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 74.74.209.253 (talk) at 21:03, 12 November 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Tara_Jacobs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


November 6

00:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

I have added the dates Anna Buhigas played professional soccer in her inbox and I can't think of any additional improvements I could make since I have provided third person sources about her career. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "third person sources", but for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage (not just passing mentions, match reports, player stats, etc.) directly of her, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of her (ie. not her club or university, and not interviews or press releases or her coach commenting on her, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Kristinak98

Hello!

I have viewed, that my draft of the "Planforge" article was declined. Please review the draft again, as it is an exact translation of the german article "Planforge": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planforge

Thus, I don't understand, how the draft could not be accepted, as the exact same german article I translated it from, already existed on wikipedia for a long time. Furthermore, as it is a translation, it would be wrong, if I now wrote it completely different than the german one, right?

Thank you and best regards Kristinak98 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kristinak98: each language version of Wikipedia is completely separate, with their own policies and requirements (and the ones here on the English-language Wikipedia are probably the strictest); therefore, whether an article exists on one, says nothing about whether the same article will be accepted on another language version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing! Tanks for your reply, I will try to rewrite my draft and write a complete new article of Planforge for the English-language Wikipedia to meet its policies. Thanks! Kristinak98 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:21, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Pedropaulofb

Thank you for your review. Could you please elaborate on the aspects in which the article needs enhancements for it to be approved? Pedropaulofb (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedropaulofbit seems most of it is supported with publications by the same author, Giancarlo Guizzardi and associates, but what you need are secondary sources that have written in-depth about Unified Foundational Ontology and summarize what they independently say. Please also see the WP:Neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia cannot be the mouthpiece for a single person or group's research, theories, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Edizengoff

Trying to understand why the article was declined I tried to make it very similar to other book articles for example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heather_Blazing Edizengoff (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edizengoff: please don't model your writing on articles that themselves have problems. You need to instead show that the book in question satisfies the relevant notability guidelines, namely WP:NBOOK / WP:BOOKCRIT, and/or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replay!
The book I am writing about won a major literary award and has sevral academic works written about and a film coming out based on it.
The reason it was declined was "There's lots of sources in google from reputable websites. Read some and write a decent article using them as sources." for which parts should I have used Google for?
Which parts of what I wrote werent decent? Edizengoff (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Google itself you should use as a source, but sources discovered with Google. The book is indeed notable- but you still need to have multiple independent reliable sources summarized in the article. You only have one source. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are sources I have picked arent reliable enough? To prove the books has won prized I have cited the prizes webisite. Regarding the plot sumarry I have cited an academic papper and a blog why isnt that enough?
So instead of the blog should I use the book itself as source? I have looked at many other book articles which for thep lot part dont seem to cite any sources at all. Edizengoff (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Vanderwaalforces Qcne (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne thanks for the ping. @Edizengoff The book/novel is notable, I must say, but you see that book you made reference to, it is also a notable one, and I guess nobody wants to nominate it for deletion because of it's status, that article is one of Wikipedia's problem page and we don't want this new one you're creating to become one that is why we want it at a better, or at least a good state. Doing a cursory search return quite a handful of useful materials that you can use to develop the article, a lot that I don't want to start listing, when you do the search yourself you'll find useful things on Google.
I hope you understand this and it helps you. Kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces
Thanks for the replay I did the Google search read the book itself and read academic papers about which I refrenced in my draft so I am trying to understand how many more sources should be added and in which parts of the article do I need to cite every part of the plot summary and find correct pages in the book? Edizengoff (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edizengoff As a matter of fact, if you make a statement like The novel received considerable critical acclaim, by its recognition at the Irish Book Awards in 2003 and its nomination for the prestigious International Dublin Literary Award., it should be followed by a citation to a reliable source that says, without confusion, that Oh yes! the novel truely received a critical acclaim by its recognition at the Irish Book Awards in 2003... and so on. It should not be exactly what the source states though, you should write what the source says in your own words. Also, Notably, Alison Light from The Independent provided a commendable review, stating, "McGahern conjures the warmth and decency of working people without sentimentality. should be followed by a citation too, and so on.
These are just examples of what is expected of you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Digital.niteshsharma

I need a assistance to guide me to post a article. Digital.niteshsharma (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Sirius Stella

My submission was declined. The reviewer said "close, but not enough independent, significant coverage."

I would love some more detail on what coverage is needed. I thought the references provided were enough in number from multiple independent sources. Sirius Stella (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirius Stella: I haven't done a source analysis, just going by what you and the reviewer said. Note that it's not enough for the sources to be numerous, or independent, they must be at once independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage of the subject directly, and there must be "multiple" (which is usually interpreted as three or more) such sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 220.253.130.93

Hello, for the charts is it enough to cite the website that documents music placements, or do I need a reference to a chart position from a news source? Lastly, it looks like peacocking language was used early on but has been edited out - does there need to be any more tidying before this draft is resubmitted? 220.253.130.93 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure you just need a source showing the chart position to establish that they've charted.
As for the rest, we don't really do pre-review reviews; to get feedback, please submit it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Edizengoff

Why are sources I have picked arent reliable enough? To prove the books has won prized I have cited the prizes webisite. Regarding the plot sumarry I have cite an academic papper and a blog why isnt that enough? Edizengoff (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edizengoff: please don't start a new thread about the same draft, reply to the earlier one so that the conversation is all in one place. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Talhashakeel374

How many reference add to publish Quake Services page on Wikipedia. Talhashakeel374 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Talhashakeel374 Hi there, please take a look at writing your first article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by ASKanetkar

I made my first Article on Wikipedia and want to contribute more on sample cooler topic. This topic is separate from "Steam and Water Analysis System" How can I move my draft Article to Publish it for all viewers ? I can contribute more on this topic. Kindly advice ASKanetkar (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ASKanetkar: it seems you have created two things, Sample cooler, which was redirected to Steam_and_water_analysis_system#Sample_coolers, as it was not a viable article and completely unreferenced. And also Draft:Sample coolers, which you have not submitted for review yet, and therefore, at this time it is not in the pipeline for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template required to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Jbobbink

I am confused about the reasoning behind references not being accepted. Yes, I added a couple of sources like https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tagged/health/amsterdams-bynder-bringing-cloud-based-130000325.html and https://www.bynder.com/en/about-us/ that do not comply with being "secondary". However, I do not see what is wrong with sources like https://www.forrester.com/blogs/bynders-acquisition-of-webdam-for-49-million-will-force-big-players-to-innovate/ and https://martechseries.com/content/digi-asset-mgmt/bynder-announces-strategic-acquisition-webdam-49-1-million/ Could you clarify? Jbobbink (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbobbink: routine business reporting such as M&A, financial results, appointments, opening of new locations or markets, etc. does not constitute significant coverage, and in any case is invariably based on press materials supplied by the organisation and therefore not considered independent or secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jbobbink (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 65.215.95.162

Given the existence of plenty of other reporters with less accomplishments, it seems strange to have Suzanne Kianpour's career be denied and considered insignificant, especially given she's both listed in Wikipedia already under other BBC reporters with Wikipedia pages for themselves.

Here are examples offered below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_BBC_newsreaders_and_reporters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Willis_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ghattas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Plett_Usher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Long

These briefs for other reporters list less accomplishments than Kianpour, yet aren't denied. 65.215.95.162 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, and you shouldn't, assess drafts by comparing them to other articles that may exist, but by determining whether they meet the relevant guidelines and policies, in this case regarding notability. If you can cite sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, it may be possible to have an article published on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. I rejected this as every source was WP:PRIMARY, so useless at establishing notability under WP:GNG. If you can substantially re-work the article to prove notability under those criteria, ping me on my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:B880:5970:9E2:FAEA:8102:807

Draft has been rejected multiple times and need help with next steps. The page was first rejected for not enough reliable sources. I added in references to make sure the information was well-supported, but the submission was then rejected for having too many sources tied to the subject (this made sense, I did not realize that press releases by related companies were not allowed). I then reworked the page to include information only from independent news outlets and it was just rejected again. I'm a bit unsure what to do next, as I feel like I've shown that Rosen is a notable Cleveland businessman. Can you help me with exactly what next steps to take? Thank you! 2600:1700:B880:5970:9E2:FAEA:8102:807 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the latest reviewer. Interviews, passing mentions, press releases / company announcements, routine business reporting and primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG. I didn't find even one source among the 18 cited that contributes to that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dkoltorcan

Hello, I try to work on the new version of my article about Bernhard Ruchti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bernhard_Ruchti). I understand sone of the concerns about the neutral point of view, I can easily fix this. However, I have two questions: - About the comment that is still appearing at the top that says: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." This is not the case and I don't understand why this comment is appearing here, I have no personal relation with the person and I am not paid by him. I don't receive any incentive or anything else. What should I do (apart from the conversation I already had with your colleague) to have this sentence removed? - About the DOB: I was told that I should prove the DOB. Usually this musicians doesn't display his full DOB online (for example on his website there is only is year of birth) but I found it in a printed program when attending one of his concerts. Can I use a printed program as source of DOB? Also, how to quote it properly so that it is considered valid for Wikipedia? For example, when I look at other musicians' Wikipedia page such as András Schiff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Schiff) there is no reference after the DOB. Thank you for your help, Dkoltorcan Dkoltorcan (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: regarding the DOB, I don't think you can use a concert programme as a source, because it may not be available for verification, and in any case almost certainly does not qualify as reliable.
And yes, there are inevitably some articles out there where the DOB isn't referenced, in violation of WP:BLP, but this doesn't mean we should be creating more such problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan: forgot to address the paid-editing tag, but this has in the meantime been removed. I was just going to say that it isn't an unreasonable thing to suspect, given that you have uploaded the photo used in this draft as your 'own work', which suggests that you must have been at least once at close quarters with the subject, which in turn may imply some sort of connection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is because I asked him for the authorization of using his picture. I would not use it without authorization. The Wikimedia contacted him to confirm that I had the right to use his photo and he provided the necessary paperwork. Dkoltorcan (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan he cannot authorize only you to use it or only Wikipedia to use it. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for additional information on how the photographer can donate the photo (Bernhard Ruchti is likely not the copyright holder as generally the photographer owns the copyright). Nothing at Commons suggests this has been followed as there is no indication permission has been given. S0091 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is already done. It was the first step. All the paperwork has been signed and there is no issue with the media. @DoubleGrazingwas asking why I downloaded the picture, I replied. This was to reply on the paid-editing tag, which is not the case. Dkoltorcan (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean uploaded, not downloaded :) Sorry for the typos. Dkoltorcan (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan I have started a discussion on the draft's talk page and pinged you there (Draft talk:Bernhard Ruchti). The photo is not the reason for decline but a reason to suspect a conflict of interest. If you are in anyway affiliated with Ruchti then you do need to WP:DECLARE. I will post a query on your talk page to which you can respond, thus ending the discussion here. S0091 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, noted, thanks. I have been told several times and I have replied. There is no conflict of interest. Dkoltorcan (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have communicated with the subject, that is a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to ask him permission to use his picture, but apart from that there is no conflict of interest. Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is sufficient for a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. Can you redirect me to the proper action to take then? Because it was not clear to me what to do next and where to display the fact that I asked M. Ruchti's permission to use his picture? Thank you Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:COI, but it will be sufficient for you to just write a statement on your user page disclosing your communication with him. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Do I need to give a link to my Draft? Or to the media itself? Dkoltorcan (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Connected contributor section. I added it to my page. Thank you again for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Saffiulla Muhammad

I have a physical hard copy of a newspaper article in English and Odia language. I want to show it as a reference to prove the authenticity of the person in the Wikipedia. How can I use this physical newspaper cutouts. Please help. Saffiulla Muhammad (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saffiulla Muhammad authenticity is not the issue but showing the subject meets the notability guidelines. Nevertheless, you can use the "Manual" citation method and fill out all the pertinent information (author if known, publication, title, date of publication, etc.). See also WP:CITE. If you need additional help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 6 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83

Can you please help me create an articles about the biography of Georgios Dritsakos as a Lieutenant General of the Hellenic Air Force, a Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel of the Hellenic Air Force, and Adjutant to the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos? 108.21.67.83 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comment? You need to provide the source for ALL the content you have added, where did it come from? Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Ddllggpro

I have tried to upload a well known term twice but you keep rejecting my artical. I am starting to think that you do not accept the fact that FeminISISm is real Ddllggpro (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ddllggpro, firstly a single post on social media does not make something 'real'. Secondly Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects, not ones that just exist. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). KylieTastic (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Luc1239

This page was declined for submission. How can I improve the article so that it will be accepted the next time? Luc1239 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Melursus Mare

Helllo! My draft about the magnet school called the Academies of Loudoun. It was rejected for lacking reliable sources. I'm confused about this for two reasons, the first is that many other articles in the same category and locale use the same sources I did. For example, in an article about a high school in the same district (Independence High School in Ashburn) uses sources that came from 6 different publishers, 4 of which I also cited.

Secondly, Wikipedia's reliable sources wiki states that "Similarly, the publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for the fact that the work exists". In my article, for example, I cite the school district's website that certain courses in fact are taught at the school. I frequently cited the school district's website, but only for things that were completely factual, like the population of the school.

Because of this, I'm having trouble finding a way to fix the reputability of my article, how can I do this? Melursus Mare (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Melursus Mare it appears this is resolved as the draft was accepted. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:31, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali

I added real news source, could you please help me, how can make it live? Dubaiali (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resubmit it for review, but you haven't addressed the issues adequately yet. Please read the messages from reviewers carefully. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 6 November 2023 review of submission by GonetotheDawgs

This is my first attempt at creating an article, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fast feedback, but it looks like I'm going to need some hand holding because of my inexperience. Can you tell me if the primary weakness in the article is the references contained in the following sentences, or is it something else? Thank you!

Myrlie Evers-Williams who called the book “a treasure.”

Lee Smith has called The Queen of Palmyra "the most powerful and also the most lyrical novel about race, racism and denial in the American South since To Kill a Mockingbird," and Kirkus Reviews has described "Gwin's prose [as] profound and Faulknerian in tone." GonetotheDawgs (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GonetotheDawgs it seems most of it is sources directly to her work which are not independent so not helpful. I suggest adding more reviews from reputable critics/publications, see also WP:NAUTHOR. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali

Dear Sir, The article is for a film director and given authenticate news source. Could you help me please how would be the article live as it is declined. Should i change the article formate? Looking for your kind support Dubaiali (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

00:19, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Theotherdreadpirate

I have made some adjustments to the article and would like some feedback on what can be improved in order to increase the chances of it being accepted. Thanks! Theotherdreadpirate (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:07, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Variance1

Good evening, thanks for your feedback. I am attempting to update for the Wikipedia page for DJ /Producer and label owner Jamie McHugh. Jamie featured on the biggest dance releases of 2008, 2009 and 2010 and regularly featured in the dance music press and featured as an artist on BBC Radio 1 and Kiss FM as well as DJing worldwide. He produced three commercial mix CDs and an artist album for Darren Emerson (Underworld) record label Underwater and mixed the Best of Underwater Records album. He also remixed the 50th release for CR2 records and was the first artist to release on their digital label. I have checked Wikipedia and artists with similiar or less notable profiles have been included therfore please advise how i can update this page. Variance1 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:53, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Mcashn

How can I edit my article title? Mcashn (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcashn: you can't; you achieve this by moving the draft to a different title. That said, you don't need to worry about the title at this stage, as if/when the draft is accepted it will be moved by the accepting reviewer to a new title in the main article space anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:05, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Harry's Word

This page contains information from various sources which are duly added about a person who has done many contributions to the art form called Kadhakali. This person went missing a decade ago but still people talk about him as a connoisseur of this art form. Please reconsider the details furnished and consider for publication. Harry's Word (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry's Word: this draft has been reviewed and found wanting in terms of evidence of notability. That being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the press reports supporting this person mentions that he is a notable person. Given that, I am confused on what more evidences of notability are lacking here? Please help me understand that. Harry's Word (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harry's Word: Notability is not 'important' or 'influential' or 'successful'. It's 'the extent to which something has been the topic of media coverage' the extent to which it has been noted.
That being said, Youtube is not a reliable source and should be removed. - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube source I have mentioned are the ones that belong to the major news channels and not any silly unreliable one. Harry's Word (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83

I just want to ask a question. How do I submit to transfer the draft of Georgios Dritsakos and transfer to the articles in his biography? I want it to be approved and know how to learn it. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has various issues, but the main one is notability: of the three sources cited, one is a close primary one (his CV on the HAF website), one a passing mention, and the third isn't enough on its own to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Athinam7x

Hello, I do not understand how it states that this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I did submit all the necessary sources which according to your rules are reliable.

I am the granddaughter of Davoud Meftah, Athina Meftah (daughter of Soleiman Meftah), I wrote in my article a few extra pieces of information that are of course without specific sources, but my knowledge of my family.

Since it was the first time I worked on an article for Wikipedia, I did not have the experience and knowledge to understand the problem and resolve it.

I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to help me.

Thank you very much,

Athina Meftah 

Athinam7x (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "few extra pieces of information that are of course without specific sources, but my knowledge of my family." will need to be removed, the references need to be placed directly after the content they support. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Gaurav Prateek Actor

Remove promotional language. This looks like an ad. kindly help me for this. Gaurav Prateek Actor (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Prateek Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your image has no copyright information provided; if you personally did not take the image of yourself or cannot demonstrate that you are the copyright holder(which would be unusual), you need to immediately request its deletion from Commons. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Catherine Lemieux

Hi, My article was rejected because of unreliable sources for the second time. I would like to understand why, since I used only independent established newspapers. Thank you, Catherine Lemieux 

Catherine Lemieux (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Catherine Lemieux: the sources may well be reliable, but the draft isn't adequately supported by them, as there is unreferenced content, and some of the citations may not back up the information provided. By way of an example, the lead section cites only one source, but that source doesn't seem to mention the person's place or year of birth, or that they studied under Šípek... so if those pieces of information didn't come from the cited source, where did they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right these infos come from other articles (4 other sources which are portraits of the artist from mainstream media) included in my first draft, actually reliable media sources but they included interviews so I had to delete all these references. I will review the draft again to make sure all infos are definitely in the article quoted. Thanks for your feedback. 91.141.36.118 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 137GREAT

the person involved has generated a major impact on the physics world, and did not talk about himself. there are no online reliable sources to which it is possible to quote his backround and therefore the wiki page was created, the information in the artcile was the first time he shared information about himself. It was not accepted due to "reliability" How can there be sources if the guy is an unknown ? People know him by his name, and therefore the wiki was created. 137GREAT (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@137GREAT: simply put, Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject. If no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them, and hence no article can be written. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to tell the world about this person, that is precisely what social media or a personal website are for. People must be known to merit articles, you can't create articles to generate notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 7 November 2023 review of submission by 73.161.190.187

I see that this page was declined, so looking for more guidance. While the news recently of Adam Johnson's death may seem shocking, Injuries to the neck, and by extension other parts of the body, by Skate Blades during on ice activities, are actually quite common. Some of the players on the page have died due to their necks having been cut by skate blades, aside from the aforementioned Adam Johnson. I hesitated to put if a player was deceased due to the injury, or for example how many stiches they needed. Perhaps this is needed information to obtain approval? I also hesitated to put any additional information regarding neck guards, e.g. neck guards have been mandatory in Canada since the deaths of a few players, as I did not want to make this a page about neck guards and as well, I did not want to dive into what parts of the world require neck guards, but perhaps some information is necessary? Unfortunately, skate injuries are not really similar to injuries in other sports, as well as injuries of other types in hockey. The page aims to show the prevalence and severity of these injuries, and not to draw comparisons to injuries of other types or other sports. We can say that surely some players have hard heart attacks while playing a sport, however it is hard to attribute that injury directly to the game. However, skate injuries are in no doubt literally caused by the equipment and players involved in those on ice activities. Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. 73.161.190.187 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this would benefit from more context, significance, etc. Now it reads like a list of people injured playing sports – immediately I find myself asking "so what?" I think each entry needs more details: to say that John Doe got injured in 1996 is one thing; to say that John Doe, an experienced professional player got injured in the World Champs final in his neck so badly (without going into too much gore!) that it ended his career, and may have lost his team the medal, is probably a bit more useful. Also, if you could find some sources which discuss the problem of skate-related injuries, perhaps some statistics, etc., and maybe what the athletes, clubs and governing bodies are doing to deal with this problem, it would help flesh out the draft. (I think in saying that I'm concurring with the reviewer also.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Dranutoshchakraborty

Requesting to describe the exact fault. Regards Dranutoshchakraborty (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dranutoshchakraborty: this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting deletion, as non-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia does not host how-to guides, promotional content, personal essays, polemic, nor does it promote pseudoscience, fringe theories and the like. This draft comes under more than one of those headings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Delshad.j.c

How to delete draft Delshad.j.c (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was tagged as inappropriate advertising, so I have deleted it for that reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Delshad.j.c: you have no drafts to delete, your only draft has been deleted already. In any case, you cannot delete one as you're not an administrator, you can only request deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Ivanhoe2012

Could anyone pls tell me what are "Some of these sources are WP:FRINGE"? I hoped there will be no issues like these cause Society of JZ is state registered spiritual-religious curch in Czech Rep. Its small church, yes, but it is. Thank you. Ivanhoe2012 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Orion's Toes

Hi, I see the request for providing more sources and in depth coverage of the topic I attempted to publish, however there is unfortunately no more information to provide. This band is essentially lost media, and practically no information exists on the internet. Yet, somehow, with the limited information I had access to, I believe I managed to write a reasonably in depth article. Even though this topic is small, I portrayed it to the best of my ability and all of my sources are credible and relevant. I really hope that we are able to give the article another chance, because it can really help bring the history of this little known band, and important aspect of Vundabar's(the band that resulted from this one) history to light. Thank you for considering my article. Orion's Toes (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online. If there are no more sources, there can't be an article about this band at this time. You may want to find an alternative forum with less stringent requirements to tell the world about this band. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 7 November 2023 review of submission by SriSahi

can you please share the standard content example SriSahi (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:26, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Gruppeder 9b

Hi, what is the problem with the article? The person in question is by far the most influential person in their field of research. The sources include articles from major German newspapers. How can I fix the problem. Many thanks in advance. 

Gruppeder 9b (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are influential, then you need independent reliable sources that state that and describe what makes them so. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transpose what you can from the german wiki and we can see what can be done.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Ulmann
I saw your draft. It needs formatting. Will try and help in my free time. Editing and contributing (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 7 November 2023 review of submission by WaffleHouseEmployee

Im trying to get an article cleared for reveiw however there are not many credible sources for the topic (Hotdog Water). Do you have any suggestions as to what I should do for this? Thanks! WaffleHouseEmployee (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are insufficient reliable sources to summarize, there cannot be an article about this topic. No amount of editing can fix that. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 7 November 2023 review of submission by ST-UTSCI

Hello, I am seeking some guidance regarding the rejection of this draft. I believe I can address the concerns of notability (as written, the article notes events/product releases but not how those things affect the broader industry as a whole). However, if possible I would like some feedback on the sourcing.

I cited a number of digital archives of older printed journals and magazines and so I wonder if that is part of the issue? I tried, as much as possible, to draw style, source, and formatting examples from articles on companies of similar age/impact in the broadcasting industry. Any guidance would be appreciated. ST-UTSCI (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected- "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. I will use the correct term in the future. ST-UTSCI (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Morganryan17

Hello! I am attempting to update my draft page for Sean Murphy's biography. I have included a lot of links to things he has written, but there are also several sources where other writers have quoted him in notable media platforms. Can you help me to understand why these do not qualify as external sources that would make him notable? Morganryan17 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate, I know a few other authors, one of which being Jenna Blum, who's page is similar. How is her page notable but Sean Murphy's page is not? Morganryan17 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morganryan17 I think you linked to the wrong article; I've fixed it with a link to your draft article.
We don't want just mere quotes from him- there needs to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about him, showing how he meets the definition of a notable author. You've documented his media appearances and his work, but not said anything about how either makes him important/significant/influential.
Beware in citing other articles that themselves could be problematic, which you would be unaware of. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 7 November 2023 review of submission by ItsRaihanArifin

I want to publish a article about organization Hello I want to to create about The Foreign Investors' Chamber of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) in Bangladesh. If 'Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry(FICCI)' information is enlisted on wikipedia then why we are not able to published? please help me how i enlisted that? ItsRaihanArifin (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ItsRaihanArifin I fixed your post to display a link to your draft(you had a statement which appeared as a link, which I moved so it doesn't).
Beware in citing other similar articles to compare to yours- these too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
Your draft does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organizaton merits a Wikipedia article, even within a field.
If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be declared, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Demon King3333

MAKE IT ON WIKIPEDIA MY CULTURE MADE THIS HOLLADAY IT'S REAL Demon King3333 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if a subject is real or not (we have articles on unicorns, fairies, and N rays). What Wikipedia cares about is whether a subject has been written about sufficiently (in reliable, independent sources) to ground an article. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Roc0ast3r

The draft was originally declined for notability issues, then later was re-submitted by the original reviewer, and was declined again for WP:NOTNEWS (at least, I think?). I'll be honest, both comments, at least to me, aren't the most helpful, and I'm having a bit of trouble finding content that violates NOTNEWS. I'm not the most familiar with creating Wikipedia articles, and so I would like to be informed if any content violates that policy. Thanks! RONIN 21:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Roc0ast3r almost all the sources are dated in late January or early February which does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. A short burst of new coverage does not warrant an article. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that explains it better. Thanks for the reply! RONIN 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 7 November 2023 review of submission by Boohoolane

Greetings!

I see that the article has been marked as needing more sources. Would you prefer that we remove information so that we can expedite approval? It is imperative that we populate more Middle Eastern / North African / Southwest Asian performer pages with notable credits as it is an under-supported community on Wikipedia (see: status of Iranian sub-communities) and in the Entertainment industry wholly.

We do have some very solid sources from Letterboxd, Hollywood Reporter (Deadline), and more. It is also important to keep in mind that The Persian Version is a struck project - because of this sourcing can be sparce until after the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.

We also have compared several existing pages for actors from different backgrounds / with similar resumés that pass the articles of creation and become published. Thankfully we are looking forward to ensuring this page will be adequately updated within all Wikipedia policies and furnished with even more sources. We just need to get the ship moving and send the page to publishing.

Thank you again for your note - please let us know what we can do to ensure the article gets published and we can continue to work on publishing articles on talent from this underrepresented community! Boohoolane (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boohoolane! Thanks for coming to the help desk. The more pressing issue that I see is not the lack of sources supporting the information in the article, but rather the article's subject not meeting wikipedia's inclusion guidelines of two reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. While there are reliable sources, there does not appear to be coverage of the subject beyond a few passing mentions. I do not see notability in the subject at this moment with the sources in the article. Justiyaya 12:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While working on an underserved topic area is a noble pursuit, you still need to meet the sourcing requirements; there is no exception for underserved areas in that regard.
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 8

00:46, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Airborne84

Hello. After multiple improvements, I believe that Draft:Tactical Assault Group (game) clearly meets the requirements in WP:GNG. The last reviewer who declined the submission, reconsidered here, suggesting a resubmission. Perhaps someone here could review? Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button to place your draft back in the review queue. It will be reviewed in due course the same as any other draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:18, 8 November 2023 review of submission by K-popguardian

Glitch has recieved significantly more coverage in the wake of The Amazing Digital Circus, GlitchX, and Murder Drones. I'm doing my best to update the page right now but it doesn't look like I can submit it at the moment. Any chance someone could help resubmit this page in the future? K-popguardian (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of a draft typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, if I were the last reviewer, I don't think the changes made warrant reconsideration. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:38, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Snowmentil

The Wikipedia page that I made was declined, and I don’t know why. Could someone explain? Snowmentil (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft should adhere to wikipedia's guideline to notability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Editing and contributing (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:45, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Erick Wihardja

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request assistance and guidance with editing and submitting a Wikipedia article.

I have been working on an article about Draft:Vasanta Group (PT. Sirius Surya Sentosa) and have reached a point where I would greatly appreciate the expertise and support of experienced editors to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's content guidelines and quality standards.

The draft article is currently in progress and can be found at the following link: https://w.wiki/85XJ. I have made an effort to make the content as neutral, well-referenced, and informative as possible, but I understand that there might be areas that need improvement.

Here are some specific areas where I would welcome assistance: 

 1. Ensuring the article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.
 2. Reviewing and improving the article's structure, flow, and clarity.
 3. Adding relevant citations from reliable sources to support the information presented.
 4. Identifying and addressing any issues that may hinder the article's acceptance on Wikipedia.

I believe that with the help of experienced Wikipedia editors, we can enhance the article's quality and alignment with Wikipedia's standards. Any guidance, edits, or feedback provided would be greatly appreciated.

If you are available to assist with this project, please let me know the best way to collaborate and proceed. I am open to your recommendations and insights to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together and improve this article.

Sincerely, Erick Wihardja 

Erick Wihardja (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erick Wihardja I see that you declared a COI; as I assume you are employed by this company in some capacity, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure on your user page. Click that link for instructions.
Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as if it were on the company website. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does- that's what your website is for. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" in this context is not things like press releases, the company website, interviews with staff, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources. Significant coverage goes beyond these things and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk)

06:27, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

my articles submission on Wikipedia is rejected. so what i have to do to accept my article? also why my article is rejected? Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Leaves, your draft is nothing like an acceptable encyclopedia article. It entirely lacks context and is completely unreferenced. It presents no evidence at all that the topic is notable. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

help me to improve my articles for publishing 

Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page already exists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince Editing and contributing (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 8 November 2023 review of submission by BobTheRobber5

What was the reason for it being declined? BobTheRobber5 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BobTheRobber5 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). The reason for the decline was provided by the reviewer. You have few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The award does not establish notability as the award itself does not have an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) or you don't have several independent sources discussing the importance of her receiving this award. The controversy described seems to have little to do with her personally and simply quotes her in her capacity as a school official. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Aisyahaufaa

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Korea-Indonesia_MTCRC Hi im the employee of the company on the page i attached, currently we're trying to work on the english version of the page but the page is always on the draft section, how do i publish it so everyone knows the english version of the page? (original page is Indonesia) Aisyahaufaa (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisyahaufaa As an employee, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure(click for instructions).
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Indonesian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two Wikipedias are separate. Your draft would not be accepted as it is now if you were to submit it for a review. An English Wikipedia article is not a place for a company to tell about itself- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To try and publish, press the button submit for review in the draft page. Reviewers will look and see if it is acceptable to be undrafted and moved to mainspace. I will press the submit button on your behalf and we shall see what can be done. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan

hi may i know why you rejected my article Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a place to provide life tips or advice. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan: please understand that Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for your essays or soapboxing. Articles need to summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject. They also need to be encyclopaedic in tone and content, not promotional pieces or 'how-to' guides. Your current sandbox contents are again way off what is expected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Ruisleipa

Hi, I am having some trouble with this article. It has been rejected twice for the same reason despite my edits. The rejection says it is not encyclopaedic enough and should use respectable sources. But all the sources are independent and are research documents from universities and institutes, or published journalistic articles. So I don't know what the person who rejected the article really means. The sources are independent and reliable and the topic is notable by virtue of the objective coverage of it. Would anyone be able to give me some tips as to how to improve the article? Thanks in advance. Ruisleipa (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have summarized the technical information, but that doesn't establish notability. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about this platform and what makes it important/significant/influential- what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin

Dear Colleagues I am faculty member of Royan Institute and I would like to finalize the Wekipedia page of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran.

Please do me a favor and let me know how I can submit this draft as finalized page for Royan Institute?

Sincerely, Ali

Dr. AliReza Alizadeh Moghadam Masouleh (Ph.D.) Assistant Professor of Nutritional Biology - Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, gyn-medicum Göttingen, Waldweg 5, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany AND - Department of Embryology, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute, Tehran 16635-148, Iran 



 Katrina masbin (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Katrina masbin: could you please clarify whether you are actually User:Katrina masbin, or are only using their account? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do as a third party. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Wikiaflam

Hello... we are looking for clarification. This page has already been previously approved and published. I submitted some simple edits and now it is rejected. Thank you for your guidance. Wikiaflam (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiaflam What makes you think the draft is "approved and published"? 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 November 2023 review of submission by WikiCreator2023

Is it possible to get any help on what more I can add to this page before I submit it for review again. Would rather make sure it is in good stance before just submitting it. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

Liza Soberano 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have also just continued to copy-paste from other articles. Nothing about the subject and zero sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi

I do not understand why the biography of Jean-Pierre is defined as "an advertisment". I copy the style of other artists which some of them are really advertising there bravour. I tried to stay as much as neutral as possible. Jean-Pierre Groppx was a well known artist at his time and some people still remember the artist but some people start to ask today who is he. So I thought Wikipedia is there also to refer to events, people, and other thinks that need some reference and memories. In my opinion Jean-Pierre should have the right to be published as others. Please help me to modify the text as it should be less as an advertisment. Thank you for your help. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B

I just made a list to tidy up the article 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the draft is submitted and waiting for review. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

John Benjamin Hickey

Hickey at the 13th Annual Broadway Barks Benefit, at Shubert Alley in New York City on July 9, 2011 Born June 25, 1963 (age 60) Plano, Texas, U.S. Education Texas State University, San Marcos Fordham University (BA) Juilliard School (GrDip) Occupation Actor Years active 1990–present Partner(s) Jeffrey Richman (2003–present) John Benjamin Hickey (born June 25, 1963) is an American actor with a career in stage, film and television. He won the 2011 Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play for his performance as Felix Turner in The Normal Heart. 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish

Hi, My initial submission was rejected on the basis that it read too much like an advertisement. Before I proceed to edit my draft, I'd like to enquire in what way exactly? Is it down the content of the article, for instance, or the list of (co-)authored publications? Also, although I referenced a blog article, the blog is written by a reliable art historian and former university lecturer who is independent of the subject. Any help and thoughts on this is much appreciated. Many thanks! FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FactsThatFlourish, your draft has not been rejected. Rather, it has been declined, which is an important distinction. You are welcome to keep working on it. In my opinion, your draft over-relies on works by Katalin Herzog. Also, the sections "Exhibitions (selection)" and "Work in museum collections (selection)" are entirely unreferenced. Those sections either need references or they should be removed. Unreferenced statements like Space and movement are very important for Ton Mars, and this is evident in his works in various ways. Although most of his works look like two-dimensional paintings, they have sloping sides that narrow towards the back and rest against the wall. A viewer walking past can experience these works as sculptures, neatly embedded in the architecture of the exhibition space. come off as promotional and original research, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors summarize what art critics say. We do not function as art critics ourselves. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Flint314

I have tried to attach news and studies and reports to the page. But it is very hard to have lot of citations for something that is pretty new technology, and not so widely known. So how can I get it out there? Flint314 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected Wikipedia is only interested in things that are already out there ie notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Was Drafted for no sources

Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just moved to article space. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I will take a look. Comintell (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who moved it and think it was script error for saying "no references." It was moved due to tone and sourcing. I see it was moved back to the mainspace so I will take a closer look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell


Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Woodrusher

Hello, this is quite a legitimate entry as I was surprised Caples had no Wikipedia on him, as he is legendary in railroading and the chief engineer for the Clinchfield, in whose Wikipedia entry he is even mentioned. I have also included links to reputable sources in the community. As I am not artful in the processes and determinations of Wikipedia, I politely request guidance so I can make this entry acceptable. All I received was a summary and immediate decline, which is quite discouraging. Anyone knowledgable about railroad engineering and the rather astonishing accomplishment of Clinchfield Railroad, the last major railroad built in the United States and arguably the best engineered, is quite aware of MJ Caples. This is not a fluky Wikipedia entry application.

I also made a typo mistake in the header by putting a comma accidentally where a period should be in the abbreviation, but do not know how to change that.

Assistance on this entry is most appreciated and I believe this is a useful contribution for Wikipedia, Woodrusher (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodrusher Tighten your writing and set being discouraged aside. Being pedantic, if he is legendary then he is fiction. This is part of tightening your writing. Avoid praise words. Commit to dull-but-worthy flat toned prose.
Your only objective is to prove he passes WP:BIO. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 8 November 2023 review of submission by TakeDealyo

The reviewer has declined the draft because subject does not have significant media coverage. There were 13 citations on the subject but the reviewer says that they were just passing mentions. . Secondly, subject is an engineer, and they will not get the kind of media coverage that politicians and other celebrities get. Please suggest how to overcome this objection. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not appropriate sources to summarize, there is nothing you can do. It is true that Wikipedia's requirement to have independent reliable sources for a topic means that some areas are underserved, but this is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you response. If purpose of notable sources are for verification purposes then some of the citations are from the US Patent Office (USPTO), LinkedIn where someone has posted the review of the book authored by the subject and published by Elsevier (one of the world's largest publisher of STEM books) etc. How to provide more reliable sources? Please help. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your association with Mr. Kangovi? (I see you took a picture of him)
I confused you with regards to verification- verification is not the only requirement or need for a source. Sources must contain significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond merely documenting what they have done and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- what we call notability. I get that you see him as important, but what matters is if others see him that way.
Patent office documents are primary sources (as they only document he holds a patent) and do not establish notability. If an independent source writes about the significance of the invention that he holds a patent for, that would be what we are looking for. If as you say, they don't have the coverage needed, Mr. Kangovi would not merit a Wikipedia article. You may want to consider alternative outlets with less stringent requirements to tell the world about Mr. Kangovi. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Center&main

Seeking assistance with this draft. I have provided multiple reliable business sources citing Mahesh's role as CEO of Cleo and his notable background in the technology sector. Center&main (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Center&main You have already declared you are paid by Cleo to write this. Please use that payment to learn how to write and cite drafts that will be accepted.
I will give you a clue.
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.
The draft has been rejected. You may appeal tothe rejecting reviewer if you feel it appropriate. It is unlikely to be reviewed further without their release. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.251.51

What should be added to this article to make it more complete? 178.204.251.51 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the comments on the draft page, multiple reviewers have noted that they don't understand what the article is about. I for one have no idea what an "otok" is. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking how to make the article clearer. On "otok" I made a link to the Chinese Wikipedia 178.204.251.51 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't know Chinese so I still don't know what an otok is unfortunately. Perhaps the otok article should be translated to the English Wikipedia. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FutsalFan97

I don't understand why this draft has been rejected twice if you compare my draft with articles like Tennis at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's singles and Tennis at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's doubles my draft is pretty much equal and has even more references. Why does it keep being rejected? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FutsalFan97 The draft has been declined, not "rejected". The terms have specific meanings here- "rejected" would mean a draft may not be resubmitted- declined means it may be resubmitted.
You do not have independent reliable sources that discuss this event in depth- you've just posted the results. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't have independent reliable sources, then why articles like the ones I mentioned who also don't have independent reliable sources are approved? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are numerous ways that inappropriate articles can get past us, this cannot justify more inappropriate articles being added. The men's doubles article has the same problem as your draft. There needs to be some sort of source besides the results. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

Need help with an article about Apache Pulsar @331dot written: > To pass the submission process, the draft needs to be much less about the technical information and features, and needs to discuss what independent sources say is important about this platform. That's my opinion, feel free to ask others at the AFC Help

I looked a lot. Spent the whole day on it.

Eventually, I asked the Pulsar community for help in finding good references. Hoping for any good recommendations. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vh8v8wch5drt7w6d4sozstpvhdcqn6gx

I don't see any independent, in-depth, and reliable at the same time sources here. Most of the in-depth sources are from the project documentation, StreamNative blog, or DataStax blog.

There are some articles by some bloggers on Medium and similar resources, but I can't they are "reliable".

Half a year ago I made a list of articles about Pulsar: https://github.com/tealtools/awesome-apache-pulsar#articles

Maybe something from this list is suitable?

There are two books on Apache Pulsar. One of the books is written by StreamNative employee, so its not "independent". Unlikely I can cite the second book several times in the article.

What is the concrete threshold of refs per section/per paragraph/per sentence or any other clear metric to article be considered valid for publishing?

I see the same similar situation in the list of Apache_Kafka and RabbitMQ references list. At least half of the references are from "dependent" sources. 


Visortelle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visortelle I fixed your post for proper display of a link to your draft(you had what I think you intended as a section title where the draft title should have been) 331dot (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle You asked about thresholds. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That is what we need. How many? That depends upon how many facts you state that are susceptible to challenge (as opposed to simple facts, like "Chalk is white")
I suspect you have answered your own question. No (useful) references = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spend a lot of time on attempts and combinatorics. Can we go this way?:
I'll provide multiple sources for each fact. Each of them separately most likely won't be "independent", "secondary" and "in-depth", but in combination, these requirements will be completed.
They will complement each other and not contradict each other. You'll be able to remove some of them. Visortelle (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle No. Spend the time or don't spend it. Multiple references for a fact is WP:CITEKILL, and will lead to a decline, perhaps rejection. If you want the draft to be an article, please see WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia woudl like articles. but does not need them 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle Seems it was rejected. Shame. Never mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's now how citations work here- putting multiple citations and saying they only work together would be original research. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just offer a choice for the reviewer. Feel free to leave refs you think is suitable and remove what you think isn't suitable.
The review process seems a subjective assessment. Is there any automated ref quality checker or something like that?
For now, it looks to me that reviewers even don't read the content of refs and just reject it for fun. Visortelle (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided:
Refs to two books from O'Reilly Media - the very reputable publisher.
Refs to articles on independent blogs.
Refs to an article in pdf by Intel.
What's wrong here? Visortelle (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 331dot Keeping the discussion in the existing section.
Is the article at inforworld.com a good article? Visortelle (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good for establishing notability. It's a comparison between two products and describes their features, it does not provide coverage indicating what makes it notable.. Blogs(which you refer to) are not generally considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about books? Visortelle (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most books are fine as sources(unless they are self-published). I haven't read the books you refer to so I can't comment beyond that. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the references in this article?

I'm looking on another Wikipedia articles on related technologies an quality of references isn't better in any way.

Maybe this is a suitable source to refer to? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3379120/apache-kafka-vs-apache-pulsar-how-to-choose.html Visortelle (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visortelle Please keep the discussion to this existing section. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, comparisons to other articles are not usually useful, see WP:OSE- unless those articles are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Visortelle:, let's review the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage:

1. Not independent or significant coverage.

2. Not independent. "At the time we started"

3. Not independent or significant coverage.

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.

6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.

7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.

8. Interview, not really fully independent.

12. Interview, not fully independent.

13. Company website, not independent.

15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.

Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. Visortelle (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is O'Reilly Media. It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.

Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. Visortelle (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards notability. You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whats next?
Do books count?
Should I remove some sources? Something else?
Regarding the notability - amount of stars on GitHub is a good metric for open-source projects popularity.
Only Apache Kafka from this list is more popular than Pulsar.

Most of top-level (not incubating) Apache Foundation projects are notable enough for people interested in this area. https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?number Many Apache projects with less number of committers and PMC members have an article on Wikipedia: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_RocketMQ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_CouchDB - ... many others.

Pulsar has a Slack community with more than 10,000 users - also more that many projects of this kind that have an article on Wikipedia. This kind of software is used in many enterprise companies. Pulsar isn't something that has been released this month, it's a mature project with hundreds of contributors: https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/02/03/apache-pulsar-hits-its-600th-contributor/#:~:text=The%20Apache%20Pulsar%20community%20embraced,contributed%20to%20this%20remarkable%20achievement. If I'll add refs to the community size statistics, Apache PMC members count, would it contribute to notability? Maybe some ref to a good article with the explanation of why this kind of software is important for the industry? Actually, the only direct competitor with similar amount of features here is Apache Kafka.

If anyone from moderators would provide a good reference article on a same kind of software (message brokers) with good sources list, I would be very grateful.
@331dot WDYT? Visortelle (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cc @Timtrent @WikiOriginal-9 Visortelle (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe I've said previously, it is usually not a good idea to cite other articles in comparison to yours, as they could have problems that you are unaware of. In this case, the ones you are citing indeed have the same problems as your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why your OSE argument is valid. I would understand it if there would be one, two, three articles on similar topics. But there are tens of such articles on very similar subjects. I can't find any good article. Can you?
Its completely unfair in relation to the project. People who unlikely can understand and evaluate any info written in the sources, trying to make some conclusions.
I scanned the "good articles" list yesterday and didn't find anything similar to the kind of software I'm talking about.
I looked for an open-source project that is:
  • Relatively new - not 30 years old something used by everyone, or something that is already dead and notable only as a historical fact.
  • Not something super-popular that runs on a lot of consumer-market devices, but rather a project used by professional engineers, that "normal people" wouldn't talk about.
By the way, Wikipedia itself uses this kind of software (Kafka): https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/O_OXJyTVk/home-w-wiki-status?orgId=1&refresh=30s&search=open&tag=kafka
I removed most of the content of the original article, including what has been evaluated as promotional in first edits.
Now the draft contain only very short list of facts.
I suppose, the article content can be added by others Pulsar community members over time.
All these facts are mentioned in the referenced books by very reputable publisher.
Isn't it's enough?
Maybe Wikipedia or any of it's moderators personally interested in not adding this specific project? I can't find any other explanation. Visortelle (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You answered only about my referencing to other projects but didn't answer anything about the book's reliability.
Also didn't answer anything about the Pulsar notability. Visortelle (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe those tens of articles should not exist. I don't know, I haven't examined every one or its sources. It's possible that this class of software does not merit Wikipedia articles because it lacks the appropriate sources. It is true that sourcing and verification requirements mean that some topic areas are underserved, but these policies are necessary. Articles do not just summarize facts- they should summarize what is said about a topic and what makes it notable. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be that the class of software as a whole might merit an article, but not individual software programs. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do these articles contributes to notability:
Visortelle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean - instead of writing an article for each program, write a single article on all the programs?
There are such articles that explain the problem that this class of programs solves: Message broker, Message queue
I don't think so. Each of them They are very different.
It's like saying that there shouldn't be article about each kind of animal - lion, zebra, cat, etc., but rather a single article about all the animals on the planet. Visortelle (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that people who aren't interested in the subject, are trying to evaluate the subject's notability.
For example, I absolutely don't find notable each NFL player who has lived on a planet or Maine elections (per year!!!). But it may be important to someone, and that's OK. Visortelle (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy about animals is not quite the same thing. My present circumstances don't permit me to examine the articles you've provided; perhaps someone else will sooner than I can. If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that. Because Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, personal interest in a topic is not required to contribute about it. In fact, it can be a negative, if the editor is too personally invested in the subject to see how policies are applied. Not saying you are, just speaking generally. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone not interested in facts about Maine (probably by living there) could decide to write so many articles about this area?
Also, I don't see how anyone not interested in using Pulsar, Kafka, any programming language, would write an article about it.
Same for any other topic, that you can't read about in the morning newspaper, see on TV news, or some YouTube channel like "a fact of the day". Visortelle (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> perhaps someone else will sooner than I can
Is there any way to initiate this process without creating one more article draft or a thread on the Help Desk? Visortelle (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that.
I don't feel that because Maine isn't my area of interest and I don't know anything about it.
If I saw some wrong or controversial fact in an article on topic I know well enough, I would probably raise a ticket/issue, or how it properly called here, on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, what a lot of messages. @Visortelle, why not put this energy into editing Wikipedia? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. Yep, it took much longer than I initially thought. And probably it's not the end. If I have decided to do something, I gonna try until I'll have some results.
Editing Wikipedia itself isn't my area of interest yet. I see it's requires quite a lot of patience to resolve disputes.
Same question - why put so much energy into rejecting the article?
Let's better try to find a way to improve it and make it suitable to be published.
The amount and quality of sources on Pulsar isn't less that on other similar projects.
Maybe I'm presenting them differently somehow. ask, I'll explain everything if something isn't clear. Visortelle (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after I already have some experience with Wiki syntax, and more-less understand what's needed in the sense of sources, etc., probably I'll start to make some edits. It's easier to do something when you pass the initial entry barrier/threshold on something unfamiliar before.
Depends on the final experience of the current topic. Visortelle (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle I remind you that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I wonder if anyome has mentioned WP:BURDEN to you so far. We woudl like any article om a topic that is proven to be notable. The burden of proof is the creating editor's.
We care passionately about WP:N andWP:V. Individual articles. not so much.
The rest of this is tl;dr 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it.
I tired of rejections with no any feedback. The only more-less constructive feedback I got was from @WikiOriginal-9, who provided per/source explanation of why it's good or bad. It was after the article rejection by another user.
That's why I'm asking, do these articles are good for notability or not:
Also I still didn't get the answer from anyone - are two books that I referenced to are good sources? These two books (even any of them) have enough information to cover all the fact in the article. Visortelle (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle With respect, this is a simple Helpdesk. Your detailed questions may be answered by using the references you have found. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any place on Wikipedia for discussion a specific draft before submitting it (and potentially getting a rejection)? Visortelle (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle This is, with precision, the role of the Draft name space and the Articles for Creation process.
Having something rejected is juts that, rejection. Having something defined means you get to work on it iteratively. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pangiotis A.

Hello,

What other correction should I take?

My last revision wasn't clear about what was wrong.

Thank you, Pangiotis A. (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pangiotis A. the draft is rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Given much of it is unsourced, it appears to be original research and it certainly is promotional. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Horophile

Hi, I was wondering if I can get assistance for how to improve my submission? I am including multiple independence sources but still getting declined? Horophile (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horophile. No, your sources are not independent. A large majority of them are affiliated with Harvard. Those Harvard sources are of no use in establishing notability. What is required are sources that are entirely independent of Harvard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Օֆելյա Հակոբյան

I have made updates, please help me to know if my article now is in a better situation. Thank you in advance. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Օֆելյա Հակոբյան The way to discover this is to submit it for review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Morekar

Their is problem in references but I don't ideo about that. Morekar (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morekar obviously the technical reference problem is fixed. I make no comment about the draft itself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent, Whenever I starting to edit in desktop mode appeared a note in reflist is – "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode".
@Morekar I do not see that I am afraid. If t persists I suggest WP:HELPDESK for that question 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 8 November 2023 review of submission by MicroSupporter

I am struggling to make it different to the previously deleted version on Verdis because I originally made it similar to Liberland another micronation nearby. I added more notable and recent references and information about their 'president' being detained. What can I do? MicroSupporter (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroSupporter: Could you please list all of the new references? Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I believe I added the following:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/melbourne-teenager-becomes-europes-newest-president,18022 (I saw you wrote it isn't independent but I do not understand why.)
https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/southall-teenager-sets-up-new-26385041
https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/20-wild-attempts-to-create-crypto-micronations-or-communities/
https://birdinflight.com/svit/verdis.html (in Ukrainian)
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/30/verdis-the-sovereign-state-on-croatia-and-serbias-disputed-border-18689539/
https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Danube-le-fleuve-ou-peuvent-naitre-des-utopies-1-3-Bienvenue-en-Syldavie-si-ce-n-est-en-Bordurie (in French)
https://issuu.com/starnewsgroup/docs/2023-07-18_rt_633/1 (some local paper I think)
https://explorersweb.com/terra-nullius-unclaimed-lands/ (I dont think I added this one. I am not sure) MicroSupporter (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this older article. The other b92 reference appears to be reposted from Sputnik. This one is independently written. https://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2021&mm=09&dd=20&nav_id=1925054 MicroSupporter (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 sorry I forgot to tag MicroSupporter (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, gimme a sec to review the links. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter:
Independent Australia: Author writes in first person. Ex. "I", "We"
MyLondon: Maybe, but seems more like an interview converted to article form.
Birdinflight: Seems ok, actually
Metro: Maybe
Issuu: Not really about Verdis, more about aid.
Explorersweb: Passing mention
b92: Maybe, but the coverage is mostly superficial (basic facts).
Also, per the MyLondon source, they have recognition from 1 country (Kingdom of Eswatini), though WP:NCOUNTRY isn't a thing so I'm not sure if this contributes much. In any case, I think this is pretty borderline so a second opinion would be appreciated. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. The Independent Australia article I think the journalist joined the ‘President’ to report on his trip. I would also like to advise looking at the previous references on the page like Većernji List, Total Croatia News, Pagina/12 and LaNacion. I think they are independent.
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/osnovali-drzavu-na-nasem-spornom-teritoriju-cilj-nam-je-pomirenje-naroda-1524432
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/371297-verdis-la-eco-republica-libre-que-preside-un-pibe-de-17-anos
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/revista-brando/la-republica-libre-de-verdis-el-pais-sustentable-que-fundo-un-joven-de-17-anos-en-una-franja-entre-nid03112021/
https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/verdis-republic/
are they ok? MicroSupporter (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123sorry I forgot to tag again. MicroSupporter (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter: Hi, sorry for the late response. One of the sources is an interview, and the others seem ok, but, as previously mentioned, I would like a second opinion. Feel free to resubmit, linking to this thread if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is too much citation of primary and questionable sourcing in the draft. And as with other 'micronation' articles, this article abuses the infobox to misrepresent the self-promotional claims of individuals of unrecognised zero-population states as having recognised heads of state etc - e.g. naming a supposed 'President' and 'Vice president'. Whether this counts as fiction, fancruft, or an outright hoax, I'm unsure, but in my opinion Wikipedia should not be presenting such fantasies as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued with you before. Respectfully, I think you have too much bias against micronations. You are basically saying they should all be deleted in that sense. Also what sourcing is primary except their website? MicroSupporter (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bias against misrepresenting fantasy as fact. As does Wikipedia. If people who write articles promoting the fantasies of imaginary country-builders as fact have an issue with that, it isn't my problem. Daniel Jackson is no more the 'President of Verdis' than Joshua Norton was Emperor of the United States. Compare the infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a misrepresentation. It says Micronation on the info box. If you feel this way maybe set up an AfD on every micronation. List of micronations MicroSupporter (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the BS the fantasy-country fanclub have been pushing on Wikipedia for years. Find some dubious local paper or the like that describes Imaginistan as a 'micronation' and then spam the article with a whole lot of nonsense about governments, constitutions, currencies etc, etc, etc that exists absolutely nowhere but on some website with delusions of grandeur. This is an abuse of infoboxes, and an abuse of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: Metro isn't an RS (rsp); it's a tabloid owned by the Daily Mail, although it's not deprecated as the Mail is. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

01:37, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Memories of

I'm not understanding how this draft doesn't show that this music group has received significant coverage. They have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and receieved significant coverage in articles from NPR, Consequence, Paste, and Stereogum. I've seen articles of other groups in the mainspace for years now that don't have as many sources of this nature. Memories of (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Please see other stuff exists. 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 articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not in comparison with other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Interviews do not establish notability, as they are not independent sources, being the band speaking about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 66.41.37.183

Hello, I have drastically changed the article and make sure the references were better. So sorry about that. May we publish? 66.41.37.183 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not significant coverage of the company that describes how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. An article must do more than document the existence of the company and what it does, it must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Typically, after a rejection, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84

I am unclear how any articles can get posted to Wikipedia, this is a subject that has 30 references, some of these are from the largest news organisations in the country.

The feedback has always been addressed as best I can with my limited understanding, so if there are any other sections that need fixing I am happy to take feedback and implement it. Benking84 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it reads like an advertisement, especially the introduction. See "[t]he founders of Swiss 8 have first-hand experience in managing mental health issues;" this is the kind of thing an advert trying to promote Swiss 8 would say, the phrasing is bad for a wiki article. Also "Swiss 8 aims to create a new approach to mental health care that is proactive," this could be rephrased more like "A stated goal of Swiss 8 is to create a new proactive approach to mental health care" There are many other examples as well. Also I can't comment on whether the subject is even notable enough to get an article. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benking84 I see you declared a COI; if you work for Swiss 8, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work for them, I did some volunteering a year or so ago as they are a charity. Even if I did though it is an entity that has had multiple media articles in the biggest papers in the country this year, so is of importance to the public.
Is this the issue? The admins assumed that I was being paid to write the article? Benking84 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Fbarbe

My submission has been rejected for appearing to "read more like an advertisement". Note that I have not been paid and have no financial interest in the project (which is a research project) to write this Wikipedia page. I have, however, used Ludii for my bachelor thesis, so I am aware of my bias. This is my first time writing a new Wikipedia article, and would be very grateful if someone could highlight the paragraphs/parts that make it sound like an advertisement and that I could change. Fbarbe (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fbarbe In the first instance please approach the reviewer who declined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Chrisw1117

Why was it declined? Chrisw1117 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisw1117: for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. Have you read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based it off another award winner from the same award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivi_Lin Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisw1117: the Vivi Lin article has its own problems, mimicking it may not be a good idea. In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever may exist out there, but by checking whether they meet the necessary standards for publication. Yours fails on notability grounds, due to its sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources is not credible? They are all from news agencies and the award platforms themselves , (sorry I am just trying to learn lol) Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award platforms are what we call primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So would the news agencies that confirmed the awards and discussed not count to support? Chrisw1117 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Arunvikram2208

My article is getting declined even after adding independent sources Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: there is precisely one source cited!
This draft is being declined for lack of evidence of notability. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Congrats on creating a strong contender for the longest article title, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you added sources, but I only see one source. You should first gather your sources and then summarize them- not write a text and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 115.114.90.174

Hi,

Why my article submission is rejected multiple times despite the fact that it provides all the necessary information from relevant trusted sources. ?

Kindly help. 115.114.90.174 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find no draft with such a title, and your edit history under this IP address shows only one edit, namely this help desk query. Please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the following page: Draft:Bharti AXA Life. I have submitted the article twice as per the requirement. But now, it got's deleted. Please help me to retrieve the same and in editing the article as per the wikipedia guidelines. RahulRaiSahab (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Bharti AXA Life
Okay, thanks. As you can see, the title is different from what you first gave.
This draft has been deleted as promotional. You may ask the deleting administrator to have it returned to you for drafting, but this is far from guaranteed.
What is your connection to this company? I will post a query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz

Hello, I've been working on this article about a living musician (that happens to be my husband) for 9 months now, I started by clicking on a red link on his American label's wikipedia page.

I'm not getting any response on my messages to the last reviewer, and he mostly justifies the rejection by the "tone" issue, is the 3rd time I get this reason, I did a lot of work reading the Manual of Style, but it seems I still has some work to do (and stuff to learn)


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, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.


Can anybody help me solve this "tone" issue? I collaborated editing many musician's articles (in other languages than English) I honestly I see a similar tone and overall style in my article, but I really appreciate any help.

Since the last rejection I did change some small details, removing references and a couple a words that could be considered "peacock" mostly adjectives .

Thanks in advance Vicpaz (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicpaz I do not see it as an advert. The tone looks acceptable. All you need to dos to proves that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and then resubmit it for further review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this.
What I've found (as sources) satisfies Criteria for musicians #1, 5, 10 and 12.
For 1 there are the press quotes.
For number 5 (Has released two or more albums...on important indie labels) I was asked by a reviewer to remove ref pointing to Discogs (still can't understand why, but I did remove them) and to the label's release announcements. I cant point the article to any better than the label's announcement!
For number 10 there are the film and series placements, but for the major ones (Narcos, Ozark, etc) there are no media coverage, only a mention in the credits and some inclusions I referenced to specialized film-music sites.
For number 12 there for example one interview (1 hour long) that was a full career spanning one, with loads of biographical information. But I included that (somebody's suggestion on the live chat) as a "further reading" link. But it could be a reference to all major bio data in the article. I don't think is great to reference 10 times in the article to the same ref....Then again, you have to listen to the 1 hour interview to find the information (it's in Spanish)...
But thanks for reassuring me that the tone is ok, will look for help about the way to reflect the notability from the references into the article text...
Cheers Vicpaz (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 9 November 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

I understand the comments that have been made.

2) I think I have misunderstood how to use Links and References, and included a number of them the wrong way round. I need help: a) To ensure where I should be using Links, and that they are correctly inserted b) To move some citations from Links to References and c) To make sure I type in References in the correct format. I have just included the internet URLs

2) I accept the comment about being a 'connected person', but have borne in mind that the structure of any entry needs to comply with the standards required, and am happy to have this considered, and expected this would be the case.

Thank you 

 PinneyFowke (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is inadvisable and highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write about ourselves at all, please read the autobiography policy(as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing).
If you wish to proceed, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 9 November 2023 review of submission by OkraKemp

The last reviewer of my article removed an entire paragraph of content, not just references as they state. Is that allowed? Can you direct me in finding the original content that is now missing? OkraKemp (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OkraKemp Please examine their edit. Unless I am mistaken, Mcmatter has done precisely what they said. All prior versions are available to all in the history tab, except in exceptional circumstances.
I have flagged that I cannot find your declaration under WP:PAIDanywhere. I can find a use of {{Connected contributor}} at Draft talk:Okra Energy. Istead you need to deploy {{paid}} with parameters filled out on your User page, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OkraKemp I did remove entire paragraphs in this edit, because they were off topic. We have an article on LNG if the reader wishes to know more on that topic, they can click on the link to that article. This draft is supposed to be on Okra Energy not LNG. Stick to the facts of the company and base it on what others have stated about the company in reliable source. As for the question is that allowed? Absolutely, no one owns any particular draft or its content. My edits were to help assist in guiding you to a better draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Craigmateo

Advice needed on how this article could be adjusted to be accepted. I've removed biased language and added 3rd party citations. I'm having trouble understanding that it's not a notable enough topic. Craigmateo (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigmateo Please start by approaching the editor who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

Hello, I translated this article from the italian one and I added some more references. I think it is complete enough. Can you helpe me understanding what is missing, maybe with an example? Kimbamy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 5.101.23.224

Why are the sources presented not suitable? The authors of the books are well-known scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, VK is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content so should not used. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are links not to VK, but to PDF versions of books written by famous Soviet scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

What exactly do I need to update to ensure I get published :) NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I list pages that I am messaged as external links or autobiographical links should not be on the wiki at all? NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Roddy Quezada Granados

As a representative and unbiased individual who has professional knowledge of Doreen, I have created this draft with original content and photos for which I obtained her permission to use. I'm puzzled by the rejection of this draft and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Roddy Quezada Granados (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one cited source which is an interview so is a primary source and not independent. What she has said, written or created is not useful. What is needed are reliable secondary sources with no affiliation with her that have written about her (again not what she says, etc.) such as critical reviews of her work. Also, external hyperlinks do not belong in the body of the article. Almost everything under the "Works and Contributions" section is a hyperlink and they all appear to be mostly primary sources (production company, publisher, etc.) so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Roddy Quezada Granados. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roddy Quezada Granados Pivtures are handled at Wikimedia Commons.mThey are upper deletion there. Visit c:COM:VRT and follow the instructions there, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

Can someone help me with trying to resolve these issues in more detail:

that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't see secondary sources that verify the article and prove notability, and the draft itself doesn't look very much like a proper Wikipedia biography.

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieMeisner Please be specific in the help you woudllike. This is, at the moment a plea for anything and everything. With recision, what abiut the comments you have acted here, is unclear to you. We can start from there.
Be aware that writing your autobiography is not a great idea. It is a rare person indeed who can be unbiased and impartial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, I just named the account under the author so I can remember which account is for what information.
well I would like to start on what are the major issues with the writing. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make it look more like a wikiepedia page NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner by summarizing what reputable sources have written about Meisner, own their own without any input by Meisner. Almost everything in the draft is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article which is why people writing about themselves or those close to them is so strongly discouraged here. Its rarely successful. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this based on the author. I am not the author being written about - I accidentally named myself by the username. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Are you using multiple accounts? Please declare which you are using. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No this is my only account. I put my name as the username rather than the article name. This is my first time using Wikipedia NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner I suggest you change this name to another that is not Ms Meinser's. We have a rule: One person - one account. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple will be your friend here. It is improper to appear to be adopting the person of Natalie Meisner.
Please make this your first priority 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have changed my username to my personal account name. Memeraj (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Thank you for requesting a name change.
With regard to the writing, please read WP:MOS. Put simply, we require dull-but-worthy prose, and 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.
That should be sufficient to get you started. Work by gathering the references first, marshal the facts you intend to use into a storyboard for the draft, and only then write what the references say in your own words, without close paraphrasing. You will be amazed how different the end product is, so consider abandoning your existing words. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj pinging the correct user! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I fix the look of the wikipedia page... apparently it isnt looking like the proper way it should. Memeraj (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj HELP:YFA and WP:MOS should guide you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Likelihoodist

I hope that you can provide clarification as to the reasons for this rejection as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved.

The stated reasons are as follows:

1. Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page), which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.

Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or derive the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.

Would my article be improved by citing Rothman et al.?

2. In-depth entry

Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct. Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article.

Do I need to clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?

3. Reliable sources

The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist) , Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.

4. Secondary source

I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method. 

What sort of secondary source would be helpful for my article?

5. Independent sources

All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.

In summary I am puzzled as to why my article was rejected. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that you have already published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

References

1. Celentano DD, Szklo M, Gordis L (2019). Gordis Epidemiology, Sixth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. p. 149-177.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Breslow, NE, Day, NE (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Vol. 1 - The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications. p. 162-189.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331: 428. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55.

4. Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S.; Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-5564-1. 


Likelihoodist (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likelihoodist There is truly no need to out yourself. "Independent" means "Inependent of the Subject"
You might approach the reviewer who declined it. They wish to see an increase in the references. For matters os science we need to be as sure as we can be that things are not fi=ringer hypotheses. References help a great deal here. Is there any coverage external to Academe? If so it is useful. If not, no matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have tried to contact WikiOriginal-9 but have not yet received a reply. I am very much of a novice navigating Wikipedia so I may be looking in the wrong place. If he/she responds will it be here or should I be looking somewhere else?
It sounds like the major (only?) concern is insufficient references. I can certainly add more references to text books that discuss this topic or papers that use it in their research. Would you advise me to do this and see how the reviewer responds or should I wait for more explicit instructions about the concerns about the references that I have given? Likelihoodist (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

02:54, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” 

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cd634011, thanks for reaching out. Can you go into some more detail on why you think this is a notable academic book per WP:TEXTBOOK? Also, can you list the best 3 or 4 sources that go towards establishing notability? Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Here are the Wikipedia quidelines for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books", which is from the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books): "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."
The book was published by an academic press (Scientific Psychology Series by Routledge) and has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions. The quidelines for establishing notability on the above Wikipedia page mention that books must meet at least one of the criteria (not all of them).
In addition, there are references on that Wikipedia page that provide additional context as to the notability of this particular book (please see my first post with the quoted material). Just as an example, it is cited on that Wikipedia page that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” This book was published by a prominent academic press and the book went through multiple rounds of peer review by independent experts in the field before it was published.
Finally, the following reference appears on the notability page for "Academic and technical books" and particularly applies to this book, as it is a highly specialized mathematical book: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." Meeting this criteria implies that it is not expected to be highly cited by other books or in the media (a criteria for notability that should not be used here), which is OK given its technicality and limited audience. Cd634011 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That looks promising. I'm not an expert on textbook notability so I'm going to hand this over to someone else. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:09, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Littleboybrew

I would like to understand what would make a museum notable? Littleboybrew (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, those sources aren't that bad. I've seen worse. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Didgeridoo2022

I believe that Ozjasz Wasser qualifies for a Wikipedia article and that the submission is adequately supported by reliable sources. Wasser played a very important role in Jewish life in Lviv from early 1900s until his death in 1941. This fact is mentioned multiple times by the sources provided. These secondary sources meet the Wikipedia source requirements. They are all published, reliable and independent of the subject. The Balaban book on the Tempel Synagogue contains the most extensive references to Wasser. This includes his biographic information and the tribute to him by the Chief Rabbi of the Synagogue. I could offer a rough English translation to the reviewers if necessary, since my guess is that they don’t know Polish and haven’t read the source. The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora Polish Series (Lwow) is a well-regarded and invaluable source that documents Jewish life in Lwow that was obliterated by the Holocaust. Wasser is mentioned multiple times in the series and it is clear he was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Lwow from the early 1900s until his death in 1941. The Lviv Interactive Center of Urban History is playing a critical role in resurrecting the Jewish culture and life prior to the Holocaust in modern day Lviv. The Center has done extensive research and the fact that they have chosen to reference Ozjasz Wasser in the roles he played at the Tempel synagogue and as a well-known lawyer is evidence that Wasser was an important person in the Lviv Jewish community. The Wikipedia article on the Tempel Synagogue itself includes a reference to Ozjasz Wasser as the longest serving Chairman of the Board of the Synagogue. As we have discussed one of the consequences of the Holocaust, in addition to the tragic loss of life, was the total erasure of the Jewish people and community from cities like Lviv. This makes it extremely challenging when it comes to finding sources for documenting the lives of those who perished. In my view that is even more reason to acknowledge the importance to the community of the leaders of the Jewish community. Ozjasz Wasser was a leader of the Jewish community in Lviv that is well documented by several reliable sources. He qualifies for an article using Wikipedia’s own standards and I hope the reviewers will reconsider their decision. 

Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Didgeridoo2022, thanks for reaching out. I just took a look at all of the sources listed in the article and all of them except refs 1 and 10 are just passing mentions. Even though ref 10 isn't that much. Also, I can't open ref 1 to evaluate it. So, I can't tell where your getting your info from? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 (https://polona.pl/preview/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9) is far more than a passing mention.
I appreciate that you don't know Polish so this document is very difficult to read.
I have attempted to make it easier for you.
His name comes up 21 times:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=340
There is a whole chapter on Wasser:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=10
Because it is in Polish here is a small extract translated into English:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=247
"19. Celebrations to celebrate the twenty years of work of Dr. Ozjasz Wasser.
For twenty years Dr. Wasser held the difficult and responsible office of chairman of the Temple Management Board, devoting much work and time, money and abilities to this institution and trying to maintain it at the appropriate level. No wonder, then, that his colleagues in the Management Board, and especially those who had been following the pace of his work for years, decided to celebrate the anniversary in a solemn way, perhaps in part to reward the president for his efforts and diligence."
Ref 10 in the section entitled B. Progressives he is mentioned numerous times and he is also in a group photo.
So that's where I get most of my information from. Thank goodness that these documents have survived - so much information was lost and destroyed. I believe strongly that it is very important to remember the past so that we don't repeat the same horrendous mistakes in the future. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Do you know how to go to different pages? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your browser there should be a search option but failing that you have to use the left and right arrows. They don't make it easy! 159.196.103.151 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - I was logged out - apologies! Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your research! Let's see what others have to say. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

please tell me how i create my wikipedia. Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukeshnr sinha only people who meet our special notability criteria may have a Wikipedia written about them. You do not meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

what are the requirements for writting the wikipedia ? please tell me the requirement.i am unable to create wikipedia instead of that i deserve for writting of wikipedia. please suggest. 

Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Your First Article @Sukeshnr sinha. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Marinosk

Hello. I have drafted an article for The American College of Greece. The original version had many references to our website - exactly like many US educational institutions do. It has been taken down because the references were from our site. We have rewritten the article in an as plain way as possible, sitting respectable media of Greece as sources. Again, it was rejected because the "references were not reliable". Can someone guide on what to do? Marinosk (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marinosk. Firstly you must immediately make a paid decleration disclosure. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My user page stated that I work for the organization - it now states it as per WP:PAID instructions. I need some guidance on references please. Marinosk (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marinosk. I've had a closer look at the draft and I think it could do with one or two more sources that discuss the history of the school or review the school in some way, but are very specifically independent of the school: this means not database entries, not interviews with faculty. The ekathimerini article for example is just an interview with Dan Smith which doesn't confer notability. Since it is such an old institution there must be sources - even offline ones - in newspapers and journals and books that discuss it? Qcne (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There are lots of ofline sources - we have a museum full of them. How can I reference them? Marinosk (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marinosk Offline sources are fine as long as they are published in some way. You'd reference them as you'd reference any other source. Qcne (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:09, 10 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.180.135.200



80.180.135.200 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ please restore this deleted draft, give me a chance to prove to you that it has all the notability to be published. Gaetano Minale

Hi IP, please see WP:RESTORE for how to request a page be undeleted. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Manike23

Hi, my article was rejected again and the reason given as "Removing the IMDb sources, the remaining sources are not enough to establish notability in terms of significant coverage, etc." How ever the subject of this article is well recognised and award winning actor in Sri Lanka. He has also appeared in a few international films as well. I have provided local mainstream online newspapers along with the websites, IMDb pages, and exciting Wikipedia pages for cross referencing. I have see articles of Sri Lankan celebrities with far less referencing, thus, I don't know how to improve mine further. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Manike23 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manike23 IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB) so you will want to find better sources if possible. I went through and wikilinked those that have articles which I think will help and you can check those articles to see if there are any helpful sources. I also found Eka Malaka Pethi which I did not see listed in the draft. Most of the awards are either unsourced or the cited source do not support he won the award though and please see WP:Words to watch. Things like his "he continued his passion" is not appropriate. As far as sources to support notability, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and routine announcements like casting, release announcements, etc. are considered trivial. Those are fine to use to support a role though. S0091 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @S0091, for this detailed feedback. I will edit the draft accordingly and once done, do you mind if I tag you again to have a quick look at it before I resubmit? Much appreciate your support. Thanks. 2001:8003:EC02:DC01:C458:D7BC:D970:1810 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is best to get another eye on things and I may not be around so if you have any additional questions about the draft, just post a new query here and a knowledgeable editor will reply. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Tbalaba

Hi, may I ask why my article has been declined? My contributions may seem a little short on reference but the article I am trying to publish is legit. Tbalaba (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tbalaba. I have rejected the draft which means it won't be considered further. You have a single source and the draft reads like an essay for a Catholic blog- not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.

Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).

I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.

I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed

The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.

Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+

I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.

For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.

I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.

At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.

If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum to discuss COI issues is WP:COIN. You don't have to sign a contract to have a COI. You said on your user talk page "I volunteering for the Apache Foundation - also non-profit organization." That is absolutely a COI, full stop. Comparing it to Wikipedia editing is a red herring. WMF employees must and do declare their relationship. Volunteer editors do not have a COI with regards to Wikipedia itself. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot ok, I duplicated the question to the right page. Visortelle (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe I wrongly used the word "volunteering". Probably it's because I’m not yet used to communicating with the audience who isn't familiar with how open-source works.
If we'll look at it with your point of view, then any user who contributes to any open-source project, can't write an article about it. Is it right?
When you use any software library project, you need to report bugs and make contributions to it, otherwise you'll can't use it normally.
From what you're saying, only users who don't have any initiative, are able to write any articles on Wikipedia. But if they don't have any initiative to contribute to the project by reporting or fixing bugs, they unlikely will have initiative to write an article on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe not my deal, but did you happen to work as a lawyer by any chance? :) Visortelle (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm reading the WP:COI page and can't find anything about that volunteering is a full stop even by your understanding of volunteering.
Could you point me to the specific paragraph? Visortelle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I don't have any of the listed relationships:
> Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial.
  • I don't have any friends or relatives in the ASF.
  • ASF isn't religion.
  • It's not about politics. I'm not a politician.
  • It's not an academy.
  • I didn't sign anything with ASF, not physically, not digitally.
  • I didn't ever get paid by ASF.
Visortelle (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who contributes to an OS project obviously has at least a potential COI in writing or editing about the project in Wikipedia. That does not mean they cannot write an article. It does mean that they should be aware of, and follow, the recommendations about editing with a COI. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

I Try to a lots of time but still in draft Thevikastanwar (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of scanned articles

Hello, I am trying to get my draft validated (Draft:Bernhard Ruchti) and I am almost there according to the last comments, but I cannot seem to have a clear answer regarding the validity of scanned articles for the notability of a musician. I have the following sources. The comment that was made is that the sources provide from the website of the artist. It is a fact, since the artist scanned paper articles that are not available digitally. Are scanned articles not considered as valid sources that are external, written about the artist by someone else than him, and that are not interviews? I referenced in the notes 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 that are PDF scans about him. Also the Christo Lelie article (not 16), in Dutch, is entirely about his work. I also received the comment that the "https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation" but I know for sure that it is not the case since I know the person who published it, why is it considered a translation? Finally, I understand that the source 7, written by an academic person for an academic journal is valid, so only two remaining sources could be added. I have extra sources but I would like to know if they are valid:

- This is about the Beethoven recording: https://www.tagblatt.ch/kultur/langsamer-musizieren-braucht-mut-ld.1149042

- This is also about the Beethoven recording: https://www.saiten.ch/langsamer-ist-besser/

- This one is about the Schumann recording: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Nov/Schumann-fantasie-MJMCCK190.htm

Thank you for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: there is no need to scan sources, or to cite previously scanned ones that have been uploaded to another website. Instead, you should cite the original publications using the relevant {{citation}} template, eg. {{cite-news}} or {{cite-web}}. If the source is offline, you may include a quotation to highlight the relevant part which supports the statement you're making in the draft. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467

Understanding what can be done before a resubmission.

Can you please explain if more references from independent publications will help? Or your decision is that whatever the references, you will reject any future submission? 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily need more, we need enough significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. It looks like the Les Echos (France) piece might be one instance. We'd like to see three. Which other two do you feel represent significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Early life and education" and "Persinal life" sections are entirely unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy Verification. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Dogma.geneva

totally disappointed by reviewers advice which completely fails to account how the review met the requirements of the platform. Seek solutions. Dogma.geneva (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogma.geneva: do you have a question you wish to ask?
This draft has been correctly declined, as the referencing is inadequate. Moreover, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dogma.geneva please have a read of WP:NBOOK, which I linked to you before on my first decline notice. There is zero evidence that Petriots meets our special definition of notability, the criteria of which you can find at that link. You have at least now cleaned up the overly-promotional language so I assume you correctly understood and read the WP:NPOV guidance. But you do not seem to have understood the WP:NBOOK criteria yet? Let me know when you do. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dogma.geneva, by far the most common way to show the notability of a recently published book is to provide references to several in-depth reviews of the book published by mainstream reliable sources. Your only independent source does not seem to qualify, as it seems to be more about the dog than the book. I can only read the first few paragraphs because of a paywall, but it does not seem to be an in-depth book review. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D

Hello! Please let me know what else needs to be done. I have been trying to submit the article for months, fixing things according to how I understand what needs to be done, but unfortunately making no progress. I am new to Wikipedia, and this particular article is very important for promoting the Ukrainian ballet, for letting the world know that not only Russian ballet exists, especially in today's realities. Whatever I do, I still get the same reason for declining the submission. I need someone to show me point by point where the so called "unsourced claims" are. I will not give up! 

2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Konanado

Hello! Please help me understand what needs to be done for my submission to be eventually accepted. I try to improve my article every time it gets declined, but I fail to understand what "unsourced claims" are. The last decliner took wikiholidays now, and I have no one else to ask for advice at the moment. This article contributes to promoting the Ukrainian ballet, which is very important in today's realities where the world only knows the Russian ballet. Thanks in advance! Konanado (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Konanado. Another user (you?) had a discussion on my Talk Page where I went over the issues with the draft. I hope it will be of help.
I'll go through the draft and point out some unsourced claims:
- Her Date of Birth and Location of Birth
- Her parents
- Her stage debut
- Her career at KMATOB
- Her career as a teacher at Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University
- Her career as a ballet master at National Opera of Ukraine
- People‘s Artist of Ukraine award
- The entire Repertoire and Tours sections.
Every single bit of information that I've highlighted above needs an in-line reference. If the information is already found in existing references, then feel free to repeat a reference more than once (using the same citation number), or change the layout slightly so that each paragraph has about one citation at the end. If there are no references for these pieces of information then they must be removed or references found.
Please also be aware that promotion of any kind (including of Ukrainian ballet!) is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. This is a site to document notable topics, not to promote them.
My genuine opinion is that this draft could be accepted if you could just fix those missing references from the highlighted information above. If you do, please let me know on my User Talk Page and WP:PING me, and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Gudwise

Is there anything to do when article/subject doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG at all? Gudwise (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gudwise Yes. Something else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the answer is yes then what else? You can contribute on that article. Gudwise (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gudwise, there are 6,743,121 Wikipedia articles that you can help improve. Please do not waste your own time or the time of other volunteers trying to write about non-notable topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

03:50, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Citizen arindam

I have used reliable news report's ( from famous Indian news platforms & newspapers like NDTV , Hindustan Times) but I don't understand why the article cannot be published. And also I have a pdf about the organisation from the Ministry of Health and Welfare West Bengal, India Citizen arindam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Citizen arindam, thanks for reaching out. 2 sources is not enough. Usually, you need at least 3 pieces of non-promotional, in depth coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2024 Major League Baseball season

Can you please fix the error i made on 2024 Major League baseball references please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for drafts going through the AfC review process. The article you mention is already published. In any case, if you can edit to make an error, I'm sure you can also "fix" it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey:DoubleGrazing Can you fix the error i made about ron washington being hired as angels Manager please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this is not the place to ask this. The best place to ask is the article talk page(Talk:2024 Major League Baseball season) if you are unable to fix it yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Vinraj123

I could not able to remove a part of references mentioned at the bottom of the draft article. Please help me to remove the all the references so that I can paste the correct ones in order. Vinraj123 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinraj123: you can remove the first 14 manually-created (which you shouldn't do anyway) 'references' just by normal editing. The other ten are created automatically from the inline citations you've made, and need to be deleted one by one from the body text where they are referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB

Hello, Instead of opting for a whole page dedicated to Astronism which I understand might be premature at this stage, would perhaps a brief mention of Astronism on the page Astronomy and spirituality be more appropriate? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_spirituality Or perhaps the page Astronomy and religion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_religion Since Astronism is presented as a religion focused on astronomy, inclusion in one of these pages may be more appropriate due to insufficient notability for a whole page dedicated to Astronism. This may be appropriate as these two page listed have not included any contemporary examples of interaction between astronomy, religion and spirituality from what I've read. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section to the Astronomy and spirituality page just to see what people think instead of giving Astronism its own page which seems inappropriate at this stage. Let me know your thoughts. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to apologise for my earlier rejection which was rightly undone as an error. This came from an inherent bias I have against new age religious movements. I'll recuse myself from getting involved in this draft and the contents. Qcne (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

to the administrators who want to help an 85-year-old artist whose draft of my artistic activity was blocked and eliminated while awaiting publication, I ask for the restoration and publication of my activity given to culture for over 50 years. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as already explained by the administrators you have been in touch with, there is more to this issue than simply restoring the deleted article, which in any case isn't something we can even do here at the help desk (with the exception of the few administrators who regularly patrol this forum). Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Xehadkabir

Submission rejected message was "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." how can i make it sufficient. Xehadkabir (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xehadkabir you can't, that's why it has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 14.98.204.11

Can I know the things to be done 14.98.204.11 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No things are to be done, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Thewikicolumnist

I don't understand why my article was rejected. Please advice me on steps to be taken to improve and submit my article. Thank you. Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikicolumnist your draft was declined, not rejected. Did you read the decline notice which specifically explains what was wrong with the draft? It is not written in a tone that is acceptable for Wikipedia. Please re-write this in a way that complies with our strict WP:NPOV guideline. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikicolumnist the entire draft is promotional starting with "Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin's political journey began with a strong commitment to addressing the concerns and issues of the people in the Shaikpet Division. He gained recognition for his grassroots approach to problem-solving and his dedication to improving the living conditions and infrastructure in his constituency." