly with Dutch.)
  • He was last there in 2020 where he was averaging 12.5 points, 6.1 rebounds and 2.3 assists a game before the competition was shut down because of the pandemic. - The back half of this sentence needs to be rephrased a bit.
  • His team in Randers won the Silver medal in the 2020 season. - Irrelevant. It's one thing to state his team won it; it's quite another to claim he was instrumental in doing so. This would fit better in the article on his DNL team.
  • Bach signed a two year contract to the New Zealand Breakers in late 2020. - The Stuff source confirms the signing in late 2020; it however does not confirm the 2yr contract and would need to be supplemented with another source that does.
  • In his first season he appeared in 18 games and averaged 4.78 points per game shooting 44% from the field and 40% from the three point arch. - The source cited here is the NBL homepage, which is not fit as a cite. The other statistics line is uncited entirely.
  • Rasmus Bach is the son of Peter Bach and Janni Bach, both of whom played European Handball in the 2000 Summer Sydney Olympics. - Source?
  • Rasmus is married (2019) to Lindley Bach (Gallegos). - Source?
Hopefully this helps to explain what all needs sourced and what we're looking for source-wise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasmus Bach

Lindleygallegos (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindleygallegos: you have to make sure that every material statement is either supported with a reliable published source, or else removed. For example, the 'Personal Life' section talks about his family, but there is no source cited — where does that information come from? (See WP:BLP.)
And on a related point, I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page; please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

08:16:13, 12 September 2022 review of draft by 91.106.36.249


Can I get help from someone to modify this article to be accepted and published on wikipedia . this is my first project on Wikipedia . 91.106.36.249 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot, as draft was deleted under G11 and G12. OP has been given GS/CRYPTO warning. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:55:08, 12 September 2022 review of draft by İsa şahintürk


İsa şahintürk (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @İsa şahintürk? This draft was declined because it isn't in English (among its other issues). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:12, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Prads999

I am trying to publish a Wikipedia Page for the company KISSHT. I have also added a disclaimer in my profile as required by WIKIPEDIA. However the article submitted by me was rejected due to below reasons. Kindly help. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified" "All the references are examples of trivial reporting, does nothing for notability" Prads999 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prads999: The draft has since been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. Disclosure does not remove the requirement to write neutrally, and in fact this tends to be where most conflict of interest editors go wrong. Even the best writer shows their biases in their writing, and while you may not be able to see and recognise it someone who doesn't have this pre-existing connexion can and often will.
As to the matter of sourcing, we're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. Name-drops, routine business news, and company profiles are all worthless as sources for this reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:01, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Toptoptop1111

My article was rejected. Toptoptop1111 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptoptop1111: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The draft is highly promotional (see what Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is a means of promotion.) None of the references are considered reliable, independent, significant coverage. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:42, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Toptoptop1111

I would like to know the reason why my article was rejected. Toptoptop1111 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptoptop1111 see above. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:00, 12 September 2022 review of draft by JenniferRose77


I would just like to know if there is anything I can do to improve this article or make it get approved faster. This is my first article. Thank you for your help!

JenniferRose77 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JenniferRose77 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. There isn't anything you can really do to speed up the process. Please be patient- as noted on your draft, it could take some time. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JenniferRose77: I took a quick look at the article, and don't see how the chief is notable. Just being a police chief isn't enough. Has he done anything unique that has gotten him media coverage, besides being hired and retiring? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:06, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Billatek


16:20:06, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Billatek



Decorpot(Company) Decorpot is a Bangalore-based interior design company with professional experts who deliver the highest level of excellence. Founded in 2015, the firm focuses on providing high-quality home interiors while operating across India. They use German technology and machinery for accuracy and precision. They offer a solution to formatting, edge-banding, soft forming, post forming and shaped parts through feed machines.

@Billatek: what is your question? This draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please see WP:YFA for advice on creating an article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this Draft:Decorpot is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:10, 12 September 2022 review of draft by Rocky.perera


Rocky.perera (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the Senior Marketing Manager for Merrithew. We are working towards updating the company information on Wikipedia. Is there someone on Wikipedia's end we can speak to to help facilitate this? Please advise on the best next step for us in this process to ensure successful submission/approval of our updated page.

@Rocky.perera: I am going to be VERY blunt: DISCLOSE YOUR EMPLOYMENT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to the article, with the exception of the WSJ Magazine source (can't assess - walled) the lot of your sources are useless for notability (in order: too sparse, wrong subject, too sparse, website homepage, deprecated, too sparse x2, website homepage x2, connexion to subject). Even if that Wall Street Journal source is usable it cannot support an article by itself.
Since the sources are junk (and barring a significant improvement on that front) anything written in the article matters only for determining if speedy deletion criterion G11 (blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion) applies - and it very much does, reading more like an extended advertizement for the company than a clinical encyclopaedia article. Don't try to use Wikipedia in your marketing strategy; we don't like it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rocky.perera: You may be aware by now that your company article has been deleted for violating Wikipedia's policy forbidding blatant advertising. There are likely other similar advertising-like articles on the encyclopedia, but that just means they have not been addressed yet. The important thing for you to know is that notability comes from identifying independent third party media sources. See WP:NCORP. I Googled the phrase Merrithew 30th anniversary and couldn't find a single article about the anniversary. I do see a passing mention in the WSJ that suggests your equipment is considered to be premium, but can't find other in-depth media coverage to substantiate notability. So that's the main issue. You are also discouraged from writing anything yourself. It's too hard to separate yourself from the marketing copy. If sufficient media coverage ever does develop, then a fan who is also an experienced editor will likely start an article for you. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:30:46, 12 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ReaderK1967


Hello, I created an article for creation and it was declined. I went back into the article, and updated the info based on the declination notes. Do I need to resubmit the article for it the be reviewed? Thank you

ReaderK1967 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderK1967: It looks like the article has already been been resubmitted. I made some improvements and removed some of the weaker primary sources. My recommendation is to not include any info that can't be independently sourced. Speaker bios don't count, since those are just reposted by the media without verification. I also removed announcements of appearances and readings, since those don't really show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

04:11:38, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Nhutchison


Hello,

My article submission for the Hot Club of San Francisco was rejected by a reviewer because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm thankful for the speedy review and respect Wikipedia's policies to ensure the veracity of information. I (now) understand that the Hot Club of San Francisco's website is not a verifiable source and have removed it, however I would really appreciate some clarity/specifics on my remaining sources and/or the info they pertain to. Would it be possible to look at my article and identify some potentially problematic sources/statements? Anything you can point out that you think would make the article submission adhere to Wikipedia's standards (and make it more likely to be accepted) would help. Thank you so much!

Nhutchison (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhutchison without doing a full review it is difficult to tell so I suggest resubmitting it. However, I recommend correcting the URLs for the citations. I did the first one as an example. Also be mindful interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and standard announcements about performances, album releases or the like are generally considered trivial coverage, which are fine to use for verifiability but do not nothing for notability. Generally for musicians in-depth coverage comes from reviews of their work. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much S0091. I really appreciate your help! Nhutchison (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:09, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Rainbownautinspace

My article got rejected for lack of reliable sources. As it is the first article i've drafted could i receive some guidance on how to improve these references! Rainbownautinspace (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rainbownautinspace,
I've had a look at some of the sources, and I agree with the reviewer who declined (note: not rejected) this draft. For example this eShe piece is from a publication which doesn't seem entirely reliable to me; more of a glorified blogging site, by the looks of it. Meanwhile this EdEx article, while being (possibly) a more established publication, is essentially an interview, or rather a series of back-to-back direct quotes from the subject. Neither seems to me to meet the required standards of independence and reliability. And although these are just two of the sources, they are both cited multiple times, and between them account for a third or so of the draft's citations.
There are also some statements which are not supported. The person's DOB is given, but this is not backed up by a reliable published source. And in the 'Early life and education' section, her degrees are enumerated in some detail, but the source cited against them (incidentally, a reprint of the eShe article, so cannot be counted as a separate source) doesn't actually provide that level of detail. Not only can we not accept information which cannot be verified, but this also raises the question — from where is this information coming, if not from published sources?
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @DoubleGrazing! I am going to take all these suggestions in account and rework it! I had added the early life and education as enumerated on the website of TAOS and on her linkedin but did not reference it as it wasn't an independent source. Again i found a mention of that here https://jaipurliteraturefestival.org/speaker/tanya-abraham so i added it as citation but removed it subsequently as it doesn't seem like a reliable source for wikipedia. I will remove that information (also dob which i got from soc media) unless i find a reliable source mention. I understand the article would be shorter but it is better to have good source citations. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again my genuine gratitude for your guidance. If it is not too much, could you answer a few of my questions.
I have made some of the changes as you have mentioned but still had a few doubts-
1.I have removed the Eshe article as refererence but instead used the Moneycontrol one in 2 places- it is the same article and author, but moneycontrol seems a much more reliable source. What is your opinion on this?
2. I have kept EDex as a source- It is an ed supplement for The Indian Express a reputable news source.
3. I have removed all unreliable information as mentioned and added some more reliable references!
Is there anything else I can do to improve the article before resubmitting? Rainbownautinspace (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:36, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Ad manum servus

