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 Thompkin1961 (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 16 August 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Adin_Dobkin). 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


August 10

01:44, 10 August 2023 review of submission by Maridl83

Hello, I was wondering why this draft is not considered qualified for a Wikipedia page. I thought the sources would be considered in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. Maridl83 (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maridl83 As noted by the reviewer, the sources are entirely press releases or announcements of routine business activities. They are no independent sources with significant coverage of the topic, that chose on their own to write about it and not base what they write on materials from the company, describing what they see as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as such about itself).
You made a paid editing disclosure on your user page, and then removed it, why? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maridl83, your draft relies heavily on references to Business Wire, which is a commercial service that distributes press releases. In other words, a business writes a press release, and then they pays X number of dollars to Business Wire, and Business Wire distributes their press release word for word. That is the exact opposite of an independent source. Several other sources are simply regurgitating press releases with no evidence of independent reporting. Your very first reference to Industrial Distribution is filled with tell-tale phrasing like The company said and SureWerx said the change and then includes lengthy quotes from the company's CEO and board chairman. That is obvious recapitulation of a press release, and accordingly, this source and others like it are not independent and are of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 10 August 2023 review of submission by Indiana6724

I don’t understand why my article is getting deleted even though there are many articles that use articles for musicians with a couple passing mentions (verktroid) yet my article has been denied multiple times?Indiana6724 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article called Verktroid and it is not remotely clear how Draft:Home (musician) would pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry typo, Ramona Andra Langley Indiana6724 (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Indiana6724
Unfortunately there are hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that require improvement and may not pass our notability threshold- it's just that no one has gotten around to removing them or cleaning them up. This means you should not use existing articles as a basis for new articles (see Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists).
At the moment your draft does not seem to show how Randy passes the strict Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. Check that link for requirements. Qcne (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it just feels like the system is just luck. Indiana6724 (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the criteria in that notability policy, and if you can prove Randy meets those criteria, then they should be able to have an article. If you can't prove the criteria then it may simply be Wikipedia:Too soon. Qcne (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use twitter if it’s for quotation? Indiana6724 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE which explains when you can cite Twitter (or other social media accounts). It has limited use and cannot be used to establish notability. In essence you can use Twitter as long as the tweet is by Randy and states a simply uncontroversial fact about themselves, such as a date of birth. Qcne (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 10 August 2023 review of submission by Alicia C. K.

Hi Wiki-Team, I just wanted to ask when the review of this page will be done. Cause I'm waiting for this page to be reviewed since 3 months. Is there an opportunity to accelerate the process? All the best and thank you in advance! Alicia Alicia C. K. (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alicia C. K.: normally I would say there is no way to expedite the review process, but in this case it was such an obvious fail that I've gone ahead and declined your draft. The 'Biography' section is completely unreferenced. Please note that in articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for the quick answer. I submitted it again - no with the references. It would be so amazing if you could review the page again. Cause there will be a global conference soon and it would be lovely to also get the Wikipedia article not only in German. Thank you so much and have a nice day :) Alicia C. K. (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has just been declined due to lack of references. Every material statement in your draft needs to be referenced, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Qcne (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 10 August 2023 review of submission by 84.140.62.2

Very dear team,

Thank you for your message and the request to edit the article so that it can be published. Since the article meets the relevance criteria - it's an outstanding photographer - I'm not entirely sure what specific weaknesses you see. Is it possible to be more specific about what should be added?

Thank you for the support! 84.140.62.2 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
You've got a lot of references here, which is going into Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory. I really don't think 8 separate references for the Skin film is appropriate.
Mallam needs to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria, and the easiest way to do that is to show significant coverage about him in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Mallam.
Could you please pick out just the three main sources that fit these criteria and cite them in a Reply here on the Help Desk? We'll then be able to better judge if Mallam meets the notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that him being an "outstanding photographer" (which is your own personal opinion?) does not confer inherent notability. In the Wikipedia context notability means significant coverage in those types of sources mentioned above. Qcne (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 10 August 2023 review of submission by Fellow22

Hello, I would like to know how best to improve the article references. Most sources available online are from news articles. Fellow22 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellow22: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, therefore improving it at this stage would be a wasted effort, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the clarification Fellow22 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 10 August 2023 review of submission by 137.59.68.24

How to create a company pages- For WhyDonate a Crowdfunding platform 137.59.68.24 (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore: IP asked identical question at WP:TH a few moments prior. IP user: Please don't waste volunteer resources asking the same question in the same place at the same time! Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

02:34, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Tintinthereporter226

I'm not sure how to add sufficient references to this draft to establish WP:GNG, as I had added quite a lot to it. There are quite a lot of stories since this subject is part of a popular TV franchise, so I don't think adding sources in itself is an issue. The main issue I have would be if they are sufficient to establish notability.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:08, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Elttaruuu

When I made an AFC draft of Gaylors it was accepted as notable but then thrown out again for having similar code to my first Gaylors article. I’m wondering if a few people can determine notability of this, as it seems to me to be notable and additionally, seems to be gaining notability as a subject with recent events. Additionally, struggling with the critique that Kaylors is less notable than Gaylors. Much of the criticism I got when I made a Gaylor article seemed to stem from a lack of focus in the article because gaylor can be so broad. I thought a Kaylor article could maintain the notability of Gaylor (which seems prevalent to me) but tighten the subject matter of the article so it’s not about a thousand tangentially gay Taylor Swift subjects. I keep taking a stab at this, not out of defiance, but because I believe in the quality of the subject matter as an article and am believing that subjects can evolve in their relevance and my skills can improve to make an article more worthy here. TLDR: Would just like another person (preferably someone uninvolved in the conversation so far) to go through the article and the sources and confirm it is not noteable or it is noteable before I give up on this. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.98.234.162

