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 Reward3 (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 11 May 2023. 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, 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


May 5

06:01, 5 May 2023 review of submission by JennaHTN

Hello, what do you mean by reliable source? The sources that I put which are for some of the articles are not enough? Thanks in advance JennaHTN (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennaHTN: Instagram, YouTube and SoundCloud are not considered reliable sources, and they account for more than half the citations in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer DoubleGrazing.
Sources 4 and 5 are articles, okay? I confirm certain references are social networks only to support certain remarks and indeed are not sources JennaHTN (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JennaHTN: there are two separate but related issues to do with referencing. The first is notability, to establish which it is usually enough to cite three solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria.
The other is verifiability, which means that every material statement must be supported by a reliable published source where the information can be verified. The reviewer is contending that a large proportion of the draft is either not referenced, or seemingly referenced by sources that are not considered reliable, and either way that part of the content is effectively unsupported. And given that sources 4 and 5 (if, for the sake of the argument, one accepts those as reliable) are both cited in the second paragraph only, that means that potentially the entire rest of the draft is either not referenced, or referenced using non-reliable sources, and therefore unsupported. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, what can I do to publish this article in this state? Should I remove unsourced paragraphs? What exactly do you recommend to improve it? JennaHTN (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could not be accepted as it stands, NONE of the sources are reliable or independent. The topic would need to pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER and currently it does not. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theroadislong! Sources 4 and 5 are not reliable and independent?? The other sources I agree since the subject has control over them JennaHTN (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JennaHTN No they are not, one doesn't lead to anything about the author and the other looks be written by someone connected to the subject. Sharing a name with the user who uploaded the image to Commons. I will be completely honest you may find it better to spend time on other things at this time. I don't see any evidence this person meets any criteria of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you very much for your help ! JennaHTN (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Madchef81

hello, i tryed to resubmit the entry but i havent received any response...Madchef81 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madchef81: this draft hasn't been resubmitted since its most recent decline in February, therefore it is not currently pending review. If you wish to resubmit it, you need to click on that blue 'Resubmit' button when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft as it stands is just blatant advertising with no sources, you will need to start again and summarise what reliable independent sources say about the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"blatant" :D you guys are the worse at comunicating with people! i will try again to make it less obvious, then i drop it, too difficult to pass trough your cencorship Madchef81 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: I would call that promotional, also; what would you call it?
For starters, the draft doesn't cite a single source, which suggests (or at least leaves the possibility open) that it isn't based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said, but rather what you wish to say about the organisation.
Wikipedia does not allow promotional content; you may call this 'censorship', we call it policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know what to call it. in fact i tried to do a normal entry, with links etc but got refused already, with a strange story of having financial gain from it and/or being a payed agent or something. this is rather stupid, Mater Foundationis a NON PROFIT based in switerland that fight hunger and feed people in need, having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it. Promotional, Advertisiment et such is business related, profit related. it doesnt apply to us obviously, am i correct? so now i try to add link etc, hopefully you will understand? Madchef81 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you say "having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it", which is pretty much the definition of 'promotional'.
As for the paid editing query, you have yourself indicated some association with the subject ("hi, i am trying again to create the page for my foundation, all the texts are mine or from website i control my self"), and have at least twice tried to get this article published, hence why the matter has been queried. So far, you've not properly disclosed your relationship, as far as I can see at least; you should do so now, as your very next edit, lest you get sanctioned as an undisclosed paid editor.
Finally, a word of advice: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort between volunteers, and generally things work out smoother for everyone when we try to work together with others, rather than lashing out at every opportunity. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so: i am the founder of the foundation, as i said previously and its also wrote on the entry. get people to know what with do in a, let say, accademic way its very beneficial, it will for example imply that some readers get usefull information to replicate what we do somewhere else in the world. your continuous mention of "paied" implies that we do this for a financial, for profit, end WHICH IT COULDNT BE MORE FAR FROM THE TRUE. i can i prove that to you? materfondazione.com containts all our audits and activity reports for example. i still dont understand you meter of evaluation tho: there are hundreds of pages about non profit foundations that do the same activities... but our foundation is not good? we must be commercial agents!! i dont get it. Madchef81 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you have by your own admission a close relationship with the subject, therefore you at the very least have a conflict of interest (COI), and you may also come under our paid-editing rules; either way, you must formally disclose your relationship, either on your user page or on the draft's talk page, or preferably both. Whether your organisation is for-profit or not is immaterial here.
'Promotion' doesn't only mean advertising commercial, for-profit businesses, it means publicising your cause, or 'making people aware'; please see this essay, which explains it well: WP:YESPROMO.
In any case, the draft is promotional in tone and content. This is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself or something you're closely affiliated with, because it can be very difficult to write in a neutral manner without putting a 'spin' on things.
Finally, the sources cited in this draft are insufficient to establish notability, therefore I have just declined it. Please see WP:GNG for the notability guideline which the draft must satisfy in order to be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81 "it doesnt apply to us obviously, am i correct?" Non-profits can and do (often) advertise. Also, non-profits can have paid staff. Your earlier comment saying the article was "refused" based on "payed agent" was probably that someone pointed you to the WP:PAID policy. Anyone who is paid a salary, even if they are paid by a nonprofit, must follow the instructions at the "Paid" link that I included, and disclose that they are paid by the subject of the article. Again, that includes nonprofits, if the article is about a nonprofit. And contrary to what you mentioned, you certainly can get a financial gain from the success of a nonprofit--as many nonprofits get larger and have bigger budgets, their Executive Director, or head of the nonprofit, can get a bigger salary. It is absolutely right that it's hard to write neutrally about an organization that you founded, or an organization that pays you, as DG says. David10244 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you guys should at least get some infos on the subject you are giving opinions about. please just delete my entry and my account , or please tell me how to do it. This is trash conversation with self appointed "keepr of the knowledge", presumptuous minions, indeed if you are real people and not bots. Madchef81 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Chandrasekharmusic