I'd like to know how to remove the advertising tone of the article. Should I rewrite the career achievements os is there a problem with the utilized sources?

Thanks in advance. Ad manum servus (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad manum servus: I agree with the reviewer, the tone is quite promotional, with puffery throughout the text — it reads like someone introducing him as a guest of honour at a gala dinner, or perhaps how he might describe himself in a job application. Just stick to the facts, without positive spin or embellishment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"a member of the Top Executive Team" and "has an extensive background in automotive sales, marketing and business operations" is promotional trumpery for example. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad manum servus: I made some improvements. I'll point out that Top Executive Team is a direct quote from the source. It could use some more biographical info, such as where he was born and non-Jeep coverage, to show he's notable independently of Jeep. Otherwise consensus would be to put his info in the Jeep article and redirect searches for his name there. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:25, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Tcastles


Thank you for your feedback. I have been told that this submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a wikipedia article. However, it is unclear how the references fall short and why this article does not meet inclusion criteria.

Here are guideline's from Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies): A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Our main sources are all reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Particularly, these four sources in Forbes, Boston Globe, TechCrunch, and Fortune speak to the company's growing notability:

Rogers, Bruce. "Matthew Carroll Creates Immuta To Provide Secure Data Access Control". Forbes. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

Gardizy, Anissa (June 9, 2022). "Software firm Immuta raises $100 million, becoming Boston's newest unicorn". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

"Data governance startup Immuta lands $100M to pursue acquisitions". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

"Intel Capital leads $40M investment in data privacy startup Immuta". Fortune. Retrieved 2022-08-17.

The remaining sources are niche trade publications, but just as reliable and indicative of the company's notability in the data governance/security community. They are also secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I was very careful to remove all primary, non-independent sources. Now, the article only includes reliable, secondary sources.

Please let me know what else I can do to improve this article.

Thank you!

Tcastles (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcastles: per WP:ORGCRIT, routine business reporting (M&A, investment rounds, appointments, opening of new locations, etc.) does not establish notability, nor do interviews, press statements, or any kind of churnalism. Of the sources cited in this draft, the Forbes piece looks closest to significant coverage, but the publication is known to feature sponsored and paid-for content, and as such is generally considered unreliable (see WP:FORBESCON). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcastles: To remove all ambiguity, consensus is to deprecate any Forbes content written by someone listed as Forbes Council or Forbes Contributor, Senior or otherwise. If it says Staff or Former Staff, it's fine. Aside from that, all Forbes content can be used to source info just like a press release can, but it depends on what is being sourced, and how it's written, and it generally does not help move the notability needle. I'm also going to disagree with DoubleGrazing. The three non-Forbes sources are the most significant coverage, since they contain independent reporting in reliable sources, in addition to company announcements and press releases. Unicorn funding is not routine. That's why we have List of unicorn startup companies and an article about the term, Unicorn (finance). TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:18, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Missinternational2022


Can someone help with editing and the submission process. I don't understand what is wrong with my article.

Missinternational2022 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Missinternational2022: the draft was citing sources which are not acceptable; most of them have been removed already, but the Instagram one also should go, and I think the Gulesider one may reveal too much personal info so I'd take that out, too (I realise it's in the public domain, but doesn't mean we need to link to it). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I noticed that you uploaded the photo as your 'own work'. I cannot of course know whether you are the photographer Ina Stenvig, but if you are, I hope you realise you have now made the image available under Creative Commons licence for anyone to do pretty much whatever they want with. And if you're not the photographer, then she probably won't be best pleased with this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:53, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Peonae


Hi there! Thank you for reading my message!

I am writing a draft article about CGVerse, an online concept art school. Multiple submissions were completed, each with accurate improvements.

The last edit by Greenman suggested I add more significant coverage. I agree and content within these references is significantly and directly impacted by CGVerse, ie., in-depth interviews with the school's mentors and students. Other Wikipedia articles do not have references with significant coverage and seemed to encounter successful approvals.

Would you share details of how to navigate the approval process with more clarity?

Thank you for your time and looking forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely, Peonae

Peonae (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peonae: the reviewer wasn't saying you need to add more significant coverage, but rather that you need to add sources with significant coverage (of CGVerse). In order to demonstrate notability, which is a fundamental requirement for an article to be published in Wikipedia, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft currently cites no such source. (And as for your point about other articles which may also be lacking such sources, please see OTHERSTUFF.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for replying. Yes, I understand editors want sources with significant coverage.
I'm a bit baffled - the interview source from 80 lvl.com for example is completely independent and a leader of publishing within that industry. What other significance is required? This is a young company and it will not have the same publicity as, say, Amazon yet. The nature of this company is a school and I'm bound to sources where it talks about its instructors, students etc. I'm not sure what other significant coverage will look like without making it too promo. I would love some examples of other online schools where it shows what editors require please.
Another note: I agree with having more sources and I will try to improve this in the next submission. The otherstuff link I'm not sure what to do there. Can you explain that a little bit?
Thank you! Peonae (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peonae I fear there is a mismatch in your understanding of what Wikipedia needs in referencing and what Wikipedia really needs.
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.
Of the things you offer as references, some do not even mention CGVerse. Others are user generated content. One tells us that Google owns the domain. Please rethink your referencing from scratch. We do not want more references. We want better references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Fiddle Faddle Thanks for the links. I'm getting a better understanding now. To check if I am on the right track:
"secondary, reliable" sources mean other authors summaries, synposis, interpretation etc of these primary sources where it states facts about this company? Therefore, the sources from 80 lvl.com is sufficient, the medium.com interview is sufficient, but the rest is not, is that correct?
Thank you. Peonae (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peonae Forgive me, I have not delved into the draft in minute detail, but I have examined the references, as shown above. I will give you a general response about interviews.
An interview is not, of itself, useful in establishing notability, though it may be used for verifying facts niot subject to challenge. The medium that published an interview can matter; unreliable sources are unreliable, period. However, even in a normally reliable source, an interview which is with the subject of the draft and where're there is largely no commentary by anyone about the content of the interview means it is useless. What we need is commentary by those independent of the subject, in depth. If an interview is part of that so be it.
When I looked at your putative references I did not find one that met our needs. That is a problem for you, going forwards. Other reviewers may have subtly different opinions, but we work to the same broad principles. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
Wikipedia records what others have said about the su bject in independent reliable sources. If the sources cannto be found then your quest is at an end. This essay may be helpful. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

05:18:37, 14 September 2022 review of draft by CK PALA


 Courtesy link: User:CK PALA/sandbox

please kindly help me to my article palavangudi village its my first article thanking you

I am c kumarappan from ,palavangudi, sivaganga district tamilnadu, india, imy article of my village palavangudi iam writing all f our village its my first article kindly help me and improve my thi wiky article thanks by c .kumarappan, palavangudi

CK PALA (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CK PALA: this draft obviously needs a lot of work to bring it up to the required standards in terms of referencing, language, layout, etc. Please see WP:YFA for advice on how to create an article, and WP:REFB for how to reference it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THROADISLONG KINDLY CHANE MY EDIT AND ACCEPT THANKS CK PALA (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CK PALA Please do not yell(use all capital letters). If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode in a browser(even on a mobile device). 331dot (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CK PALA The volunteers who assist here do not usually write or do research for articles. You are asking a volunteer to change your article and then accept it. That's not how things work here. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:06, 14 September 2022 review of submission by Karstenschubert

I am slightly confused as to why our page has been branded 'promotional' when other galleries of a similar ilk use similar language (I refer to the Gagosian as an example) We have references and reliable sources, please let me know what else can I do to allow the page to be published.

Karstenschubert (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karstenschubert: this has been described as promotional, because it still is promotional ("prominent artists", "ever-expanding list", etc.), with little or no encyclopaedic value.
And since this draft has been rejected, there isn't anything you can do to have it published.
As for other articles that may exist with similar issues, please see OTHERSTUFF.
Finally, your username is also problematic; I will post a message on your talk page about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Please see the comments left by reviewers. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for- it is not for merely documenting the existence of a topic and telling what it does. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of what the topic does and goes in depth about its significance or influence. It seems that you are too close to your gallery to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. This is a common thing and nothing to feel bad about-it just is. The best indicator of notability is when an independent editor takes note of a topic receiving significant coverage and chooses on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing Fairly sure it's the gallery owner's name. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But per Karsten Schubert, the said person (or at least one individual by that name — there could be more, I suppose!) is dead. And the first person plural voice in this question suggests (to me at least) some sort of corporate or other collective entity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:50, 14 September 2022 review of draft by Alphac


Hello, I've just created an article about Aldo Carotenuto, taking most contents from Italian wiki and correcting and adding english references (especially translated books and articles), could you provide more info on why it's not suitable for publication?

Alphac (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alphac: it was declined because it's a bit promotional and a bit 'chatty' in tone. I would add that most of the content is unreferenced, although I note that wasn't among the decline grounds on this occasion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
would you make me an example of "promotional" and "chatty" text in the article? I've added many english publications from him and articles from various newspapers. Alphac (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; here's one passage that IMO comes under both descriptors:

Carotenuto then devotes himself, with remarkable and numerous essays, to the relationships between psychoanalysis, art and literature, reviewing, under his clear and profound analytical vision, an itinerary of portraits and voices of various artists observed and scrutinized in the light of their intimate life.

There are other examples. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what's happening here? Even the draft has been deleted! How comes it can be considered "promotion" this man is long dead! What's the reason for this, I'm just an enthusiast trying to improve an english article for an Italian scholar. This is madness. Alphac (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Nothing has been deleted, the draft is still at Draft:Aldo Carotenuto. A request was made to delete it, but that has been declined, for now at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems it was briefly deleted, before being restored. My bad. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphac We consider the tone to be "promotional" if there is lots of wp:Puffery, even if the subject is dead. What reliable, independent source said he wrote remarkable and numerous essays? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:58, 14 September 2022 review of submission by Shaimaa2


Sources have been updated

Shaimaa2 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaimaa2 The draft was rejected, meaning that resubmission is not possible. The changes you made are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:46, 14 September 2022 review of submission by Favour Iyeduala


The individual spoken of in the article is an upcoming Nigerian musical gospel artiste, popularly known in Warri city, University of Benin, suburbs of Lagos and environs.

He started his music career early in 2021 and is already being copied by copycats around Warri environs.

The attempt on the wikipedia article is to get the original in front of as many individuals as possible so that they'll be able to differentiate between the original Oyinbrakemi and those attempting copyright of his music.

Favour Iyeduala (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Favour Iyeduala, but that's not how this works. Wikipedia isn't here for you to promote or spread awareness about anything or anyone. By definition we only include topics which are already extensively covered in reliable and independent secondary sources (see notability). If you can cite such sources in this draft, it may be possible to accept it into Wikipedia, but based on what you say, I think that's rather unlikely. In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:25, 14 September 2022 review of submission by Ianti3

Hello! We have worked on the submission "Meters and More Technology" (June 9, 2022) which was rejected after multiple tries. We always get informed that the sources we cite are not reliable and would like to understand what would constitute a reliable source. Moreover, on a more formal type of level, we would also like to confirm that the references/citations we are making are being done in a proper manner. Ianti3 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianti3: uh, okay... but if you're talking about Draft:Meters and More Technology, that draft was deleted almost three months ago, so this isn't really an AfC matter.
Anyway, to answer your question on reliable sources, see WP:RS, and you may also want to check out WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:30, 14 September 2022 review of draft by 2603:8081:400:B86:FCC7:5D31:FEE5:5833


I uploaded the ISBNs and publish dates for each book. I need help on what other citations are needed. Any reviews of the books will be from another page such as Amazon or Goodreads. Should I link those pages?