All the information is properly researched and reliable.we have also used necessary references from medias and other platforms which were also reliable Still its getting rejected? What changes should we need to make to prove this page reliable 115.98.234.162 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't make any changes. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.98.234.162

What changes should i make to my page to make it reliable 115.98.234.162 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are independent or reliable you clearly have not read what constitutes a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Samantha.jackson5678

Hi, I recently sent in my article for an electric vehicle charging manufacturer (Lectron EV), but my submission was declined because it read more like an advertisement and lacked citations from diverse independent and trustworthy sources. After receiving this feedback, I tried my best to reword the content and write it from the neutral point of view and put reliable sources. I have not used any PR to back the information as it is against the wikipedia policies. Concerning the structure, I carefully constructed the article by layering facts upon each other and then tweaked the sentence formation to enhance readability.

Previously, I tried to create the article for Lectron EV, but did not provide the paid-contribution discloure. However, I learned about this disclosure policy of wikipedia and immediately disclosed that I am being paid to edit as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I request you to please guide me what improvements can I make further to get this article approved and which entirely adheres to the wikipedia guidelines. In particular, I would highly appreciate if you guide me on the content and references that I have written. If you highlight the mistakes in the draft will be of great help for me. Therefore, I welcome any feedback or suggestions in this area.

This is the content and references that I have used.

Lectron EV is an American electric vehicle charging manufacturer founded in Minnesota, United States with global headquarters in in Los Angeles, California, with additional offices in Hong Kong and Shenzhen.[1] Lectron EV charging products are available on Amazon, Walmart, The Home Depot, AutoZone, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Target, Sam’s Club.[2] [3]

History[edit | edit source] Lectron EV was founded in 2017 as an electric vehicle charging company by Christopher Maiwald, who is also the founder and Managing Director of Wasserstein Home.[4] [5] Jay Goldman is the current Chief Revenue Officer. Previously Goldman served in senior positions at Faraday Future, EVgo, and PlugShare.[6] [7] In March, 2020, the company established a retail partnership with AutoZone.[2]

References https://ev-lectron.com/pages/business-inquiries

https://fuelsmarketnews.com/lectron-unveils-new-retail-partnership-with-autozone/

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/vehicles-of-the-future-christopher-maiwald-of-lectron-on-the-leading-edge-technologies-that-are-2589f28649ff

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/lectron-ev-home-charger?slide=3

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/the-future-is-now-christopher-maiwald-of-wasserstein-home-on-how-their-technological-innovation-bfaa51c80f99#:~:text=Christopher%20Maiwald%20is%20the%20Founder,options%20and%20poor%20video%20quality.

https://dot.la/moves-produce-pay-2659494252.html

https://www.electrive.com/2018/08/19/evgo-reenforces-board-with-three-executives/

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Samantha.jackson5678 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samantha.jackson5678: so what is your question? The draft  Courtesy link: Draft:Lectron EV has been resubmitted and is awaiting another review. (And please don't post your draft content here, thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that interviews are not independent sources neither is their own website. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 11 August 2023 review of submission by DKFAR

The references listed are from lengthy published articles. Where exactly can I improve on this?

Thank you DKFAR (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of your sources,
  1. is an interview, which does not establish notability as it is not an independent source(it's the person speaking about themselves). Interviews can be used for some purposes, but not to establish notability
  2. IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable
  3. just documents the existence of his Tim Hortons jingle
  4. is an ad containing the jingle
None of these are significant coverage of Mr. Krystal. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror

I do not understand why the article keeps getting declined. I renewed almost all sources to reliable sources (after the first decline) and tried to source almost every sentence. There are articles published which have alot more content but a fraction of the sources. Can you help me or tell me where to get assistance on the issue? Drmirror (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmirror Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Regarding your draft, you have documented this person's work, but not summarized independent reliable sources that describe what makes him meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. As odd as it may sound, you probably have too many sources. To pass this process, most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage of the topic to be summarized. What are your three absolute best sources that give this man significant coverage, describing what they see as important/significant/influential about him? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I almost thought the same thing, as other articles have less sources. These are the most relevant in my opinion:
https://www.theasset.com/article-esg/47107/db-names-esg-chief-investment-officer
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/deutsche-warns-against-crypto-currencies-risk-of-total-loss?leadSource=uverify%20wall
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/deutsche-bank-executive-says-esg-is-now-entering-phase-three
What do you think? I am happy to hear from you. Drmirror (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that
  1. is an annoucement of his being named to a position, a routine activity
  2. I cannot read it due to a paywall(which is fine) but it seems to just publicize an announcement he made
  3. also cannot read it but it seems to largely be composed of quotes by him
None of these are significant coverage of him and what makes him important. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I understand your arguments but the first decliner of the article, told me that those Bloomberg sources are solid and more of them are needed. When I compare with this article Marion Laboure#cite note-10 I see alot of similarities. Do you think I should shorten the article for Markus H.-P. Müller and reduce the amount of sources for it to be passed? Drmirror (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as the reviewer notes, remove anything from Müller himself, and then summarize your top three to five best sources about him. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 11 August 2023 review of submission by DingDam