Why my page is rejected Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandrasekharmusic: well, technically it wasn't rejected, it was declined and then speedily deleted, but that's just by the by. The reason this draft wasn't accepted is that it was entirely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content, and no reliable sources. Besides that, you shouldn't be writing about yourself (as I assume this was) in any case, for all the reasons explained at WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

Hello Wikipedia-Editors,

I submitted an article about "Fifty Vinc" for review, a music producer and composer from Germany. It was rejected because I was told the article would not meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.

Could you explain to my why?

When I read through the WP:MUSICBIO, it says:

- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film.."

- "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria" 

Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: that's not my reading of the review (which, incidentally, resulted in a decline, not rejection). I think the reviewer AngusWOOF is asking you to elaborate on which criterion of MUSICBIO the subject meets, and what evidence supports that, rather than saying categorically it doesn't meet MUSICBIO. I'm sure AngusWOOF will correct me if I misinterpreted that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I'm sorry, of course it was declined NOT rejected. I think I missunderstood the review then.
With reference to the question which criteria the subject meets, I think the following criteria of WP:MUSICBIO are met:
1) Criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10. | "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film"
2) Criteria for composers and lyricists, #3. | "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"
I've linked the sources that supports that evidence, e.g. The Source Magazine, IMDb, Westfälische Nachrichten (German newspaper - both printed and digital article about Vincent Jewell), Backspin Magazine, Discogs, Swiss Hitparade and more. Matthew Tailor (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not reference Discogs or IMDb as they are NOT reliable sources. Do not reference YouTube videos either. They are cluttering up the article so that I can't tell what are the secondary sources.
So which work meets #10 and which work meets #3? Can you elaborate on that on the talk page for the draft? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a general question: Is it allowed to use Spotify, Apple Music, Bandcamp or any other of the major streaming platforms as a source? Today it’s very common that musicians / artists releases their music in digital form only. There’s also a metada available where all parties involved are listed in the most cases. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable. Feedback above not addressed. If you keep resubmitting without addressing the feedback it will be permanently rejected. Sounds like you’ve written an article and now try to argue notability. That’s why it’s best to find many sources covering the subject significantly and then write the article. Doesn’t appear sufficiently notable for our project. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta First of all, I’m not arguing for notability, I’m just referring to the [[WP:MUSICBIO]], that’s it. And secondly, I for sure addressed the feedback above, that’s why I removed the sources from Discogs, YouTube etc. I’ve replied on the Talk page as wished and also elaborated which criteria are met. So I would appreciate if you could explain to me what exactly the problem is? Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MUSICBIO is a subject specific notability guideline. Angus asked you a specific question pertaining to that criteria. Time to drop the stick. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered the question, there’s no need to drop any stick. By the way, that sounds very condescending. However, to answer the question again, the following works met WP:MUSICBIO
Criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10.:
1) Official soundtrack of the Brazilian shortfilm Djorge: Da Bonja pro Mundo
2) Walkout songs for UFC, broadcasted on ESPN
Criteria for composers and lyricists, #3.:
1) subjects music was used as the basis for a later composition by notable artists / songwriters / lyricist, e.g. Nina Menke (Mrs. Nina Chartier) - Flaschenpost, Chris Ares - Intro, BRDigung, Löwe and Machtwechsel, Rapido - Messias II, Vollautomatisch II, D12 (Swifty McVay & Kuniva), Ill Bill, Celph Titled, Slaine, King Magnetic.
Please correct me if I misunderstand the criteria. I can do mistakes too.. Matthew Tailor (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:59:44, 5 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3


Hello! I'm checking on a draft submission for page on "Pike Powers" which was last edited on March 6 by bpritti. The draft appears to have disappeared. Can you tell its status and/or offer suggestions regarding further edits? I greatly appreciate all the help. Lots of folks are waiting to edit and contribute to the page. THANK YOU! Raye