2603:8081:400:B86:FCC7:5D31:FEE5:5833 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here:
  1. You shouldn't link to any external site, if by that you mean inline external links like this, which your draft is currently full of. Please remove those, as they are not allowed per WP:EL. The ones that link to a specific resource which can be used as a reference, you can cite them in the usual manner. But any that just point to a domain root or similar generic content and serve no real purpose must be removed.
  2. In any case, you should not reference or otherwise link to Goodreads or Amazon, which are commercial sites with largely user-generated content.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 15

00:00:33, 15 September 2022 review of draft by VampireKilla


How else should I try to establish why Gibraltar Wave are notable? They're the only independent women's team in Gibraltar, the only organised beach soccer team in Gibraltar, the first and only Gibraltarian team to participate in the BSW Euro Winners Cup, all other currently active women's teams in Gibraltar have Wikipedia articles that haven't been deleted. I'm trying to figure out how that's not more notable than, say, the stub article for Crawley Wasps F.C. which has no references whatsoever, or Leafield Athletic L.F.C. which is virtually empty. It feels almost like *because* it's the only team not affiliated to a men's team, that's why it's not being approved for an article. If someone can explain exactly why the 9 references included in the article (only one of which is from the club itself) aren't independent that would help too. VampireKilla (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VampireKilla: notability doesn't mean "the first to do X" or being "the only Y in Gibraltar". It means being able to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Based on a quick look, I don't think any of the sources cited in this draft meets this standard, although I'm happy to analyse them in more detail if you'd like.
As for other articles which may be out there with similar or weaker referencing (the so-called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that is undoubtedly the case, but it doesn't mean we should create more of the same; it means those articles should also be brought up to the required standards. Meanwhile new articles must comply with the relevant guidelines, in this case WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate someone taking the time to look more closely at the articles I have used as references. Bear in mind some are in German or Spanish as it has had coverage from different countries - I've rarely had to use the referencing system for foreign language articles so not 100% sure on how to flag the languages of the links. VampireKilla (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VampireKilla
Okay. It's not clear whether by 'someone' you mean someone other than me, but here's my take on it, all the same:
  • Refs 1/2/5: I consider these the sports equivalent of 'routine business reporting' (acquisitions, appointments, product launches, etc.); can be used to verify information, but not to establish notability. I should point out that as these are behind a paywall, I haven't analysed the text properly, and it's possible bits of them may collectively add up to significant coverage. If that's what your notability assertion specifically relies on, then please provide more details (eg. on the draft talk page).
  • Ref 3: primary source
  • Ref 4: press release, likely primary source
  • Ref 6: close primary source (club website)
  • Ref 7: at first I thought this would meet GNG, but then noticed it's written in first person voice, so it's clearly the 'club talking'; finally realised it's by the club chairman, ie. clearly not independent.
  • Ref 8: only mentions the club once, in one of the fixtures graphics
  • Ref 9: this is probably the strongest of the lot; it could be argued the coverage isn't all that significant, or that this is similar to refs 1/2/5, or perhaps that the publication isn't fully RS (being a local online newsletter/blog), but even if one gives this the benefit of the doubt in all those respects, this one source alone isn't enough to establish notability.
Happy to be proven wrong on any or all of these points. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:32, 15 September 2022 review of draft by Umeshnair4u


I have submitted my page as I am a movie producer in India. I have produced 2 movies and 2 tele serials in India. If i am not mistaken this is the second tie i tried to publish my page on wikipedia and still I couldn't get through. Looking forward for a support to get my page live as I am not sure what I am suppose to do.

Umeshnair4u (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshnair4u: firstly, if this is ever published, it won't be "your page"; it will be a Wikipedia article about you. There's a big difference.
Secondly, you shouldn't be trying to publish an article about yourself, for all sorts of reasons which are enumerated here: WP:AUTOBIO. Please read and understand them.
The reason why your draft was declined is that it is entirely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:GNG on notability.
And just to remind you, you really shouldn't try to publish an article about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your updated. Umeshnair4u (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:16, 15 September 2022 review of draft by 50.101.160.189


i was wondering how if the draft articles do not expire if not then by when

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your question is — are you asking how long a draft stays on the system before being deleted? Six months from the last edit, per WP:G13. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:15, 15 September 2022 review of submission by 50.101.160.189

is there a deadline for article drafts if so how much

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:13, 15 September 2022 review of submission by MistaEntertainer

He has now a Google Knowledge Panel and a wikialpha page. Is he now worth? MistaEntertainer (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MistaEntertainer: please don't copypaste the entire draft here, and certainly don't do it several times. Thank you.
No, there is not the slightest indication of notability here. In any case, the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care about Google's (ab)use of its platforms. Besides, the Knowledge Panel is known to cull from Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:16, 15 September 2022 review of submission by ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513


ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513? The draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:03, 15 September 2022 review of submission by Plumbgum


Hello! I thought that my submission provided more information about a brand that I've grown to love in recent years. Could you all provide more information about which sections violated Wikipedia guidelines and/or why my submission was rejected? Is there a way that I can improve my submission?

Thank you.

Plumbgum (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbgum: if you're talking about Draft:Cash Acme, then that has been deleted and hence there's no way of improving it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Request on 07:45:35, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ntkn766

After this new film Khadak, Actor has lead role in three notable films and hence actor becomes notable as per WP:ACTOR. She has got significant coverage in noted publications like Times Of India,Indian Express etc. she has many individual coverage also about her. Already all references has been added about her request you to kindly re review Ntkn766 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ntkn766: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, which will happen when a reviewer gets around to it; there is no need to flag up this draft here. Meanwhile, if you have a question, feel free to ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous reviewer has given article is not reliable How can he say when there are so many references attached Ntkn766 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit more to it than just the number of references. For example, the Times of India, which this draft cites several times, is borderline reliable at best (see WP:TOI). And more generally, there's the whole issue of paid news in India. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Pratik Dawange


Pratik Dawange (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, @Pratik Dawange, but your sandbox draft autobio has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:50:23, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Moceroci


Hello, the article has been declined due to the submission's references and significant coverage. However, there are 28 references of which 4 are interviews with the artist in some of the most notable newspapers and magazines in Denmark (Politiken). These are all independent. There is a video interview with the artist and the museum director of Trapholt Museum. There are three book references and one exhibition catalogue. The remaining newspaper articles are either reviews of her solo or group exhibitions from credible sources including Politiken, KunstKritik and Weekendavisen. They all mention her name in the articles. There are furthermore article links to news outlets. There are two art critic quoted on the importance of the artist.

I'm a bit surprised to see why these aren't important? I have included more references than many other articles on artists and done so much research to ensure you have all the right information. When looking at other artists, I don't understand why she isn't of importance. I have done additional research about the artist so it meets the criteria for a notable person according to Wikipedia standards. All information is backed up by articles from credible newspapers, books, YouTube interviews with museum directors and museum websites.

Why is it not too soon to have the article The artist work is included in the permanent collections of two museums and also the prestigious Danish states official art foundation ’Statens Kunstfund’. The artist has had several solo exhibitions and has two exhibition catalogues published. She is included in the publication 'Touched - Danish Art in the New Millennium’ by art critic Maria Kjær Themsen. Gernild’s work has been compared to the female painters Anna Ancher, Christine Swane and Anna Syberg. And a solo exhibition about her work presented her work alongside Christine Swane of the Funen Painters in 2019 at Roennebaekshom Museum. She has been part of group exhibitions at renowned museums. Gl. Holtegaard Museum just announced that they will host a solo exhibition on Emily Gernild work in 2023.

I nominate this article to be included on Wikipedia as Emily Gernild is a notable artist. It is of interest to the public to learn more about female artist and connection to other female painters throughout history. I will be able to link her to several other Wikipedia articles. It will therefore not be an orphan.


Moceroci (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moceroci: I haven't looked at the sources yet, but the first thing that strikes me is that you seem to think interviews are somehow a good thing, whereas they're pretty much the opposite. Many publications just quote the interviewee without any challenges or fact-checking, and the interview becomes effectively a close primary source, being whatever the interviewee wants to say about themselves or anything else. That's why we usually disregard interviews.
As for reviews of art exhibitions, while those could provide significant coverage of the artist in question, often they don't. I'm not saying these type of reviews are categorically useless, but neither are they categorically useful, even when published in reputable and reliable media outlets.
Beyond that, I would need to do a more thorough source analysis. Alternatively, you could help by highlighting the three sources that are the strongest in terms of meeting WP:GNG, namely offering significant coverage (of the artist), and being independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:58:36, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Moceroci


Would it be better to create the article only in Danish?


Moceroci (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moceroci: can't comment on whether the Danish Wikipedia would accept an article on this person, as each language version has their own rules and requirements; except to say in general terms that the bar for inclusion is probably higher in the English Wikipedia than just about anywhere else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:25:13, 16 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by EDIT174


Hello, I received this message:

May be notable but needs to cleanup to remove puffery. Only summarize what the sources actually state, not what he stated and not with your own editorializing. Also, need to address your possible conflict of interest.

There is also mention of the lack of neutral tone. I thought my references were independent sources as they are published articles about him. What about the podcasts on which he appeared? Are those considered secondary sources?

I can not edit anything, as the body of text has been removed from my page. Can that please be restored so I can make the necessary changes? Re: COI -- Should I copy the COI template to address that, and if so, where on the page do I place it?

Sorry for all of the questions, I am new to this!

Thank you!


EDIT174 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:47, 16 September 2022 review of submission by MatrosMonk


MatrosMonk (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted my first article for review and it wad declined twice. I have added many more references and I am convinced that the person about whom I wrote meets the notability requirements AND I found nearly forty references to support the article. I have spent hours finding the reliable sources, and I can actually continue adding references (there are many, many more to add), but it seems at this point it is getting excessive. I am weary about submitting it for the third time and getting the same pushback. Can anyone advise me how else I can improve the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anna_Frajlich

18:10:52, 16 September 2022 review of submission by MatrosMonk


MatrosMonk (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:14, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7

Hello. I’ve been dialoguing with the person who rejected the page, but has not replied in a while. (Dialogue on my page.) Anyhow, whoever this gets sent to, can you intervene and view the changes that l made regarding the extreme notability of the person whom I created the article about? Thank you! He or she was helpful, but since making the new edits, haven’t heard back from this person? I thought this person might not be available, but I did notice this person had activity today? Thanks again! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:56, 16 September 2022 review of draft by RLSnow


Hello, Looking to find what is considered a reliable reference source for this article. I had hoped that an NPR publication would be considered reliable, but apparently not. Unfortunately, for major awards given in India in the 1990's I was unable to find other references. Conference proceedings are not available. I do have photos of award certificates but was denied attempting to upload them. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you!

RLSnow (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RLSnow: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged in good faith for any reason MUST be cited to a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source that is written by an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources are available) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
The Living on Earth source is an interview, Shambala.com is a non-sequitur, and Buddhistdoor.net explicitly calls itself an open platform. None of your sources are any good even if they were properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:05, 16 September 2022 review of submission by Chito Kaii

I am trying to create this new page, but cannot find any more citations that are applicable. I wish it would be easier, I tried 4 search engines on the topic. Please help fast, I want to get this through! Chito Kaii (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chito Kaii Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Wikipedia has no deadlines, do you have a particular need for a speedy resolution here? Most of the sources you offer seem to be the organization website or announcements of its activities. These do not establish notability. Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Significant coverage goes beyond the mere telling of what the topic does, and goes into detail about its significance and influence as they see it, and not how the organization sees itself. If no other sources exist, the organization would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
311dot Can you help me clean it up then? I tried to format it, but that is difficult. Any help to make it look good would help, and I can take another look. Is it news articles and major websites we look for?
@Chito Kaii: I did a source review and Googled the organization and do not see anything that suggests the article will ever be approved. There is insufficient media coverage for the organization to meet Wikipedia's high notability standards for inclusion. Social media links, directory listings, organization announcements and local match results do not show notability. See WP:GNG. My advice is to abandon this project, and if someone asked you to do this, let them know that you need more notable info to work with, and have no chance of success. I see you link to Shane Higashi, but his relationship to the club is unclear. This won't really help you anyway with the club's article - see WP:Notability is not inherited. Nonetheless, if you can find an independent source about his relationship to the club (you don't have one now and I can't find one), you can consider adding a sentence or two about it to his article, and redirect searches for the club to his article. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 17

00:36:15, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7

Just needed to find out where my previous message went about the article. How long does it take to receive help here? Thanks! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Lightspeed7 "How long does it take to receive help here?" Well, it can certainly take more than the 6 hrs you waited before posting again. We're all volunteers, some of us are busy IRL, and occasionally it's nice to sleep a few hours, even. We do get around to most things, eventually.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. And given that you and the rejecting reviewer have been discussing this at some length already, what is it that you want us here at the helpdesk to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:41, 17 September 2022 review of submission by 2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD


2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1110737526"