Why my article submission was declined I write article and post on it. Now I receive a decline message of my post. Can you tell me reason. DingDam (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DingDam I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. I left you a reason for the decline at the top of your draft. It reads as an essay, not as an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, you need to summarize what others say about the topic. You also only have one source, which seems to be a blog- blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they usually lack journalistic standards of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.240.90.106

I am unable to understand why this request is getting declined . There are many such companies on Wikipedia which has pages . 115.240.90.106 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is being considered on its own merits and with reference to the currently prevailing policies and guidelines, not by comparing it to other articles that may exist. The decline reasons are given in the decline message, and the accompanying comments; please study them carefully. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tata Motors has an article. For this subsidiary to merit an article on its own, there must be coverage of it alone establishing that it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Museumgoer99

Hello,

I am very grateful that my draft has been reviewed. The reviewer left the comment that the article is not adequately supported by reliable sources. For the general overview, I used The Guardian and Artnet. There are currently no scholarly articles about the database that I would be able to cite. For some references, I used the press release from the Ukrainian Ministry, simply because the information was not mentioned in independent newspapers.

What would be the best approach? Should I wait until the database has been written about in scholarly publications?

Many thanks! Museumgoer99 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Museumgoer99: we don't especially need to see scholarly publications, we just need to ensure that the information is properly supported by referencing; at the moment the 'Database contents' section is mostly unreferenced (which could arguably be solved by deleting the 2nd and 3rd para). (I say this assuming that Artnet News can be considered a reliable source, which it may be, but not necessarily.) There is, however, a problem with notability, in that only two secondary sources are cited, which means at least one more solid source would be needed to satisfy WP:GNG.
Both of these problems probably stem from the fact that this database has been launched only very recently, so it could be simply a case of waiting a few weeks or months to see if more sources pop up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you so much for your speedy, friendly and extremely helpful response. I will keep working on the article with the aim of resubmitting it when I feel that it is properly referenced throughout. As you say, it probably makes sense to wait a bit for more sources to pop up. Thanks again and have a great weekend! Museumgoer99 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Innerharmony4u

Hi folks! Thank you in advance for your help and advice! I am going to work on Denise's Wikipedia again, but I'm not sure how I add the necessary citations. I have many more articles that she has written in various publications. Does it need to link to that specific publications website page? Or the books she has written link where the book is for sale? I have been looking at Colette Baron Reid listing, and I'm not sure thats a good one to base what I'm trying to do on. Thank you! Innerharmony4u (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it would not be "Denise's Wikipedia"; but a Wikipedia article about Denise. Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not each individual article.
You misunderstand what a Wikipedia article is for- it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It isn't a place to summarize what the person says about themselves, such as articles they wrote, or interviews they gave, or the content of their website.
If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community(unlike the vast majority of articles). 331dot (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with Denise, please read conflict of interest. If you have any paid relationship with Denise, or are otherwise editing as part of your job, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

07:33, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 2.38.66.128

I am not sure I understand the reviewer's reasons. He has rejected the article due to a "lack of reliable sources." However, this article contains six different citations each of them of published academic articles and books which are available online and in any good research library. One of these is a primary source from the seventeenth century. This article has been created in a history university class on the Mughals under the supervision of a Mughal historian. 2.38.66.128 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this draft has been only declined, not rejected, meaning you're welcome to resubmit once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
Secondly, that decline reason not adequately supported by reliable sources can mean either that the sources cited are not reliable, or that the way the sources are cited is insufficient to support the contents. I'm guessing the latter is the case here, given that there are several paragraphs without any referencing.
The information must come from reliable published sources; this is important to ensure accuracy and verifiability, as well as to avoid original research. Frequent inline citations tell the reader which source has provided what information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Jesslee01

Hello! I would like to add more tags to this draft but am having a hard time figuring out how to do this. I added a couple, but now the link will not allow me to add additional tags. Thank you! -Jess Jesslee01 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are a relatively minor thing to worry about and as long as you have a couple that is sufficient for now. Please review the feedback I've left you on the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 109.76.88.29

This page needs to be accepted! This is an author being studied in my son's school and there is no wikipedia page for him! 109.76.88.29 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. The draft article was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. He does not seem to meet our criteria for a notable author and as such there can be no article about him here. School projects are not relevant, and Wikipedia should not be used as a source for school projects, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 12 August 2023 review of submission by TheNuggeteer

My draft got rejected, but i dont know the reason. TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft cannot be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reviewer left the reason for their decline at the top of your draft- you have insufficient reliable sources to establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Oymiadbugj

Why was the article deleted? I do not know him nor his family. He was my king and I created that article many references. Oymiadbugj (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oymiadbugj: this draft has been deleted as overly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Oymiadbugj. As I am not an admin, I cannot look at the deleted draft. But I can tell you that when a draft is too promotional, it always means that you have written either what you know or think about the subject, or what the subject says about himself (or what his associates say about him). Wikipedia is not interested in either of these things, at all.
What you need to do is First, find several reliable published sources, completely unconnected with him - not his words, not based on interviews or press releases, not the words of his employees or associates, but people with no connection who have chosen to write at some length about him.
Then, if you have found at least three such source, forget everything you know about him, and write an article that summarizes in your own words what those sources say, adding nothing. If you cannot find three such sources, then you will know that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should't put any further time or effort into this, as it will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Caesarc

Good morning! I am writing a wiki article about American author Gene Caesar. At first I was able to upload photos without difficulty, but now they are being refused. These are snapshots I took of book covers, and one family snapshot of the author. What should I do? Thank you. Cheryl Caesarc (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caesarc: I'm no expert in copyright issues, but I have a feeling that if the book covers you've taken photos of are still in copyright, you're probably not allowed to upload them as your own work. However, this isn't really an AfC matter (not least because images have no bearing on whether a draft is accepted), so you should rather ask this at the Commons help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The books are from the 1950s and 60s, so still under copyright. On the other hand, I am the last direct relative, so copyright reverts to me. And certainly a family Kodak was never under copyright at all. Also, the photos I uploaded on Wednesday were all accepted, while similar photos on Thursday were not. So I think there might be a glitch in the system. I'll keep digging, but I appreciate your input. Caesarc (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesarc: if, as you suggest, you are the copyright owner, then you would need to formally hand this over. By doing so you may have to relinquish your proprietary rights in the IP.
When you say the photos you uploaded earlier were 'accepted', this only means that the system took at face value your assurance that they are your own work. If that turns out not to be the case, then they may get deleted.
And lastly, I'm pretty sure even a family snap is the copyright of whoever took it, as copyright arises automatically at the point of creation, without anyone having to formally claim or register it.
I repeat, you may wish to enquire at the Commons HD, where they probably know these things better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! CC Caesarc (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As DoubleGrazing says, the images will not affect whether or not your draft is accepted; but unless the creator of the covers was working under a contract which specifically assigned the copyright in the covers to Glen Caesar, then you probably do not own the copyright to the covers.
I'm afraid that, in its present form, I don't believe the draft has any hope of being accepted. It reads like a piece of primary research; but original research is forbidden in Wikipedia. I couldn't be bothered to wade through the long list of references to his own work (all of which should be removed, as they are irrelevant to a Wikipedia article) to see if there are any references to independent scholarly or critical writing about him: those (exclusively) are what you need to base the article on. Please read your first article.
In addition, as his heir, you have a conflict of interest - this doesn't prevent you from writing the draft, but it makes it even more important to put absolutely nothing from your own thoughts or knowledge into the draft, but exclusively base it on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about him. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 12 August 2023 review of submission by StormBarn23

The article is described as lacking reliable sources, though it cites the original papers of De Vries and Rose on which the law is based, plus other refereed journal papers and published books on vision science. Please could you tell me what parts of the article remain insufficiently sourced, or which of my sources are deemed unreliable, and I'll do my best to rectify the issue. StormBarn23 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original papers of De Vries and Rose are primary sources. Wikipedia articles must be almost entirely based on secondary sources. Which of your sources by people who were not collaborators with De Vries or Rose have significant discussion of the De Vries Rose law specifically? Those, only, are what most of the article should be based on. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:43, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Apswikicontrib

Hello, I want help for improving this article as it has been declined. I will try to improve it as per the reviewers comments, however it would be helpful if I know which of the references that I have added are not relevant. Few of the references that are not relevant as per my understandings are from YouTube, isn't it? I would like to know if the references from the different art galleries where winners were announced are relevant or not. And also, the refences of news coverages are relevant or not? Apswikicontrib (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with the person you are writing about?
This draft need to have some sources with more extensive coverage of her, like professional reviews of her work. Right now it reads like a resume, merely documenting her work. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for the important hints, will try to rework, btw know the person indirectly. Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably need to start all over again, I'm afraid - begin by reading your first article. A Wikiepdia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about the subject, nothing more.
None of the gallery publications is of any relevance at all to the article: if an independent writer has written at some length about one of her shows, then cite that independent review. If no indepedent writer has covered a show, then it is dubious that the show should even be mentioned in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine, thanks for the valuable suggestions and more insights, things are looking more clearer now, will try to rework! Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Muhammadshakoor12

atleast assist me to how t proof the identity of that company , please 

Muhammadshakoor12 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhammadshakoor12: what is your relationship with this business? And what is your relationship with user Alexxxxx125? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Proving the identity of the company" is of absolutely no relevance to Wikiepedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
If you can find several independent reliable sources about Zam Zam, then it might be possible to write an article. If you cannot, your repeated attempts to create this are a total waste of your time, and of the time of all the volunteers who have repeatedly attempted to explain this to you. ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 12 August 2023 review of submission by 100.35.167.233

I resoundingly dispute the latest critique of my Wikipedia article that I submitted on John G. Dooley, Track Announcer. First and foremost, I am an accredited member of the turfwriting community and serve as a director on the National Turf Writers and Broadcasters, which is an organization that has been around over a half century. The website that I used to work for (Horseracing.net/us) is not a betting website. That is not accurate. We never took wagers and only published articles pertaining to the sport of horse racing. As far as the other sources I used, they are published on creditable site and John Dooley is a professional track announcer with loads of experience over 30 years of work. He trained with Tom Durkin, who has a Wikipedia page. I need some kind of response to this because I think my artcile adds greatly to the sport that I serve as a full-time member of the media. 100.35.167.233 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. When I visit the Horseracing.net home page, I see a neon green button at the top right that says "Free bets". That sort of thing is a big red flag for reviewers. The website is crammed with links to commercial online betting sites who presumably pay for placement. It looks a lot like an online tout sheet to me. As for your credentials, nobody cares on Wikipedia because we have no way of verifying the claims of an anonymous contributor, and self-proclaimed experts enjoy no special privileges here. All we care about is whether or not your contributions fully comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. As for Tom Durkin (sportscaster), the references in that article are far stronger, including a 24 paragraph article in the New York Times devoted to him. Your draft, on the other hand, relies on poor quality references like interviews (not independent), coverage labeled as generated by press releases (not independent), YouTube videos (highly dubious), and at least two references that don't even discuss Dooley but instead discuss the indisputably notable Deshawn L. Parker. You claim to be a professional writer. Wikipedia has high standards. Learn our standards if you want to be successful here. Start by reading Your first article and Reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be a professional writer, sir. I am a professional turfwriter for Thoroughbred Daily News. I am on the masthead. The example of the Tom Durkin article from the NYT is hardly a comparison. He's Tom Durkin! The most famous track announcer outside of Chick Anderson. Why would Press Releases from track's that John Dooley was hired not be considered "creditable" source material? You Tube videos with spots from ESPN or local TV News aren't considered sources of value? Then how else would someone access such archival material? Ah, Deshawn Parker's record is considered notable in racing circles. He's a George Woolf Award winner. You claim to have high standards. Do you understand that advertising budgets are sources from a number of locations? The Daily Racing Form, is that a creditable source? It's been around since 1894. They have adds, give tips and present news. Horseracing.net/us may not have been around as long, but the key is that they don't take wagers. A piece of journalism in the 21st century can comes from a number of locations. Did you read my piece on John Dooley? It covers the last Arlington Million and I used creditable sources to accentuate the sale to the Chicago Bears. It has context. I would like to file a complaint. JNCampbell5 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JNCampbell5, I'm quite prepared to believe that you have extensive experience in writing for something that is not Wikipedia, and you are familiar with a world which I know nothing about (I can only guess what a "turfwriter" might be), but is not Wikipedia.
If you wish to write in Wikipedia I strongly advise you to read about notability, reliable sources and your first article. You might also find expert editors useful.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 12 August 2023 review of submission by Fame0001

Hello, It seems i'm having trouble making a article for a game on this platform. And would like to request help by someone, Or help by having any and all submissions reviewed as quick as possible through a quick form of communication. Fame0001 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fame0001. Your promotional draft was about a video game released today. Your draft was also unreferenced. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic and are also entirely independent of the topic. Until this game has received such independent coverage, it is not possible to write an acceptable article about it. Please also be aware that promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So gather community streams and videos for the game in question? ATM I thought of setting up the wiki with the release to give context in search results. So people don't think the product is a scam or a April fools game released to ifch.io with no actual content Fame0001 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much more useful would be video game magazine (or e-magazine) reviews of the game.Naraht (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll see if there's anyone developers can contact for that. Then get it up Fame0001 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also need to find a copy of my deleted draft for when I re edit the page, or else I really can provide more then references to the article 😅 Fame0001 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a draft is deleted as promotional, there is rarely much in it that is worth reusing, because it has almost certainly been written BACKWARDS. When you find suitable sources, your job will be to put aside everything you know, think, or believe about the game, and write a summary (in your own words) of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much just taken the role of writing down references of the game until someone comes along and fixes the page. I really can't write the wiki page in the style wiki is required to have. Sorry. Besides having a writer assigned to me to assist me in this I can't do much. Fame0001 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fame0001 then an article is likely not possible. Like you, everyone is a volunteer here and no one is "assigned" to anything. Editors choose to do what they want to do and if an editor wants to write an article they are responsible for gathering the necessary sources and writing the content unless other interested volunteers are willing to help but mostly it's a single editor that establishes the foundation proving notability then others may come in later to add or improve it. See the guidance below about WikiProject Video Games and you are welcome to post a note at WT:WikiProject Video Games to see if anyone is interested or has other guidance for you. S0091 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fame0001, community streams and videos are not reliable sources. We are looking for sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fame0001, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

03:39, 13 August 2023 review of submission by 89.219.78.205

I gave sources and changes and I don't know if it has reached the quality you want or not So Please make the necessary changes as a professional writer and manager of this Wikipedia. And fix the necessary places Is it possible for one of the administrators to help me to improve and approve? Draft:Ahmad_Bayati

89.219.78.205 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Wikipedia:NBLP where it shows the type of sources you may need to prove that he is notable. Furthermore this isn't the place to request others to continue your draft for you. — Karnataka talk 05:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 13 August 2023 review of submission by Jafar Jikamshi

How do I add my own Biography in Wikipedia Jafar Jikamshi (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jafar Jikamshi Ideally, you do not. You need social media. This ia an encyclopaedia 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I have account in so many social Media Platforms like Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Threads. Jafar Jikamshi (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a social media platform. This is an encyclopedia about notable topics with criteria for inclusion, and is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jafar Jikamshi Be content. If you are notable in a Wikipedia sense then wait for someone to write about you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 13 August 2023 review of submission by Dalmartahlil

I don't quite understand what is wrong with me, can you please help me Dalmartahlil (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalmartahlil The subject has to satisfy WP:BIO.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 13 August 2023 review of submission by HORSEMAN843

Why my article has been declined? Please specify the reasons. 

HORSEMAN843 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HORSEMAN843 I fixed your link. Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion. It was full of promotional language about his "journey", being a "distinguished figure", and much more. Articles should be written without embellishments, with a neutral point of view. Please read Your First Article.
Are you associated with him in some way? 331dot (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 13 August 2023 review of submission by Dthaokip2023

How to link another person to identify me? Dthaokip2023 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dthaokip2023. I am not sure what you are asking, but you appear to be trying to write an article about yourself. This is strongly discouraged, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Your current draft was declined as you have provided zero sources that prove that you meet our strict Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. Only persons who meet that threshold can have an article on Wikipedia.
Let us know if you have specific questions, Qcne (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dthaokip2023 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Autobiographical articles, while not forbidden, are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 13 August 2023 review of submission by Austria10

i just want my first article to be accepted please just submit it Austria10 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austria10: This is the wrong page to ask the question in that form as you are pointing to you user page. If you want to ask for advise on the article Draft:String quintet, C then the first thing you need to do is follow the links and advise given in the declined notification there. Please don't repost the draft article in your WP:user pages, as you appear to have done, because that is the place to tell other editors about yourself and your editing interests but is not a self-promotional page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that was supposed to be the first version of the draft and plus I din dint know what I was even doing Austria10 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry 8( Austria10 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what you are doing, I would suggest reading Help:Your first article closely, which will hopefully be of some help. Qcne (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JUST APROVE IT OR I WILL DO SOMETHING NOT NICE Austria10 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously take threats incredibly seriously and I have no choice but to report you to the Wikipedia administrators. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 13 August 2023 review of submission by 2600:6C50:47F:6C9D:A93B:DACA:B5F8:25D9

I object to the implication that the sources used in this article are not reputable or that the subject is only mentioned in passing. I see no evidence supporting these claims. The sources used in the creation of this article are highly regarded in the entertainment industry and the subject in question is mentioned on multiple occasion as a playing a pivotal roll in every project mentioned. Please reconsider this rejection as the subject of this article has multiple projects releasing in the next several months, as stated in the articles cited. 2600:6C50:47F:6C9D:A93B:DACA:B5F8:25D9 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted.
Much of the prose in the draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

01:59, 14 August 2023 review of submission by 187.252.200.30

Are the references not enough? Currently they have been added but I don't know if they might be useful. 187.252.200.30 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Adamjmc1213

I don't understand what secondary sources i can add, the governing body is known to be useless and giving out information 

Adamjmc1213 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamjmc1213: if you cannot find appropriate secondary sources, then it probably isn't possible to have an article on this topic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Michelecapurso

Cleanup needed to how the citing is done. Hi. My article Draft:Continuity In Education was declined because "Cleanup needed to how the citing is done". I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what type of cleanup needs to be done, and what references are not in order exactly? The feedback does not say this and it is hard for me to organize them without some example and clear directions. Thank you. Michelecapurso (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelecapurso: not sure, perhaps you need to ask the reviewer directly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michelecapurso I've fixed the formatting of your post so the draft link is in the correct place- we also don't need the whole url so I've fixed that too. It's not entirely clear to me what cleanup is needed- I would also suggest asking the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for your help and suggestions.
Michele Michelecapurso (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Toby3141

How do I make my article more notable? Toby3141 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make" it notable- No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. This draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Madeforall1

Greetings I need help and feedback with this article I’ve created, I’ve made relevant changes and citation to only news articles I saw on the web. Madeforall1 (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've submitted it for a review, a reviewer will eventually conduct a review and leave you feedback. This may take some time, so please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Arshan alif

why my page was declined? Arshan alif (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have rejected your draft rather than decline it, there is no evidence that you are notable in Wikipedia terms. This is NOT social media it is an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Imanluk

My article has been rejected twice one of the grounds on reliable sources.

However I have been trying very hard to use published sources only for this article. However African and Nigerian history have been mainly oral and not written. This situation made worse with colonisation where whole society fabric were obliterated and the colonial powers forbade traditional rulers engaging in certain activities including producing certain artefacts.

However based on the links you sent me on reliable sources of evidence I see that primary sources like oral interviews and artefacts are acceptable:

'A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as a scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.'(Primary Source)

For this project I carried out extensive research on Prince Aigbogun and everything I wrote are direct quotations from the interviewees who are community leaders who know his story very well. Knowing what I now know, these cover the point made that if he is not named the reference is not likely to be useful. 

Also it states in one of the links that I need only one published source:

• ‘We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

May I take these statements as correct and use them to source my article?

Question 2: My referencing has gone wrong and I do not know how to correct it. Please can you help me delete whichever part needs to be deleted.

Question 3: How do I cite oral sources within the text body?

Thank you very much for your help. 


Imanluk (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The article was not rejected, it was declined. Imanluk (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use oral sources, sources need to be published. Theroadislong (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Joaopsjardim

I would like to get help, in order to this page about this young prodigy player be posted, since there are other pages with more "irrelevant" players and haven't been denied. Thank you so much for your attention and comprehension Joaopsjardim (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joaopsjardim: you need to cite your sources using inline citations, see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB must be clearly supported by inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me as if any of your sources meet the criteria in golden rule. Where have people (probably journalists) written at length about her? That is what the article should be based on, almost exclusibely. If there are no such sources, then it is probalby TOOSOON, and she does not currently meet the criteria for WP:notability.
As for other articles existing: we have thousands and thousands of seriously sub-standard articles, most of them created in earlier days when we were not so careful about quality. Since this is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose, people do not often go back to these and improve or delete them. They are not relevant for evaluating a new article : see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 14 August 2023 review of submission by WerAnselm

Hello! Sorry, I couldn't manage to link the Itemizations to the appropriate text passage ... can someone do that for me or teach me the way? WerAnselm WerAnselm (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WerAnselm, I think by 'Itemizations' you mean references? If you're using the Visual Editor, see Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2. It's a fairly straight forward process- when you add the in-line citations a reference list will automatically be generated.
Let us know if that helps? Qcne (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Aweeryava

Help please post an article official. Thank you Aweeryava (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aweeryava. You have two unsubmitted drafts, Draft:FxPro Company and Draft:FxPro Group. These appear to be the same draft, but with different titles?
You need to press the Submit the draft for review! button for them to be submitted for review. They are currently not submitted. The wait time for draft article reviews is over 4 months, you will have to be patient.
Do you have a connection with the company in some way? Are you employed by them? If so you must make a paid editing disclosure and a conflict of interest disclosure immediately- failing to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use and can result in a loss of editing privileges.
Let us know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Livingstone578

I need help with my article. Livingstone578 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Livingstone578: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion as a copyright violation. For future reference, please see WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 14 August 2023 review of submission by Silverbow33

Does this organization count as notable?

Was looking through the references and questioned if the page meets the notable criteria. The ones I'm pretty sure are independent, secondary and reliable are: 1, 3, and 7. The big problem with political organizations is that a lot of the articles that they are featured in are not reliable because there is a politicized bias.

I know I submitted it fairly recently, I just don't want to go through the process of getting declined after 4 months because I don't have enough references. I'd rather fix it now before getting reviewed just for the sake of time. Let me know if you could take a look at it, thanks!

Thanks! Silverbow33 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbow33 You seem to be asking for a pre-review review, which we don't really do here; the best way to get feedback is to wait for a reviewer. Everyone would like their draft to be reviewed quickly, but that's a matter of chance.
I do find it curious that you seem to be questioning the notability of the topic your own draft. Typically one will want to figure that out first.
I can say that bias is not in and of itself a barrier to using a source, as all sources have biases. Unless the source is so biased that it makes things up out of whole cloth, or doesn't do fact checking, a source is generally okay. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it helpful to look at the List of perennial sources to get an idea of what is generally acceptable as sources. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

02:37, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Johsebb

The rejection of this article (with an invitation to revise) is based on a number of factors, but I'm puzzled by them. Some appear to be general:

  • This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. My sources are all published and most are well-known. Articles are in refereed journals. Which sources are not reliable? Which statements are not adequately supported? A number of points are supported by wikilinks rather than books or journal articles: Is that a problem?
  • This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view... What are examples of a non-formal tone or a non-neutral point of view?

In addition, the reviewer has made three comments:

  • Not enough inline citations. What are examples of statements that fail to have a needed citation?
  • Does not read like a Wikipedia article. This is a bit unclear. I have tried to follow both the general Wikipedia style requirements and those more specifically of the Mathematics WikiProject. Where have I failed?
  • Overly complicated to the average reader. The subject of this article is technical and theoretical. I've tried to make the article accessible by introducing it with examples that anyone can play with, and by continuing to use illustrative examples throughout. I feel that I have pitched this article at roughly the same level as, say, those on group theory and finite fields, for example. Is this not true?

I would sincerely appreciate clarification of these points so that I can move forward on a revision. Thanks for any assistance. Johsebb (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Lucy Ingram

I don't understand why my article on Stephen Buoro was declined (by someone who doesn't even have a special interest in Nigeria or Nigerian literature) for not having good enough references. It has 13 references. The article on Maddie Mortimer only has 8 and that got published. Lucy Ingram (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucy Ingram: firstly, a reviewer does not need to be a subject matter expert to evaluate whether a draft meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for publication.
Secondly, you should not make assumptions as to other editors' expertise or qualifications.
And thirdly, it isn't the number of sources which matters. Three solid ones may be enough to establish notability, whereas 13 flaky ones may not.
And finally, by comparing your draft to other articles that may exist you're on a hiding to nothing. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely has more than three solid sources. Lucy Ingram (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucy Ingram: and which ones would those be? Note that interviews don't count, as don't any other primary sources. I'd say the PW piece is okay, but that's just one, and one isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lucy Ingram. Please read the golden rule carefully, and evaluate the sources against those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that article reviewers or Wikipedia editors in general be experts in, or even knowledgeable in, the topic areas that they write about. Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic and showing how it is notable- such as a notable creative professional.
For one, interviews with the subject cannot be used to establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.
You write that his first novel had positive reviews- this could mean that his novel merits an article but not him personally- an article about the novel could summarize those reviews. To write about him personally it would help to summarize reviews of him as a writer generally. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 15 August 2023 review of submission by S.s.Grigera

Hello, this website was already declined 2x although it is similarly structured like other spin-off companies and uses similar reference sources. Could you please double check if it will be rejected again? Thank you for your support. S.s.Grigera (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.s.Grigera Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles that you have seen are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, and even exist for years. We can only address what we know about. Standards have also changed over time and what was once acceptable may be no longer, and it too is simply unaddressed yet. If you would like to help us, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Note that companies do not merit articles just because they exist- there is criteria for inclusion, which we callnotability, like the definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies (just like people) do not merit articles. An article must not merely document the existence of the company and tell what it does- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. We want sources that, on their own and not based on company materials(like interviews, press releases, and announcements of routine activities) to tell what they see as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). Please read Your First Article.
It seems that you work for this company(as you uploaded its logo), please make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure.
I would add that by uploading the company logo to Commons, you have made it available for anyone to use and sell as long as attribution is provided. If your company wants to do that, that's fine, but if not, it will need to be removed from Commons and uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use". This does carry some restrictions like not being able to be used in drafts, but images are not relevant to the draft approval process anyway, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S.s.Grigera: publicity materials and (other) primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 83.122.52.29

Javad Ramezani 83.122.52.29 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 15 August 2023 review of submission by 66.214.255.122

Preemptively submitted an article for review before a coworker was able to review it. Any possibility of removing it from the public sphere to review? 66.214.255.122 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, we don't really do pre-reviews but I can say your article in it's current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia (which is why a speedy deletion tag has been placed on it.)
It is full of promotional language and reads like a PR piece for an advert. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which does not allow promotion of any kind.
A Wikipedia article serves only to paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary source say about a subject. Please also check Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which is our threshold for what companies and organisations can have a Wikipedia article. If AEA Ribbon Mics does not pass the criteria in that policy, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
You also mention that you submitted it before a coworker was able to review it. By chance, are you an employee of AEA Ribbon Mics? If so, you must declare that you have both a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Not doing so is a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Service.
Writing a new article on Wikipedia is difficult. You must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 15 August 2023 review of submission by BurningBlaze05

Do have any suggestions for my page? There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that have little to none quality. How should I get my page up to a standard that is acceptable? BurningBlaze05 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurningBlaze05 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Please confirm that you have read the decline reason, and what additional help you feel you need 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Globalsoccerhero

Can someone please assist–this page continues to be deleted even after following citing requirements. I am also using the same citing sources as other Guyana National Team players. Globalsoccerhero (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Perhaps those other articles are problematic as well and simply not acted on yet. The draft was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 15 August 2023 review of submission by Jujupiter

Hi there! I'd like to add an image of the artist but have no idea how to get an image free of rights of him. What can I do to get one? I have sent him a direct message on Instagram but no replies. Any ideas what I could do? Thank you for your help! Jujupiter (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. It's not necessary to have an image in order for the draft to be accepted.
That said, the easiest way to get an image in terms of copyright is to take the image yourself. If that's not possible, and if the person does not make an image of themselves available with the appropriate copyright, there's not much you can do. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than worrying about an image, I suggest you put your effort into finding better sources for your draft. I haven't looked in detail, but it looks to me as if none of your sources are independent| of the artist. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Please study the Golden rule, and look for sources that meet all the requirements there (they do not have to be in English, if English sources are not available). If you do not provide some, I predict that the draft will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

02:16, 16 August 2023 review of submission by 173.56.78.92

Would like to see if the revisions are now good enough to be accepted. 173.56.78.92 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft and a reviewer will eventually come and check it. Or if you have a specific question you wish to ask, you can do that here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 16 August 2023 review of submission by AlokMishra123

We have tried creating this page 5 to 6 times, but it gets deleted.

Requesting your help in creating the page. AlokMishra123 (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlokMishra123: this has been each time deleted for being promotional. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 16 August 2023 review of submission by CaptainBondi

Hi,

I've helped edit an article moved to draft due to more sources. I've added different sources, both primary and secondary including from Football NSW which is the official governing body of football in the state. It has been rejected due not reliable sources. I am confused on what now constitutes as reliable sources for a football team? CaptainBondi (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainBondi: my guess, and it is only that, would be that the problem isn't so much the reliability or otherwise of the sources cited, but that there aren't enough citations to support the draft contents. (The not adequately supported by reliable sources in that particular decline notice can be a bit ambiguous, as it could mean either unreliable sources or insufficient support by way of citations.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I meant to add that notability is also not shown, given that three of the four sources cited are primary, and one is very close to the subject. Per WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Would adding additional sources from well-established news outlets covering sports in the country satisfy independent and reliable secondary sources? Thanks CaptainBondi (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainBondi: if those additional sources provide significant coverage of this club/team specifically, then yes, that would potentially establish notability. (Note that significant coverage excludes passing mentions, as well as routine reporting such as match coverage, player transfers, manager interviews, etc.)
The other issue is supporting the draft better, so that it is clear which source provides what information. For this purpose, we don't necessarily need more sources, but more citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 16 August 2023 review of submission by David Madbellics

Hello, I'm created draft about illegal recruitment, can you explain to me why, and and you also explain to me the requirements or steps how your draft will be finally approved? David Madbellics (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Madbellics: that's just a dictionary definition, not a viable encyclopaedia article. Also, being supported by just a single source – indeed, a dictionary – isn't enough to show that the term/concept is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Please expand on the content, and add more/better sources which meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks thank you very much, good evening David Madbellics (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 16 August 2023 review of submission by Thompkin1961

Just wondering if this now passes muster as I have made what I think are the necessary additions based on the last suggestion. Thompkin1961 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1170715478"