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 176.33.244.251 (talk) at 07:35, 25 September 2023 (→‎14:05, 22 September 2023 review of submission by 176.33.244.251: Reply). 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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


September 19

03:21, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MARcreative

How do I get my draft accepted for review? Also, what sources are needed to get accepted? The person I am writing about is a violinist. Is IMDB an acceptable source to cite? MARcreative (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MARcreative. What is your relationship with this violinist? IMDb contains user generated content, and is therefore not a reliable source. Read WP:IMDB for details. Your draft is entirely unreferenced which is a policy violation. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that independent, reliable published sources devote to the topic. Your draft is like a human body without a skeleton. It is not viable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 19 September 2023 review of submission by 101.2.164.14

I cannot identify sources which are considered reliable for Wikipedia articles and are independent of the subject, and I cannot understand how I can write the article from a neutral point of view. 101.2.164.14 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then don't write the article. ltbdl (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 19 September 2023 review of submission by IlistenClassicalMusic

I got notification that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Can someone tell me whats wrong with my article? IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does little more than document the existence of the festival and who has performed there. Instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the festival, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. Please just take your three best sources that describe how the event is notable and summarize them- not every performer needs to be documented as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:52, 19 September 2023 review of submission by 85.14.12.200

I need advise how to get the article posted, what needs to be improved, as this is just a small article, the person did not have a significant football carrier, but still? 85.14.12.200 (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is no possibility of publishing even a short article ('stub') that lists two sources, neither of which is actually cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 September 2023 review of submission by RJ SR-NL

My draft was declined because a moderator said a similar page already exists in the database. I disagree. It is almost the same but STILL 2 different types of ACADEMICS.

How to dispute? Please a new review. RJ SR-NL (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should first attempt to appeal to the reviewer directly to see if you can persuade them to see it your way. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MichaelAM

Hi, I submitted a page on 25th April. I know there's a large backlog but wanted to check that everything is ok or if there is something I need to do. Many thanks, Mike MichaelAM (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted it and it is pending. The only thing you need to do is continue to be patient. You are also free to edit the draft further if you need to. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 19 September 2023 review of submission by Summitcunc

I recently submitted a page which unfortunately has been declined. I am curious as to how this is a conflict of interest, as this article only includes facts about our credit union, not derived from biased notions.

If it is deemed a true conflict of interest, I would like specific examples of items that need correction. It does not help to just state an article and say this is the reason why.

Thank you. Summitcunc (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Summitcunc It is a COI in the basis that you have stated. I see you have been blocked. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted as promotional, user blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 19 September 2023 review of submission by 160.39.69.28

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Natali_Bravo-Barbee was declined due to inline citations. I don't see anywhere that's missing a citation. Can someone point me in the right direction? 160.39.69.28 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the 'Notable Works' section has eight paragraphs, four of which don't have any citations. As a bare minimum, a paragraph should have at least one citation, otherwise it is by definition unsupported.
Another example: the first paragraph says she was born in 1983, but the only citation in that para doesn't mention her year of birth. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 19 September 2023 review of submission by AnnLWSFebruary84wiki

I am unclear why my article on the LESBIAN WRITERS SERIES has not been accepted. I is referenced in a number of publications including:

IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT Clothespin Fever Press1989 SUNDAYS AT SEVEN Alamo Square Press/Androgyny Books 1996 - page 9 The Los Angeles Times - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-29-me-lit29-story.html


Please be so kind to let me know how I can have an article on the LESBIAN WRITERS SERIES that launched at A DIFFERENT LIGHT BOOKS on February 18, 1984 and ran till November 1998, published on WIKIPEDIA 


AnnLWSFebruary84wiki (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnLWSFebruary84wiki: looking at Draft:The Lesbian Writers Series, it seems your draft has been repeatedly abandoned, deleted (drafts which aren't edited for six months get automatically deleted), restored, and abandoned again.
On a separate point, it would seem you have a conflict of interest (COI) with regards to this topic. I will post a message on your talk page with advice and instructions for managing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 19 September 2023 review of submission by Renilo77

I am new to creating page in wiki. I want to submit a biography of a living person however it was declined. And i need help as to how it can be refined and made acceptable for publishing. if anyone can guide/edit my draft for re-submission for acceptance, please. Renilo77 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renilo77 First, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures; I assume you have a conflict of interest because you took the photo of him and he posed for you. If he compensates you in any manner(not just money), the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed.
Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format references. Please also review the message left by the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 19 September 2023 review of submission by NickLagos1

can you be more specific about the part of in "depth" i understand it sounds like an advertisement which is a mistake for all NickLagos1 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NickLagos1: Because it does sound like an advertisement. This is the problem that many people have with a conflict of interest. It sounds neutral to you, but reality is it is an advertising piece. "...features that make it a popular choice...", "... known for its fast delivery, competitive prices, and good customer service.", "...wide range of products at discounted prices." The article is dripping in advertising feel. This is not the neutral, dispassionate tone we expect in our encyclopedia articles. Further, you haven't provided any references to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A draft will never be accepted without that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ohh i see ok im going to change that completely NickLagos1 (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

02:21, 20 September 2023 review of submission by Naniu9hei

I work in the Taiwan film industry and recently read Jake Pollock’s Chinese Wikipedia page. I felt that it hadn’t been updated recently and took it upon myself to edit the page. Afterwards, I decided to create an English entry to complement the original Chinese entry.