Reward3 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reward3: the draft hasn't disappeared, it's still there at Draft:Pike Powers. It hasn't been resubmitted after the March decline, so it will just sit there until six months have passed from the last human edit, at which time it will be deleted as stale. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DG — I revised (major) the draft incorporating Pbitti’s v appropriate suggestions and (believed) I’d resubmitted over a month ago. Where did it go do you think?
lost in translation, reward(3) Reward3 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reward3: I couldn't say; I can only tell you what the edit history (the draft's and/or yours) shows, and there was no resubmission. You need to click on that blue 'Resubmit' button to request a new review. (Obviously, only do that when you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the previous decline.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for your kind and patient responses. Reward3 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Reward3

Hello! I resubmitted a proposed contribution on Pike Powers (John P Powers), incorporating the March 6 suggestions from bprittij. I have not received any comments on the submission, which seems to have been deleted. Can you provide an updated status and a reason for deletion? Thank you so much for your help, Raye Ward Reward3 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. David10244 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Noelle Michael

Need assistance determining why there's concerns about adequately supported by reliable sources. Sources are the local news, both recent and from archival. Noelle Michael (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noelle Michael That's exactly the problem, it's only local sources. You need to find at least a couple of substantial sources with state-wide or national impact. Another issue is that you seem to be trying to write an entire biography when all your sourcing is about only the murder case. Refocus the draft to be "Murder of Danielle Houchins" then you can drop the hard to source content about the victim's family life, school, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback it was helpful. The biography part makes sense, and working on updates for that.
Still unclear on the gauge of sources from state-wide/national. Are you saying the size of the newspaper? The Bozeman Chronicle is one of the largest papers in the state, all news starts local. Or are you suggesting impact prospective? Those articles were used as sources for smaller papers across the region at the time. Noelle Michael (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Alok Biju

How could this Wikipedia page be accepted? Alok Biju (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alok Biju: it wouldn't; it presents no evidence of notability, and for that reason it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Leeriarama

I need to necessary make my profile to the world for all those reasons! Leeriarama (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leeriarama: please do not write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO as to why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. There is no evidence in your draft that you are a notable person, and therefore you are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

08:03, 6 May 2023 review of submission by Fredellis01

Hello, as the draft was again declined, I am not sure how to delete this article. Thank you in advance.

Kind regards Fred Fredellis01 (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredellis01: you can try placing the {{db-g7}} tag on top of the page, but it may not necessarily be accepted as you're not the only editor who has contributed to that draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 6 May 2023 review of submission by ShaunSubz Z

How do I fix it I want to finish it to be a biography ShaunSubz Z (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to show with independent reliable sources how you pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced, single sentence autobiography will never be accepted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 6 May 2023 review of submission by WikiEdiAoI

I would like to my page to be removed from the database. WikiEdiAoI (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEdiAoI: done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 6 May 2023 review of submission by 182.186.125.164

Its not for Promorion purpose .Its for just Knowledge base because its topic have more search on google and dont have any article on wikipedia of PiFansub.Thanks pifansub.pro pifansub.cam these are the source for PiFansub Article 182.186.125.164 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced sandbox page was unreferenced and overtly promotional. It was inappropriate for Wikipedia, and has been deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 6 May 2023 review of submission by Filipinxamerican

I recently attempted to make an article page for the term "Filipinx" and was informed pages for neologisms are ineligible unless they receive "substantial use and press coverage." So, I want to ask: what qualifies as "substantial?" In recent years the term has been employed more and more in high-level academic research centering queer Filipinx identities and searching for "Filipinx" pops up with 258 articles in JSTOR. The term is even used in Elaine Castillo's foreword for "America is in the Heart" by Carlos Bulosan, a seminal work for Filipino Americans. Of course it hasn't, and never will, garner the coverage that "Latinx" has since there are far fewer Filipino Americans than Latin Americans. But proportionally, the term is not that far from the coverage Latinx has received. Filipinxamerican (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 6 May 2023 review of submission by 2603:7080:8E39:9949:F10B:6ADC:4466:FC9E

Please accept, this is vital for helping charity organizations 2603:7080:8E39:9949:F10B:6ADC:4466:FC9E (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noble as many charitable organizations are, Wikipedia's purpose is to have articles on notable subjects, not to "help" any person or organization. David10244 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also requested that Draft:Captain Whoops' be deleted. Please don't create more of these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

00:27, 7 May 2023 review of submission by Lydiafiddle

what is the format for an author article? Lydiafiddle (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lydiafiddle: there is no particular 'format', but like with any article, what you write must be supported by reliable published sources, and the subject must be shown to be notable. Also, you shouldn't write about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:50, 7 May 2023 review of submission by Mcr072780

Hello, I am hoping someone is able to give me some more information on what needs to be improved on my article for stage actor Daniel Reichard.

It appears there is a problem with my citations. I reviewed the notability standards for entertainers and the subject fulfills the requirements, having starred in many noteworthy productions and performances.

I used mostly news article that demonstrated that the subject indeed appeared in the productions I listed, but I’m guessing that isn’t sufficient. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be very much appreciated. Mcr072780 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcr072780: it can be difficult to satisfy many of the special notability guidelines, in this case WP:NACTOR, without also satisfying the general WP:GNG one. By which I mean, if Reichard has appeared in genuinely "noteworthy productions and performances", then there will almost certainly be multiple independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of him. If there isn't, then perhaps his performances haven't been quite as noteworthy as you're contending. Which is another way of saying focus first and foremost on showing GNG notability, if you can. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mcr072780, what's required are references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Reichard. The New York Times source, for example, devotes only one sentence to him. Two of the Playbill sources mention Reichard only in their headlines. A third gives him a single sentence. Another mentions him fleetingly. The WKYC source is a three sentence blurb promoting an upcoming appearance in his home town. None of those sources are the sort of significant coverage required to show notability. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 7 May 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

Hi, I was writing with an editor but now I cannot find it so I am rewriting... can someone help? I edit a draft and submitted it. I added all the sources and even numbers but now its not declined, it's blocked and something doesnt feel right. If someone can help, it will be great and also if I can be pointed to how I find the last topic I started, it will help. Thank you! Raves2023 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raves2023: one of the earlier threads you started is higher up on this page; the other has been archived and can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 30.
Just to be clear, this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will not be considered further. No matter how much you edit the text, you cannot magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing This is what I am asking and trying to find out, why is it's notability in question? what a magazine needs to be? how come other magazines are notable and this isnt? Raves2023 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: I really feel that we have bottomed out this debate already. Unless you have new and better sources which weren't earlier considered, please consider this matter concluded. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I respect what you wrote but for me it isnt concluded. I understand you do not want to deal with it so I will try and ask for help and not bother you. Thank you for your time! Raves2023 (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: I didn't say I don't want to deal with this; I meant that you are starting to raise points that were already covered earlier, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Also, the draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further, unless you can cite significantly better sources that weren't previously available. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing those were my words and I didnt mean it in a bad way... I dont understand why the citing as is arent good enough. Maybe the draft before I came to it wasnt good enough but now I think it is after the changes I made and I looked at other magazines (and I also know them, from some we are bigger) and it feels the new draft isnt getting the chance it deserves. Raves2023 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing To sum it all up, what can I do with the stop tag? I am sure there is but I want to ask you first since you are fair, proff and know the draft. There are more than 2-3 sources as we said and maybe this is technical or maybe I should create a new draft withput the hisotry? Raves2023 (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 7 May 2023 review of submission by Quizoverlord123

This is my second try for a submission of this article. Is there anything I should do to allow this topic to be covered. I believe it is a notable topic. It is definitely notable in Northern Ireland, in fact, it made local news coverage. It is still (relatively) small, as it is only the inaugural year. However, it is the only quiz competition in NI for children this age (therefore the largest) and is doing quite well. I am happy to disclose my connection to this topic- in fact I will do this now. Any suggestions how this can be improved? Quizoverlord123 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quizoverlord123: notability doesn't arise from being the largest, or the only one of its kind, or "doing quite well"; it arises solely from the sources: per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (and "local news coverage" is seldom enough, to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, thanks for your quick reply. The competition runs again this September, bigger and better ;). I will remember to try ensure greater news coverage this time. Our first year was mostly a test to ensure the competition has grounds, taking on board what we have learned it is hopefully going to be a super event this year. Any other suggestions? Quizoverlord123 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Quizoverlord123 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Quizoverlord123: no, that's about it – get the Beeb and a couple of the broadsheets to cover your event, and you should be sorted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

03:06, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Buchananfl

I am questioning the latest comment that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

George Buchanan is referenced in published literary books, noted British newspapers and periodicals, and mentioned in various Wikipedia subjects' biographies and writings. The secondary sources are reliable, credible and varied. We can provide pdfs of out-of-print material and old newspaper articles not accessible online. George Buchanan needs to be accessible for reference and academic study as a noted 20th Century literary figure in Northern Ireland and beyond. That is the opinion of various notable critics and literary experts, as indicated. Please advise. Thank you! Buchananfl (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buchananfl:
The first thing to say is, you need to make a formal conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure, given your relationship with the subject of this draft. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
Having looked at the draft and its sources, I actually think the subject is notable. However, the draft cannot be accepted as it stands, because too much of the information is unreferenced, with several paragraphs without a single citation. My guess is that you have written what you know about your father, rather than summarising what reliable published sources have said; while this is understandable, it isn't acceptable, as all information must be verifiable from published sources. Please ensure that every material statement is supported by a reference to a reliable source. (And a minor point: you cannot use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, as you have done on a couple of occasions.)
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've just run a copyright violation check on this draft, and it seems there are some matches with external sources. I will go through it in more detail and see if they actually amount to violations, but just wanted to clarify that when I said you need to "summarise" sources, that means summarise in your own words; not copypaste from, or even closely paraphrase, sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Tarin7767

Entrepreneurs can not publish Wikipedia articles.? Tarin7767 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given 5 correct references. But why is it not accepting? Tarin7767 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Rejected, speedied, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 173.75.214.74

This page was denied for listing improper source but cites the Church's Main website. 173.75.214.74 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "improper source", it says "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The draft is entirely unreferenced; merely listing (but not citing) the organisation's own website is entirely insufficient for supporting the draft contents, let alone establishing notability per WP:GNG. Also, if you keep resubmitting this without addressing the decline reasons, the draft will eventually be rejected without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Kerstin Dämon

Dear Wikipedia team,

my article about the Smart Ticketing Alliance has been rejected - among other things - because of an alleged COI. I work for the VDV eTicket Service, the publisher of the German ticketing standard for public transport in German-speaking countries. That is also what it says in my author description. My company launched the Smart Ticketing Alliance together with three other three other companies as part of an EU project. However, I am not on the pay roll of the STA and do not participate in any of the projects or working groups of the STA. Nor do I work for the EU Commission, which financed the founding of the STA.

Does this still count as a conflict of interest?

Thank you for your help, Kerstin Kerstin Dämon (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kerstin Dämon:
Firstly, the draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean you cannot resubmit it), only declined (which means you can, once you have addressed the decline reasons).
Secondly, it wasn't declined because of your COI, that was just an additional comment the reviewer left. The decline reasons were not adequately supported by reliable sources and appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.
As for your COI, based on what you say, you certainly have a COI; whether you come under our paid-editing rules is less clear. And although you have explained your situation here and on your user page, you need to formally disclose your COI, as per the instructions posted earlier on your user talk page.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Aerielen

I'm asking for DoubleGrazing.I submitted an article for a school page.And it was declined for notability reasons.However there is not anything that would constitute any unreliability.If the only reason my page got declined was beacuse of the language of my sources.That's unreasonable on the grounds that english is not the only language even if its an english wikipedia , at the same time I've seen lots of resources on english wikipedia that is not in english.Is what youre doing basically racism or a reasonable claim that my sources are wrong? Aerielen (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Aerielen/sandbox/Istanbul Atatürk Anatolian Highschool
@Aerielen: wow, way to go – jumping straight from a decline to accusing me of racism! If you knew anything about me, you would realise what a ridiculous accusation that is, besides being offensive. Please let that be the last time, thank you.
As to why I declined your draft: it cites only primary sources, which do not show that the subject is notable. For that, we need to see significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; any language is fine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the first time you have said that, the page is like an advertisement.So before my second submission i have changed the sentences that might constitute sth in form of advertisement Aerielen (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you mean first-hand sources my primary resources?If thats that,there was already one source that is not primary.And I'have added 3 more sources on the subject.Thank you for consideration and sorry for calling you a racist. Aerielen (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Elmo di piume

Hi! My Renexia article translated from italian was not accepted. What are the reasons? Thank you Elmo di piume (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmo di piume: did you not read the decline notice and the comment I added? The draft's sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable.
Also, I posted a message on your user talk page asking you to disclose your relationship with this business. Please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 8 May 2023 review of submission by The new magazine

What's missing from this article? The new magazine (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The new magazine: apart from reliable sources, some indication of notability, or a modicum of appropriateness for an encyclopaedia, you mean? A speedy deletion tag. ( Done) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Aerielen

Hey,im sorry either your judgement is wrong or just you haven't looked at the sources thoroughly.Can you show me anything that is unreferenced?At the same time you have said no primary sources.Ok, let me tell you sth would you be surprised to know that I have added sources of all content that ever existed academically talked about this schools history.There is not any other sources on the subject.Please, i want you to look at it again thorougly.All of the content in this article are referenced through various publications and thesises and governmental documents.There are both primary and non-primary sources in this article.If you want me to be really specific ; 1,3 and 6 references are primary and 2,4,5,7,8,9 references are non primary.And all of the content is referenced thorougly.I didnt put another reference after every sentence because the some references already cover multiple paragraphs. Aerielen (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerielen: I don't know who you're addressing there, but I'm guessing me...
Every other paragraph is unreferenced. The entire Headmasters and Alumni sections were unreferenced. Does that answer your question about referencing?
As for the sources, let's take each of those in turn:
  1. Ministry of Education = primary
  2. Master's thesis, not relevant per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and in any case does not provide significant coverage of the subject
  3. Same as 1
  4. Unclear exactly what this is, likely primary, and in any case doesn't seem to even mention the subject.
  5. School student site = close primary
  6. Same as 1
  7. I think, although not sure, that this is a school listing/comparison site = primary
  8. Same as 5
  9. Same as 5
So with the possible, although unlikely, exception of #7, none of these contribute towards notability per WP:GNG, and even giving #7 the benefit of the doubt, it alone isn't enough. Does that answer your points about sources and, hence, notability?
Therefore, if, as you say, it is the case that "there are no other sources on the subject", then one can only conclude that this subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and I will have to go and reject this draft outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double grazing, i want you to look at all the other schools wikipedia articles in Turkey, Greece and Armenia.Except for Robert college, you will not see anything more than that.So you plan to delete all the other wikipedia articles of these schools?If so , good luck with that.There is a school that exist literally.Obviously there is a school history.And the schools history will be written by the school itself obviously.You can't expect that much secondary sources in newly founded republics.Even so i already said,i basically assumed that government documents are primary.Actually they are not primary , only the school's website itself will be primary.However i knew you would want another source.I literally looked for 3 hours to try to find another secondary source.Finally I have found another one.So please accept my submission.Literally begging you right now.Thank you so much! Aerielen (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 2406:B400:A9:5872:7C50:12AB:20D8:E3D8

please help 2406:B400:A9:5872:7C50:12AB:20D8:E3D8 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop socking. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 114.75.148.198

I think the page is now good enough to be reviewed. 114.75.148.198 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft is riddled with socks which is not a good sign and is rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. Best to move on. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Marco Daniele Filigheddu

Why my article was declined when just submitted? Marco Daniele Filigheddu (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco Daniele Filigheddu The draft is now deleted because it was blatantly promotional. Please read through all the information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Malakh ben Hasehm

what was the article rejected Malakh ben Hasehm (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malakh ben Hasehm you don't really ask a question but read through the material linked in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Kulakov-alexandr

We have now added more sources.

Wonder how we resubmit our draft? Kulakov-alexandr (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulakov-alexandr who is we? The draft is rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying!
"We" is a way of saying "I" in a more formal manner... Kulakov-alexandr (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 49.180.81.224

How this article can be improved? 49.180.81.224 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered on my talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


May 9

00:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Interstatefive

I recently had my AFC submission of this draft declined, as it "was not supported by reliable sources". The article only has two sources, which may be why.

However, two sources is definitely enough for an article of the size it's currently in (51 words of readable prose). All non-obvious facts were cited with a decent source in the article, so I don't understand why the reviewer declined with this reason. Is it because of the length, or what? interstatefive  00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstatefive: you would have to ask the reviewer what, specifically, they weren't happy with, but I myself would have declined this based on the quality (rather than quantity) of the sources, which are basically just glorified maps, and don't IMO satisfy WP:GEOLAND. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstatefive I would also look at WP:NGEO, as it has guidance on this topic in particular. The sources provided only prove that it exists and does not support the need for a stand alone article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing @Mcmatter I see what you mean. I was just about to bring up the two other articles of the same name in California and say how they've gotten off just fine (except for a single source tag on one article), but then I realized they had facts such as wildlife and their translations from another language in them. interstatefive  23:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:59, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Eocorbet

I have two questions. 1. I have redone three references as a test and saved them to my draft. Can you confirm that I have properly cited my three sources so that I can continue citing my sources the same way that I have previously done? 2. Does adding a unique birthdate help clarify disambiguation in the title? I would like to know if more information is needed, and if so, what information is needed to clear a disambiguation in the title? Eocorbet (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eocorbet:
  1. Yes, the first three sources are correctly cited. Carry on.
  2. Don't worry about disambiguating the title for now; if the draft is accepted, it will be moved to the correct title. (And FWIW, the current dab seems okay.)
I have, in turn, a query, which I've posted on your talk page; please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:37, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Jacksonpanix

The information about this person was mostly taken from liner notes on the back of two vinyl LPs which I have in my possession, and are recorded on Discogs.com. I also have a copy of the book which I referenced in the content. I understand if Discogs and Abe Books are considered not citable sources, but I do not understand what my alternatives are for citing this content when there is so little available on the internet about this person. Are the other citations I included are acceptable? Should I include photographs of the backs of the LPs with the liner notes? I did quite a bit of research on this person. They existed, and they produced media works that are out there in the world. Their funeral was covered by news media for which I was able to discover and cite. I'm unclear on how to improve this listing to make it acceptable. Please advise. Jacksonpanix (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacksonpanix: there are a few things here.
AbeBooks is just a retailer, there's no point in citing it as a source. If you want to cite a book being sold via AbeBooks, then cite the book directly.
I suppose album cover/liner notes are 'publications', and as such you can again cite them as if they were, say, books. (And best not mention Discogs, as that is not an acceptable source.) However, they are clearly primary sources so do not contribute towards notability.
As for the other sources, the British Pathé clip doesn't seem to provide much that is useful. The Tulane one is an interview. Neither is useful for notability.
The Christian Century piece is a record review, but it does provide some coverage of the Pastor, and is IMO the best of the lot; however, it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:22, 9 May 2023 review of draft by Stephaniedejager


Submission is taking a very long time which demotivates me a little by submitting or adjusting (new) articles. Can someone help me out please?

Stephaniedejager (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephaniedejager: we don't normally respond to fast-tracking requests, as there are over 4,000 drafts awaiting review. However, in this case it was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. Half the sources were close primary ones, and the rest didn't mention the subject; in other words, no evidence of notability, and also inadequate referencing (see WP:BLP for advice on articles on living people). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Stephaniedejager, you have chosen a topic that is highly controversial and abstruse. It is not an easy topic to evaluate for reviewers not immersed in the inside world of computer hacking. To me, as an outsider to hacking, your references look exceptionally weak, which also tends to make reviewers skeptical. Which three best independent, indisputably reliable sources devote significant coverage to this person? To be frank, I do not see the notability but again, I am not an expert in the topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Seyisage

I've been trying to publish a new draft for days now but this error keeps displaying "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404): (no message)"

what could be the problem? Seyisage (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seyisage: I don't know, but doubt it's an AfC issue. Maybe ask eg. at WP:TECHPUMP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I reopened the previous draft on a different page and tried editing that. Copied my current changes and republished. That worked. Seyisage (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Agnidathkn

The reason behind rejecting my article was not sourcing statements like date of birth. How to give a source about the date of birth? Agnidathkn (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnidathkn: this draft hasn't been rejected, only declined (meaning you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons).
You reference the DOB the same way as any other piece of information, by citing the published source that provides it. Where did you get the DOB from?
Needless to say, it's not just the DOB you need to reference, but everything: eg. the 'Early Life' section is completely unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Botota

Why was my article deleted? I think this article is important , please Botota (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Botota: nothing has been deleted, your draft was only declined; the reason for this was that there was no evidence of notability. And I should probably add that since the decline this draft has been made into a real mess, so it has no chance of being accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Constance52

Hi,

I would really appreciate any specific advice on how to improve my draft page, or whether there is a route for a more experienced editor to work on my page. Thanks! Constance Constance52 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Constance52: you need to cut down on the REFBOMBING – we don't need to see half a dozen sources verifying who the Director was more than a decade ago. We do, however, very much need to see sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, namely: significant coverage (of the Institute, not some indirectly related matters) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's really helpful. C Constance52 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Da Piped M

Can pls find more sources? Da Piped M (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Da Piped M: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Michaelw3211

I do not understand why I cannot get this article published. I have all the rights of all the photos and I am being hired to create this article. Please help Michaelw3211 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelw3211: you cannot get it published for the reasons given in the decline notices, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
Also, given that you have been hired to create this article, you must make a paid-editing disclosure, as explained in WP:PAID. This is a hard requirement; please do this as your very next edit. (You may also want to show your boss this: WP:BOSS. It explains why the job they've given you is wholly unreasonable.)
As for "having all the rights" in the images, it isn't enough for you to have the rights, they must be released into the public domain, and in any case we cannot simply take your say-so, there needs to be some evidence that this has been done. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence through email, how do I submit it Michaelw3211 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaelw3211: don't worry about the images, they are irrelevant in what comes to getting this draft accepted (and hence, I will go and remove them, for now). You need to deal with the other issues highlighted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:10, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Khalidqtr1968

I have made the changes to the article today, But I'm not able to submit it for review, can you please check and help me out, review the final edited article. Khalidqtr1968 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khalidqtr1968: you're unable to submit this draft, because it has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Filmforme

Looking for additional opinions about the subject here. Is this draft acceptable the way it is, or is further coverage needed? Thanks. Filmforme (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, I recommended that Filmforme come here for a second opinion. Here is the relevant discussion. Would appreciate if someone is willing to take a second look and provide some feedback. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Filmforme, I took a look and left a comment on the draft. I agree with the decline. S0091 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

01:38, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Badabingbadaboong

What I need help is finding examples of a primary or independent, reliable, secondary source of information. The user Drimes really didnt go in depth on what an example of those sources are, he just shot down my draft. Could someone please go further in depth on the problems with my website, considering that there's literal proof that DC Comics announced that this is a crossover event? Badabingbadaboong (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badabingbadaboong, Drmies was clear in his assessment. Reliable sources are required. These need to have high quality editorial control and an established track record of accuracy and error correction. The sources need to be independent. That means that the coverage does not recapitulate press releases and is completely uninfluenced by any marketing, public relations or advertising activity by DC Comics. The coverage must be significant. It must devote a significant amount of detail to the topic. Brief, passing mentions are inadequate. So, which of your references meet that stringent three part standard? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Bhubaneswar2009

can we use school website as a reference for staff details and student enrollment details in school articles? Bhubaneswar2009 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed are references to published reliable sources that are independent of this school that devote significant coverage to the school. Once notability has been indisputably established, then you can use the school's website for uncontroversial details, but that does nothing to establish or bolster notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 10 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Hello, could you please tell me why this article was removed? What do you find in the text, that you believe that feels like an advertisement? Most importantly, how can I improve it? עומר תשבי (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, עומר תשב. This passage is among many that are overtly promotional: In his Hebrew University lab, Reifen studied and developed a process to extract an almost-pure protein powder from chickpeas. According to Ram, chickpeas have “several unique attributes that make it a particularly successful source for meat, fish and dairy-product substitutes”.Reifen states that “As opposed to protein produced from other legumes, the chickpea isolate has a neutral flavor. What’s more, it is clear, has no aroma and can be processed into a wide variety of textures”. As opposed to Soy Protein, Reifen states that “Soy contains feminine sex hormones – phytoestrogens – in immense quantities… Another drawback…, is that soy causes allergies. Another major problem is that soybeans only grow in certain parts of the world because they require specific climatic conditions”. That simply regurgitates the promotional claims of people closely associated with the company. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources entirely independent of the company say about the company. We should never include any evaluative praise referenced to company people. Otherwise, Wikipedia articles about companies would always say, "We build the best widgets!!" That is the function of the company's website, not of a neutrally written encyclopedia article about the company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 10 May 2023 review of submission by BioTechDon1

Checking how to re-submit for approval. Received a decline in February and (hopefully!) rectified the article to reflect the reviewer's comments but worried this is being treated as permanently declined. Is there a way to re-submit? BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BioTechDon1: you have resubmitted the draft; it is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - amazing! Thank you! BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

just want to write article for a bio graphy Rhichsi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhichsi: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and is pending deletion. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or other social media for posting personal profiles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request your kind assistance in publishing an article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz on Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts, my previous attempts were rejected, and I believe with your guidance and expertise, we can successfully create a comprehensive and well-sourced article.

Muhammad Umar Mumtaz is a notable web developer and social media marketer based in Pakistan. His contributions in the field of web development and social media marketing have garnered significant attention and recognition. I strongly believe that an article on his professional achievements and contributions would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's content.

To address the concerns raised in the previous rejection, I have taken the following steps to improve the article:

Notability: I have gathered additional reliable sources that establish Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's significance in the field. These sources include reputable publications, news outlets, and industry-specific websites, all of which provide comprehensive coverage of his work.

Sources: I have diligently compiled a list of reliable sources that support the information presented in the article. These sources include interviews, articles, and reports from credible sources known for their journalistic integrity and accuracy.

Neutral Tone: I have revised the article to ensure a neutral and unbiased tone throughout. The content now focuses on presenting factual information supported by reliable sources, avoiding any promotional or subjective language.

Structure: The article has been reorganized into distinct sections, such as Early Life, Career, and Personal Life, each providing well-developed and relevant information about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's background, professional journey, and personal achievements.

Clear and Concise Writing: The revised article uses clear and concise language, making it accessible to a general audience. Technical terms and jargon have been appropriately explained or replaced with layman's terms where necessary.

I kindly request your guidance and support in reviewing the revised article and providing feedback on any further improvements or adjustments required to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. I am eager to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community to ensure the article meets the highest standards of reliability, verifiability, and neutrality.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to contribute a well-crafted and informative article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz to Wikipedia. 

Rhichsi (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refer to my previous reply (and please don't start multiple threads on the same issue). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 10 May 2023 review of submission by 167.102.157.170

I know the citations for Parker Select , The Takeover, and Boss Battle Bonanza are youtube videos, but they're actual episodes of the episodes listed above. Is there any way I can still cite said episodes without linking the youtube videos? 

167.102.157.170 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 10 May 2023 review of submission by ThumpLocal

I am asking for assistance as this is a historic business in a historic location with references including this recent article published by the Englewood Colorado Historic Preservation Society. You can see the article when scrolling down to the second page here http://www.historicenglewood.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Englewood-Newsletter-March-2023.pdf

Please help us as we have been trying for quite some time to get this article published.

Thank you in advance. ThumpLocal (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to properly declare your conflict of interest on your user page, the article has been created under a number of different titles now all deleted, this version has been declined and rejected, the topic isn't notable please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been declined twice then rejected. I second the rejection. Not notable. I don’t intend to be harsh, but it’s time to give up on this. It will never be accepted. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

06:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Sandipan1997

I am submitting an article which is getting rejected each time for different reasons. Kindly help me Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandipan1997: no, it has been declined three times, and finally rejected, always for the same reason, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable.
And you have been asked to disclose your relationship with this subject (or any other that you're writing about) but haven't done so; please do it now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship with the company Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Separated By My Leader the unsourced draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Kostaru76

Dear Sir/Madam, I am trying to obtain assistance in order to execute the following recommendations of my Draft reviewer.

Comment: Please remove the external links from the body of the article, we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Also needs severe ref cleanup and a lead section. 🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 13:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Please can you highlight for me which exactly external links I have to remove from the body of the article, because there are external links to other Wikipedia pages and also to several other newspapers. The reviewer of my draft also states the following: “ This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I have used different sources, some of which I have found in the Google Scholar database. These are international journals and the Cambridge database, and other sources refer to Bulgarian newspapers and electronic tabloids. If they have been considered untrustful, I will remove them. I kindly ask if you can reply to me with some more detailed guidance that will help me improve my article to meet Wikipedia standards. Kind Regards Kostaru76 (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the external links that need to be removed [1], [2] and [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Does this article have a chance to be accepted to wiki? עומר תשבי (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: possibly, if the subject is deemed notable, and the article complies with the relevant policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:56, 11 May 2023 review of draft by MAXOQ


I want this article to be published MAXOQ (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MAXOQ: please don't start multiple sections, thank you.
You haven't submitted the draft, so it hasn't been reviewed, and therefore cannot be published.
Not that there's much point in submitting it, as it wouldn't be accepted anyway, as it stands. In fact, it looks like it's pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:43:05, 11 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3


Hello! While making final changes to my submission on Pike (John Pike Powers) Powers, the article was somehow deleted. Is there a way I can recover the draft? I would appreciate any help you can provide. This has been months of learning. 

Thank you!! Raye Ward


Reward3 (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1154296312"