I voluntarily created this page, but I also understand the requirements of Wikipedia’s term of use , and I didn't see the template of Connected contributor, so I took your advice , and I’ve updated my user page. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do for approval. Thanks for your time and attention. Naniu9hei (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:27, 20 September 2023 review of submission by Poodle drool

What is a good way to document notability when information is behind a paywall? For example the page I am working on has had a review in the Wall Street Journal, but that is not free/accessible. Similarly there is a good biography page in an database that is not free. Poodle drool (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Poodle drool, paywalled articles contribute to notability the same way unpaywalled articles does, please see WP:PAYWALL. There is no requirement for sources to be free/accessible. Justiyaya 03:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great--thanks for the response. That was helpful in trying to figure things out. Poodle drool (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:53, 20 September 2023 review of submission by HiAariv

Hello,

My draft title is Tyron Munro, but his actual name his TYRONE MUNRO,

how do I change it

thank you HiAariv (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not important right now- you may just leave a note on the draft talk page so that, if accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. Note that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names, or the name preferred by the subject- it uses as a title the most commonly used name. See WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 20 September 2023 review of submission by Samdodd82

Hello, the Wikipedia page I created was rejected. I understand that the page was overly promotional and have rewritten its contents to make it neutral for everyone who reads it. I believe the information provided on this page is worthy of a Wikipedia page. There are many other real estate companies, larger and smaller which already have Wikipedia pages. Please have another look at my submission. I will be very grateful if you can tell me how I can further improve it. Thank you for your time. Samdodd82 (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samdodd82: it's not enough for the draft to not be promotional, and it's not enough for the company to exist; we need to also see that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms, which means citing multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for establishing notability.
And whether or not articles exist on other companies is not relevant; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 20 September 2023 review of submission by HiAariv

Hello,

Can you please delete the "Draft:Tyron Munro and not the Draft:Tyrone Munro one. I made a mistake on his name. So can you please delete the draft Draft:Tyron Munro and NOT Draft:Tyrone Munro. 


HiAariv (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiAariv: this is not the place for requesting deletion. Assuming you're the only editor to have created substantive content in these drafts, you can request deletion yourself, by either blanking the draft that you want deleted, or placing the {{db-author}} tag on top of the page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 20 September 2023 review of submission by Wikiuser8787

Please check this article I'm trying to create this article iv got multiple notable sources and it keeps getting rejected from the same reason that this artist does not eligible for an article even though it got multiple sources (14) that most of them are in depth coverages for his album Draft:decreek Wikiuser8787 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser8787: this draft has been declined by four different reviewers, each time for lack of apparent notability, which is demonstrated through sources. Since the last decline, you've deleted one source, and resubmitted. Can you help me understand how that could possibly help establish notability? Please note that no draft gets infinite chances, and after four earlier declines (and a fifth one being only a matter of time), this is starting to get to the point where it may be rejected outright. So if I were you, I wouldn't want to risk those remaining reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that i published the same source twice so i removed it.
And i also added a few sentences that obviously shows notability
i dont understand how can 13 different source that most of them in depth coverage articles doesnt meet notability Wikiuser8787 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiuser8787: it's not the number of sources that matters, but their quality; three solid sources may be enough to establish notability, whereas 13 weak ones aren't. I've just gone through the sources in this draft, and I couldn't find one that meets the WP:GNG standard for notability.
Also, don't confuse the notability of the person with that of some of his music: you say "My Story has got the attention of multiple music magazines" – that may help make My Story notable, but notability is not inherited or transferred by association. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see
so basically i came here to send you to the article so you can decline as well.
This community is really funny
You all doing whatever you like
i bet if someone will pay some amount to get an article done you would accept it under the table and approve his article.
Seems like i chose the wrong topic:Music Which was always matter of money and corruption
Lucky i didnt choose politics as well.
Another corrupted reviewer who does what he likes.
Im done here. Wikiuser8787 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiuser8787: I would advice you not to hurl around personal attacks and accusations, or you may soon find that you are, indeed, "done here". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just want to make new users edits very hard even though the articles and the sources are eligible for creation.
I bet if you were the one publishing this article it would get approved in no time.
Oh no please dont block me from this corrupted community please dont Wikiuser8787 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiuser8787: it's interesting how well you know what is or isn't notable, considering that your editing career is less than a month long. Or have you edited under different accounts previously? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally we can see the true colors behind the review you and the other gave to my article "Considering that your editing career is less than a month long"
im a fast learner. and dont worry this article will get approve sooner or later but it would probably need to come from the right user not from me.
You said "My Story" is eligible by itself i guess that means if ill create a an article only for the album you wouldn't've take pleasure in declining it would you? Wikiuser8787 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wikiuser8787. I am an independent reviewer and have not looked at your draft before today. I will go through your sources one by one:
1) This looks to be regurgitating a press release, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
2) This looks to be regurgitating a press release, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
3) This is an interview, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
4) This is just a link to an embedded music video? Not sure how it is relevant, but the video is primary so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
5) This works as a source
6) This source seems to be malformed- it's just a link to a random assortment of articles with a tag?
7) This is an interview, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
8) This is an interview, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
9) A trivial source that provides no analysis, interpretation, or context and is just an announcement of a track, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
10) A trivial source that provides no analysis, interpretation, or context and is just an announcement of a music video, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
11) A trivial source that provides no analysis, interpretation, or context and is just an announcement of a music video, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
12) A trivial source that provides no analysis, interpretation, or context and is just an announcement of a music video, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
13) A trivial source that provides no analysis, interpretation, or context and is just an announcement of a music video, so doesn't count towards the WP:NMUSIC criteria
If you now check the WP:NMUSIC criteria, I hope you can see how your draft with it's current sources does not pass the guidelines stated there.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted, user indeffed as sock. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 20 September 2023 review of submission by GDevincenzi

I'd like to delete my submission. GDevincenzi (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a deletion tag. Qcne (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 20 September 2023 review of submission by MKD789

I want Public my article MKD789 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MKD789: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
And please don't open multiple threads here, this is a help desk, not Twitter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

03:48, 21 September 2023 review of submission by Iamjep1987

I have made some changes on the bio. Can you please let me know what I am lacking for this to be approved as an article of a living person in wiki. aside from the documentation what else should i include and not. Iamjep1987 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamjep1987: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can we request to delete the article and create a new one? Iamjep1987 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 21 September 2023 review of submission by ManaliJain

Draft:Babil Khan was rejected more than six months ago due to notability issues.

  • I'm unable to resubmit it for AfC review since it has already been rejected. I tried approaching the last reviewer by posting a message on their talk page, but I haven't received a response yet. Furthermore, their last contribution was four months ago, indicating their inactivity.
  • The draft has undergone significant improvements since its last submission, which was poorly written earlier. It has now been constructed and meets the guidelines including WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

I kindly request that this matter be reviewed. Thank you. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ManaliJain: firstly, you contacted the rejecting reviewer only a week ago. Yes, you're right, they haven't been active recently, but I'm not aware that they've retired, either. Perhaps you can just wait a bit longer – or are you in a particular hurry to get this draft looked at?
Another thing: you have extended confirmed rights, so if you're confident that the article wouldn't be deleted, you can of course publish this yourself; not advisable, but allowed (assuming you don't have a conflict of interest?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I understand your point about the rejecting reviewer's recent inactivity, and I'm open to waiting a bit longer for their response. I'm not in a particular hurry.
Regarding the possibility of publishing the article myself with extended confirmed rights, I appreciate the reminder. While it's technically allowed, but since the draft was rejected earlier, I wanted to follow the standard review process to ensure the article meets the community's standards and addresses any concerns or feedback from the initial review.
Lastly, I don't have a conflict of interest in this matter. I am committed to contributing to Wikipedia in a neutral and impartial manner. My primary motivation for wanting the draft to be published is because I believe it addresses a notable subject that adds value to Wikipedia's content. Thank you. ManaliJain (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 21 September 2023 review of submission by Baruch Benedictus Spinoza

I would like to know how to improve this page to get it accepted as an article. Baruch Benedictus Spinoza (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it would be more appropriate as a category instead of a list article. There needs to be some evidence in independent reliable sources that this(Jewish leadership of international organizations) is a topic of note. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed until I read 331dot's comment that this must mean "leaders of Jewish international organizations".
Now that I have read it, I would argue that the whole thing is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. WP:OCEGRS says Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics), with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless these characteristics are relevant to that topic. While that is talking about categories, I think this should apply to list articles as well, though the nearest thing I can find on that specifically is WP:BLPLIST. (It's complicated in the case of "Jewish", because that can refer to ethnicity, religion, or culture, and they don't always go together). ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 21 September 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer

I want to modify the name of the page from "Manush (film)" to "Manush: Child of Destiny". But I cannot find any option to do it. Is there any way to do it or should I make another draft with the correct title by just copying all the info from my this draft ? BhikhariInformer (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: it doesn't matter what title the draft is at, it will be moved anyway if/when accepted. And no, you very much should not create another draft on the same topic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In that case I would submit the draft with the title it has now. BhikhariInformer (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 21 September 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer

I have attached all possible primary and secondary sources of information with this article. There are no other articles left on the internet to attach to this .

The other Filmfare Awards Bangla before this 6th one have their pages on Wikipedia with a meagre of 5 citation or even just 1 citation. Compared to them, I have attached more citations including the Filmfare official website , which is the organisation providing the awards and hence is reliable.

Also, since it is the largest Film Awards in the Bengali film industry and all its early versions have pages, I would request to publish this page or else kindly help me and let me know what more can I do to improve this article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all the sources that are available, then this subject does not merit a Wikipedia article. Based just on your description, it sounds like none of the other occurrences of this awards ceremony merit articles either. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles are indeed very poorly referenced. I've tagged them for notability; they should probably be deleted at some point, if better sources don't appear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 21 September 2023 review of submission by Wwarodom

Dear Sirs, 

  I have updated our Wiki page following comments, do I miss somethings or need to edit?

Best regards, Asst.Prof. Dr. Warodom Werapun Wwarodom (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are associated with this college, you must read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles.
Your draft article was rejected, and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 21 September 2023 review of submission by Maqi123

Kindly can you please tell me about the particular issue i have to resolve on this? Maqi123 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer informed you of the issue at the top of your draft, both in the decline message and a personal comment below it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 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. Your first two references are to interviews, so are his words. The third does not even mention him, and the fourth has a single paragraph (and I'm not sure it's a reliable source: it seems to invite readers to "submit your article"). There is therefore almost nothing cited on which an article can be based.
I see that the Reviewit.pk paragraph says Umer Darr’s acting is being praised as the ASI Ilyas in the recent hit drama serial Kabli Pulao. Where? If there are reviews in major newspapers or magazines (with a reputable editorial policy), they may be enough to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 21 September 2023 review of submission by OndrejKotek23

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to really publish my content becasue in the Czechia there is a lot of misunderstanding in this industry. Me myself I have scalp micropigmentation and many of people suffer becasue of they do not visit professionals in the industry. My goal is to give people valid information about the technique so they know what they will undergo.

Please can you tell me what do I have to do to get my article in Czech wikipedia validated by editor.

Tahnk you so much

Kind regards,

Ondre j OndrejKotek23 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OndrejKotek23: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and all the various language versions are entirely separate projects, so you would have to go to the Czech one and enquire there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OndrejKotek23 (ec) I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. It is in Czech; you need to translate it to English. That said, we already have an article about this topic at permanent makeup. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 21 September 2023 review of submission by 196.118.152.188

hello can i Know why my article was rejected thank you 196.118.152.188 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as mentioned already, per WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a guidebook or manual. (Also, please don't add links to your own website, they are considered promotional.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:37, 21 September 2023 review of draft by TeslaTruck


I want to Add WikiProject tag "WikiProject Synthesizers" to Draft:Kodamo but the Synthesizers tag is not available at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Add_WikiProject_tags?withJS=MediaWiki:AFC-add-project-tags.js&title=Draft:Kodamo though clearly shown at the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/All TeslaTruck (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TeslaTruck: you're right, that template doesn't seem to exist. In any case, there's probably not much point in adding it, as the WikiProject Synthesizers is inactive (the last edit to its talk page was in 2015) so you're unlikely to get much input from them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK , thank you ! TeslaTruck (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 21 September 2023 review of submission by SEEZASAROJ


Need Support too publish Biography Article

Sorry if i am asking basics, i am new to Wikipedia article creation, pls help with your specifics inputs/actions.

1.Do you want me to attach all the references available on Google about Seeza Or 1-2 more to qualify? 2.Do you want me to attach external references like Instagram & Facebook, where media tagging is there? 3.What is considered as independent sources, i have attached News references, independent media references who has published article about Seeza, which as per my knowledge should qualify independent coverage category? SEEZASAROJ (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the quantity of sources that is relevant, but the quality. Few high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You have not established that this person meets the definition of a notable actor or the broader definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SEEZASAROJ: I should also add that you have not yet explained your relationship to the subject of this draft, despite this having been requested. You're writing about someone named Seeza Saroj Mehta, and your username is SEEZASAROJ. This suggests an obvious connection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for the response. Not sure where i missed it, Seeza is my daughter. She has played a significant role in worldwide released movie and i have added citation of various renowned News Medias and Entertainment websites (DNA News, Bolywood Bubble, Shoutstar, Times of India (released 20.09), and other places - search on Google with 'Seeza Saroj Mehta'). Before this movie, she has been doing Ad films since last couple of years, released at national level Or on Digital platforms - videos can be searched on YouTube using 'Seeza Mehta Worklinks'.
I am also associated with IT field and i can very well understand the need of validating references before publicizing the articles. But i also feel the same 1-2 good links should be sufficient to proof the notibility. What i am missing to understand the issues with shared links [ first 3 are independent media references, last 2 are mentions/blogs ]. Let me know if you are looking for something specific in cited references ? I can also add YouTube links, Instagram ID, Facebook ID for reference if that can help.
Really looking for good inputs here ... information place around wikipedia is little unstructured and finding it difficult to address the concerns if not getting specifics from the Reviers of the Article.
Thanks in advance, Hardas Mehta
SEEZASAROJ (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must formally declare your conflict of interest on your user page, see WP:COI for instructions. If you act as her agent or manager and are compensated for that role, you must declare as a paid editor. You've been given specifics- please tell us specifically how your daughter meets WP:NACTOR. You must provide and summarize sources that discuss your daughter and what makes her important/significant/influential. You mention praise she received, but do not discuss it in detail. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SEEZASAROJ, the final sentence of your draft says that her performance in Jawan was critically praised, and there are two references to film reviews. That statement is incorrect, and the reviews mention her only in passing, with no assessment of her acting whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 21 September 2023 review of submission by DWBarbour

Hey there. I submitted the above page about the poet David Young. I was told 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I can't tell which sources are unreliable, since everything is vetted with an actual source. Can you advise? Is it merely a matter of cutting something? Thanks. DWBarbour (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you formatted your sources correctly, see WP:REFB for help with that. Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you copied this text from elsewhere? I see footnotes but no references. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 21 September 2023 review of submission by 2600:1002:B01E:E59E:E966:44AA:313B:2F3C

Hello,

I submitted a Wikipedia page about the author Brittney Morris and it was deleted. I would like it to be posted. Please tell me why it was deleted and what I need to do to get it posted? 2600:1002:B01E:E59E:E966:44AA:313B:2F3C (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Brittney Morris has not been deleted. An entirely unrefenced one sentence draft about a living person violates multiple policies, and cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia. Please read and study Your first article. If you are User: ThesaurusRexcellent, then please log in before editing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 21 September 2023 review of submission by Mackeymmm

Please delete my draft Matthew_Eric_Mackey as this was rejected by Wikipedia and hence not the property of Wikipedia. Thank-you! Also, please delete my draft: Quantum Space-Time Theory from your records as this is also not the property of Wikipedia. Thank-you! Mackeymmm (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mackeymmm. Your "not the property" statement is incorrect. Whenever you click the "Publish changes" button, you agree that By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. WP:G7 allows you to request deletion of any page where you are the only substantial author. Place {{db-g7}} at the top of any such page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, sorry but you are simply incorrect. My drafts are not the property of wikipedia as they were NEVER ACCEPTED. Those conditions are set under the proper terms of "if and when" my articles are accepted, which means that those terms are negated presently. Cullen328, sorry if you were confused there; you may want to ask your supervisor on this before replying to your customers like you did. Cullen328, you may need more training and supervision. Also, the customer is ALWAYS right too in America.
I have already stated and requested what I want. Please refer to my request WIKIPEDIA and try again WIKIPEDIA as my request was proper, reasonable, and valid.
Also, I would hope other more competent workers at WIKIPEDIA could simply direct Cullen328 in a more proper direction. Mackeymmm (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackeymmm we're all volunteers here, not paid employees with "supervisors" and you are certainly not a customer. I would advise you not to attack volunteers.
In any case, I have added a deletion tag to your draft so they will soon be deleted. The Quantum Space-Time Theory draft has already been deleted. Qcne (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be checking on this to ensure it is actually done, then! Also, sorry QCne, my comments were no "attack"; they were simply input to WIKIPEDIA for assistance toward WIKIPEDIA's continued improvement. Also, please do not argue with me, as I know I am right in all that I have applied for on WIKIPEDIA including my posts/replies/etc.. Also, I do own my drafts and my account as you, QCne, did not respond to this.
In order to cover what WIKIPEDIA stated to me in WIKIPEDIA's replies/posts/ect., both of my drafts that I submitted on WIKIPEDIA under my account have a DOI (document object identifier), which is attached to me indicating that I as a person own them. Also, the DOI takes precedence and priority over any terms or conditions WIKIPEDIA may or may not have. Also, I inherently own my account and anything I submit under my account (even with any referencing). My drafts are not the property of WIKIPEDIA. My statements here are completely in accordance with the legal system in my favor in America.
I should not have to go to the "ends of the earth" to get a simple request fulfilled on WIKIPEDIA. Please refer to my request on September 21, 2023 and fulfill it in a timely manner, WIKIPEDIA.
Thank-you! Mackeymmm (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackeymmm: I will have to ask that you stop badgering and attacking others. And for your own sake, steer well clear from anything that could be interpreted as a legal threat, which seems to be the direction you're heading with this. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error. Once you click Publish Changes, the edit belongs to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it is a draft or any other page. Cullen328 is a highly experienced and knowledgeable user; I listen to what he has to say carefully, and you should too, rather than criticize him with little experience on your part. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, Mackeymmm, in this case, Wikipedia has a policy that allows your request for deletion to be honoured. But in posting your material you irrevocably released your material under that licence. You retain ownership of it, but you have given up the power to prevent Wikipedia or anybody else from using or modifying it in any way and for any purpose, provided only that they comply with the terms of the licence. In particular, you have given up the power to compel anybody to delete it. If that is not what you want, then I suggest that you don't post further in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 21 September 2023 review of submission by MrMull

I have submitted this article twice. The first time I used the subject’s published articles in refereed journals as citations and was told these were not reliable sources. The second submission I used published third party references about the subject and was also told these were not reliable sources. I don’t know what else I can do to document the notability of this subject. MrMull (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrMull, several of your references are not functional. Of those I could read, I was unable to find any references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to H. Wayne Rudmose. Where are they? Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

08:31, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Mintack

Thank you for reviewing my draft. As a newcomer to Wikipedia and it being my first article, I'm eager to learn and ensure that I follow the guidelines. I wanted to confirm if my understanding is correct that the artist may not be considered relevant enough for a Wikipedia article, even with the provided references. I appreciate your feedback on what I can do to improve. Mintack (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mintack: for notability per WP:GNG, we would require significant coverage of the subject in multiple (normally interpreted as 3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites three sources, but at least one of them (#2) is not independent. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Ingridach

Hello, my page has been denied submission several times due to lack of notability. I've been asked to state the three most important references on the talk page, and I've done so - what shall I do now? I really believe in the notability of my subject and page. Other members of the band 'Elastica', with less sources and achievements, have Wikipedia pages and it feels only fair to publish the page of the lead guitarist who is now also successful in the British music industry. Please check out the sources on the talk page and let me know what I can do in order for this page to be considered for publishing. Ingridach (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingridach: this draft has been rejected, so your only option is to appeal directly to the reviewer to rejected it.
I should warn you, though, that the three sources you've listed on the talk page do not give the impression that they provide significant coverage of the subject, given that they have each been cited only once or twice. And as they are offline, it is difficult if not impossible to verify the extent of their coverage, so you may need to provide additional information about them when making your case; simply saying that they are in your opinion solid sources may not cut it.
Also, whether or not articles exist on the other members of Elastica is neither here nor there, as each article must satisfy the notability requirement and other conditions for publication. I'm just mentioning this so that you don't base your appeal on that argument, as it isn't a valid consideration. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is helpful. In this case, what do you suggest - should I delete my three sources and add ones that can be verified online, or should I add three more? Ingridach (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingridach: I don't know, as I don't know what sources are available, or what coverage they provide. All I can say is that while offline sources are acceptable, if you're trying to argue that specific three sources establish notability, and none of them can be easily verified, you may have a hard time convincing the reviewer, especially when the draft has already been rejected and you're trying to overturn that decision.
I can also say that adding more sources usually doesn't improve things, in that it's better to cite three really solid sources than thirty weak ones. If you do have better sources than what the draft currently includes, then you may wish to cite those instead of some of the weaker ones. You just need to make sure that the draft reflects what the new sources actually say, not that you're citing the new sources just for the sake of citing them. (This relates to a broader principle, which is that Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable published sources have said; not by writing whatever one wishes, and then trying to find acceptable sources.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Monogriff

Submission declined:

Hello,

I am looking for help with he following declined submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BITE_Guitars

Reasons given: "corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement"

READS LIKE AN ADVERTISEMET: This submission is similar in style and structure to existing bass manufacturers on Wikipedia, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastwood_Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Rock_Girl_Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadowsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fodera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg_Guitars

Happy to edit anything out that does not meet the guidelines, would very much appreciate concrete hints.

LACK OF NOTABILITY: Notability is substantiated through references to 11 press articles. These press articles contain not just passing references to BITE but the articles are wholly about BITE Guitars and its products. The articles are also from the major internationally recognized and independent news publications about bass guitars, not from unknown local websites.

Looking at other, accepted bass manufacturing companies, some have zero press articles, some have mostly references to their own websites.

Notability is also substantiated through a number of artists who play BITE bass guitars and are either internationally recognized names in the bass world themselves or have a stage and studio history with some of the biggest names in popular music.

Would appreciate any advice, thank you in advance! Monogriff (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monogriff: I haven't yet looked into this, but just a couple of quick points: don't compare your draft to other articles that may exist; compare it to the applicable guidelines and policies in place today. There are well over 6m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, some of which certainly don't comply with the guidelines. We don't want to create more such problems.
Also, notability is not "substantiated through a number of artists who play BITE bass guitars"; it arises purely out of sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists. It could very well be these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Monogriff. Notable is perhaps an unfortunate word for Wikipedia to have chosen, as it is not the same as the usual meaning of the word. It does not mean important, or popular, or significant, or influential, or famous, or innovative; it means that enough material has been published about the subject that is both reliable and indpendent, to base an article on. Remember that 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) 15:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 22 September 2023 review of submission by GoogleBadsha

The draft has not been published or in Review, the information provided all are genuine and counts a great value in Indian MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) Industry GoogleBadsha (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleBadsha: the draft has not been reviewed (or published), because it hasn't been submitted. You need to click on that blue 'submit' button. Other than that, did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I press the submit button and then see it, thank you for the reply GoogleBadsha (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 22 September 2023 review of submission by 176.33.244.251

The suggestion must be accepted, and add some more if you can find. Please accept all the suggestions that do not break any rules, and no contraries. 176.33.244.251 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected it is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is required, what will happen? What are the requirements to undo rejecting? If it is not rejectable, what are required? 176.33.244.251 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology

Please I need help on the review of my draft after effecting some corrections. thank you Dukology (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dukology the sources added are promotional puff pieces, likely written by PR person, with language like "...known for his visionary Leadership, exemplary Humility. Exceptional philanthropy and dedicated Services to Humanity...." and "His selfless dedication has positively impacted numerous individuals within his constituency and beyond." The draft is rejected and will not be considered any further. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Mull1429

I want to make the changes in this draft submission that your reviews have asked for. However I can’t seem to get the changes to save in the draft without having to publish, even after selecting “Apply Changes.” How do I save changes in a draft submission without publishing? Thank you. Mull1429 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "apply changes", but "Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say "save", but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 22 September 2023 review of submission by EricBased

Why is this page not being accepted? This person is a well known media personality and it very surprising that she is not on Wikipedia yet. EricBased (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EricBased, this draft has not yet been reviewed. There are thousands of drafts waiting to be reviewed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 22 September 2023 review of submission by EamoWiki

My submission was rejected. I assume that the reason is that the title is not reflected in literature. I would like to rename it to "Atmospheric methane removal" which is more known. I wonder if this would solve my problem EamoWiki (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link above. Your submission was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted. The specific title is not relevant to the submission process; if accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You may leave a note on the draft talk page regarding the title. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Amsterdam.Academic

Could others assist me in putting inline citations to this article? There are many sources I could use. Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information on referencing can be found at Referencing for beginners. This place isn't for requesting co-authors. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the Visual Editor easier to use. There is a tutorial on in-line citations at WP:INTREFVE.
However a big problem with the draft, and the other reason why I declined it, is the entirely inappropriate language used. Check WP:PEACOCK for words to avoid @Amsterdam.Academic. Qcne (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the language. Do you think it is better now? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The language is better but it overall still feels a little promotional in tone: the kind of language you would see on a University staff page about Irene.
@Amsterdam.Academic, I believe you have written this article WP:BACKWARDS. You have written extensive statements with zero sources to back them up. Instead you should have found sources and then paraphrased them for the contents of the article. I am concerned you are now going to try and find sources that fit your existing statements and attempt to squeeze them in and make them fit, which is going to be difficult.
I would really recommend starting from scratch. Read WP:YFA and WP:BLP first, which outline the things you need to know about writing an article. Then read WP:NACADEMIC which outlines the criteria we use to accept articles about academics. Then find sources that are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage. From those sources, build a draft text, ensuring that every material statement has an in-line citation. Qcne (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I can leave it for now? I saw that it will be deleted in six months. There were several articles I wanted to create. But I will have to wait on spend this much time. Do you know if we can open it to others helping as well? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who knows about it is welcome to edit it- though that will depend on who you tell. As long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it will not be deleted based on its activity. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Do you think you could help edit it a bit? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Worswickj

Draft article was declined due to not enough sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. I have reviewed the guidelines for references and believed that the references included do provide in-depth, reliable, and secondary citations. I am willing to provide additional references as necessary, but I need to understand exactly why the current references are insufficient.

This draft article refers to a Scouting award which is utilized by all BSA councils all across the United I had included in-depth primary references, which were used to establish the details of the current requirements and description of the award, as well as reliable and independent secondary references which I thought should be sufficient to lend credibility to the primary reference. Worswickj (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worswickj I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). You do not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the significance of this award; the sources are associated with the Scouts, or are brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 22 September 2023 review of submission by 2603:8002:741:4546:D001:2976:DCED:1085

My grandmother was a classical composer named Toni Beaulieu. She entered the music arena in 1948 when women were not allowed into the business in any significant way. She was cheated and repeatedly ripped off by men in the music industry at every step of her career. She was taught to tolerate issues rather than act out against them. She told me most of her stories and when she died in 1994, I found files that supported her accounts, some even worse than she admitted. Her admission to ASCAP was delayed 35 years because she wouldn't accept a "casting couch" invitation. Her composition JUNGLE RHUMBA was stolen from her by 3 different infringers, all of whom she had to counter in a courtroom. The powers at MGM got mad because she didn't think it fair to accept a fee on her composition that was literally ten times less than her male flutist was getting to play the piece. This is real history, not something I'm making up. They got even with her by dropping her screen credit from the film. It's still missing. TNT used the number in THAT"S ENTERTAINMENT, PART 3. They finally put her name on the end crawl of composers--with no mention in the show of who she was or what she wrote for them.

Her only hope of survival (and keeping her sanity) was to continue composing and keep it under wraps. She didn't have any fight left in her old age to continue this senseless battle. Only her closest inner circle got to hear the music she was writing. For everyone else her amazing talent became her "best-kept secret". There is no Wikipedia on her. I had to fight with the NY Times...who refused to give her a proper obituary because there is no historical record on her. Her career predated the internet. But the abusive behavior effectively kept her name out of history. Thankfully, I have access to the only documents that can tell the truth. There has been no biographical article written about her. She was 90 when she died and she has no contemporary associate still alive to help tell the tale.

However her 150 classical compositions are now speaking for themselves and I have found a music publisher who is willing to publish her entire body of work. It's like her music being heard for the first time. I am beneficiary of her music rights but I'm stymied in my efforts to promote her music by the lack of history on her. I therefore used her photos and papers to document a 9 page bio with footnotes as appropriate. I'm wondering if that story would be acceptable to Wiki as a starting point on TONI BEAULIEU as there is no other article that I know of, and I am determined that the truth be told this time. No holding back on the individuals who were responsible for the abusive treatment. Would you be interested in reading my 9 page story?

After her strenuous life, I most want to make her musical talent known. There are very few women in this century who even wrote classical music. And hers were left behind in a closet until I rescued them.

Jack 2603:8002:741:4546:D001:2976:DCED:1085 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes published reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, your grandmother in this case. If the published sources are lacking, then it is not possible to write a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once her work is published, and if it is reviewed and discussed for its musical merit by independent reliable sources, her work and possibly her would merit articles, but without that, it's just not possible. If you want to tell the world about her and her work, you should use social media or a personal website that you own and operate. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Amsterdam.Academic

Could others share links to help create this? Amsterdam.Academic (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amsterdam.Academic. Please read Referencing for beginners and create inline references. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 22 September 2023 review of submission by Janicelp

Hi, Can you please take a look and let me know if this might be ready to be put up? I have added more secondary citations. I believe the flagged issues have been corrected. Please let me know and I can resubmit. Janicelp Janicelp (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Janicelp: we don't do on-demand (p)reviews here at the help desk; if you feel that you've sufficiently addressed the reasons for the previous decline, then please resubmit the draft and a reviewer will assess it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

03:23, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Tulssltutuu

Check and confirm or tell me the page mistakes

Thanks Tulssltutuu (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tulssltutuu: declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Marianaa20624

why my article is always rejected Marianaa20624 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marianaa20624 because you have done nothing to prove how this person meets the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. Qcne (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is also written in a completely unacceptable tone for an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Davomme

Hello, I recently created an article titled "German Volunteer Corps", however, it was moved to a draft due to concerns over the lack of sources and incorrect grammar and punctuation. While I dispute the grammar and punctuation concerns, I absolutely agree and also understand the concerns over the lack of credible primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I am looking for potential guidance on how to improve my page to find more reliable sources to support its content as well as credibility.

Last night I spent some time archiving some sources that can be considered as primary on Telegram, while Telegram is not necessarily a reliable source it is indeed a primary source due to the nature of the article discussing the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Telegram is a popular channel amongst units in the ongoing conflict due to the fact that it is encrypted and safe for releasing videos and activities by specific units.

I understand the limitations of Telegram as any individual could potentially pass off a persona impersonating a specific unit for whatever reasons in an attempt to spread misinformation, or stir trouble. Despite this, I would argue in this case due to the limited nature of secondary and tertiary sources being available on this subject Telegram sources are arguably useful in the fact that this unit has no other social media presence.

If this is not acceptable and will be ruled out, what other methods should I go to getting my article published? I have potentially considered cutting down on the information that is not verifiable or reliable, however, this would not allow readers to understand the background, motives, objectives, and activities of this formation which I believe to be crucial.

Any guidance that is given will be taken into account, and I appreciate any feedback or improvements that are provided to me. Thank you and have a good day. :) Davomme (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davomme sorry, it looks like what you're doing with your Telegram sources is what is known as WP:OR on Wikipedia - the aim when writing articles is to use only published secondary sources as much as possible. That's especially the case when it comes to things like the background, motives, etc. But I think you can pretty easily find secondary sources for that kind of thing, since the background and so forth is going to be very similar across other Ukraine volunteer units. Also, since the unit was not created that long ago, if you don't have enough secondary sources yet, you may find that more come up soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would it be much more suitable to either cross reference the motivations of a similar unit known as the Russian Volunteer Corps with this one? They are very similar, and cooperate with eachother considerably. Otherwise, would it be much more approrpriate to condense the page down into information that can be verified and then leave the other information in another daft and wait for more sources to come up soon enough?
Thank you for the assistance once again, I appreciate it. Have a good, day. Davomme (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davomme: I think there's more to it than whether Telegram, being a primary source, can be used; it's also that what is being referenced here is the subject's own Telegram account, so it's the subject talking about themselves. And while that might be okay to support a limited amount of non-contentious factual information, it's not okay to relay on the subject's own output as the main source.
The other purpose that sources serve, besides verifying information, is of course to establish the notability of the subject, and for that close primary sources are completely useless. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 23 September 2023 review of submission by RaviGadhesariyasurva

add Company RaviGadhesariyasurva (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected it gives zero indication of passing WP:NCORP and you have not disclosed your connection/paid status. Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem

please i want advice why my requst is rejected. Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Engr.mohammadjannatulnayeem only people who pass the WP:NPEOPLE criteria may have articles written about them. Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Please see WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 23 September 2023 review of submission by NicholasNeborovsky

Hi there, so I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for myself but it seems to have been declined, is there another reason why? I had put everything in the proper way. NicholasNeborovsky (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NicholasNeborovsky: it has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (those grey boxes inside the large pink one). Additionally, it is entirely unreferenced.
Also, please see WP:AUTOBIO for all the various reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Skmartists2017

Article rejected Skmartists2017 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, @Skmartists2017. Did you have a question? Qcne (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What is the minimum threshold for a musician or film composer to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Are there a specific number of public mentions, chart positions, a specific number of films scores needed? I'm looking for a quantifiable metric--an objective standard that needs to be met for inclusion. If you can provide be with numbers and specific sources that are necessary for inclusion, that would be appreciated. Nothing subjective, please. Thank you. Skmartists2017 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NSINGER for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Rahulparmarrajput

Please help me that what was the mistake in my edit then I will fix it . Rahulparmarrajput (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are based on what published, reliable, independent sources have reported, you have none of those. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 23 September 2023 review of submission by CREATOR34566

Why my article is rejected? I'm very unclear with the reason, as Priyanka Chakraborty is a singer, she needed to have her own Wikipedia article to ensure that she is that particular artist. CREATOR34566 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CREATOR34566: because, after multiple earlier declines, there was still no evidence of notability. Not to mention, the draft is very promotional in tone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CREATOR34566 please read WP:SPAMPAGE which explains why I rejected your draft. Qcne (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 23 September 2023 review of submission by Blackspring103

What further information would suffice to have this page approved? The website will be fully active next month and will hope to update once again when that happens if possible, thanks for your help. Blackspring103 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackspring103: this draft has been rejected andis pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


September 24

00:39, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Dberhane

Wikipedia has a long list of entries titled "Bibliography of" this war or that war. And I was trying to start an entry on Tigray war, using the page "Bibliography of the Darfur war" as a template or sample. Why is my draft rejected? Dberhane (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dberhane I provided the proper link to your draft for you. Please see other stuff exists- but other bibliographies like Bibliography of the American Civil War summarize what sources say about the body of works that document an event- you merely listed sources. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 24 September 2023 review of submission by PeggyIdog00d

Why did you delete my whole family biography and who is that person that requested it to have the say so to delete my entire hard work. I did not promote anything, I informed of my projects and family life. I recorded all I did. Peggy Irabor (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is the definition of promotion, at least on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, and is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about topics deemed notable. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PeggyIdog00d: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a genealogy website, and also not a blogging or social media platform. Please do not attempt to publish your biography here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Understood. I will place my information elsewhere since I have been inspired to do so. I see you say it is called Genealogy rather than Biography. Thank you for your help. Peggy Irabor (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Alldigital1992

Please let me know , why the submission has been declined, what i need to do for success full submission? please help in this. Alldigital1992 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alldigital1992 I fixed your link(you had left out the "Draft:"). The reviewer left you a message on your draft describing the specific issue and what you can do to remedy it. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Bill Wilson AKA "CIA"

After having my article declined twice for insignificant coverage, I would like to know whether there are certain types of sources that are particularly effective at getting over this hurdle. By sources, I mean things like interviews, bios, reviews, etc... Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Wilson AKA "CIA": journalists, news and sports presenters, and the like typically suffer from the fact that although they are 'in the news' a lot, they are usually reporting or presenting, rather than being the subject of the report.
If you find independent bios or reviews, those are usually pretty good. Interviews are usually not, as it's either the subject talking about themselves (= non-independent, and possibly non-reliable), or they're talking about something else (= might help to make the 'something else' notable, but not themselves).
If you cannot find sufficient sources to establish notability, then that usually means the subject simply isn't notable and you may have to drop it and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Ole.one.sock

I like ARWAH Ole.one.sock (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @Ole.one.sock, but this draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Rohitkumar8055

How can i make it fix and reliable to publish it on wikipedia Rohitkumar8055 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, @Rohitkumar8055. It has been rejected and won't be considered further. The organisation does not pass WP:NORG. Qcne (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 24 September 2023 review of submission by Avicennah

Hello there,

My first article on a well-known neighbourhood school was first reviewed last week by someone who asked me to include URLs from the school site. I made changes and now another reviewer left a comment and I don' t understand it. [ No indication of passing WP:NSCHOOL with current sources ]. Can someone explain to me what is it and what should I fix so the article is approved? Regards, Avicennah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MS_Education_Academy Avicennah (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avicennah: I'm assuming you mean this  Courtesy link: Draft:MS Education Academy?
You were asked to provide multiple independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage of the school (not to "include URLs from the school site"). The second review essentially says the same, ie. that the sources cited aren't sufficient to show that the school is notable per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 24 September 2023 review of submission by 49.195.29.227

Hello The sources used are from the competition result pages.

Can you please advise what information requires a reliable source added.

Kind regards 49.195.29.227 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 🇺🇦 18:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 24 September 2023 review of submission by 2.97.89.40

Hi, I tried to create a Wikipedia article for my band but I must have done something wrong because it got declined. Can someone please help me with this?

Many thanks. Andras 2.97.89.40 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid almost all bands fail our threshold of WP:NMUSICIAN. If you can prove that it passes despite your WP:COI, it is likely to be accepted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

06:48, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Truthmakesyoufree

I tried to pick something easy and charitable and copied existing templates. How could I fix it and make it better? Truthmakesyoufree (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthmakesyoufree: the first thing you need to do is decide what the topic of your article should be, and then stick to that. This will hopefully also clarify the article title.
You then find independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of that topic, and summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it provides.
Remove all inline external links, as has already been mentioned by the reviewer. If you can use them as references, do.
Start with a lead section (see WP:MOSLEAD) which sets the context, tells the reader clearly what the topic is, and why it is notable.
And finally, if you have an external relationship of some sort with this organisation, please disclose it. I'll post a message on your talk page with advice on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on attempting the changes right now from this context and the context of the person given earlier. Does inline links include Wikipedia pages? I was including reference to try to back up where I got the statements from. Truthmakesyoufree (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Truthmakesyoufree: links can be either internal ('wikilinks'), ie. linking to other Wikipedia articles, or external, ie. pointing to URLs outside the en.wikipedia.org domain. Internal ones are encouraged; external ones are not allowed (in body text, that is; they can appear in the end matter, meaning the 'References' and later sections). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 25 September 2023 review of submission by Samuel Scotland

This page keeps getting rejected for not being relevant to the topic, but how could it not be relevant to the topic if it is about him? How could it be relevant Samuel Scotland (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Scotland: it was declined and subsequently rejected for failing to demonstrate notability, not "relevance" (whatever that might mean). It has no meaningful sources, and therefore no evidence that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would classify as a 'meaningful source' because all of the information on him has been collected from his accounts, such as date of birth, place of origin and first YouTube video Samuel Scotland (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Scotland: for notability, we need to see significant coverage of him in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of him. In other words, we want to see what others have said about him, not what he says about himself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1176992160"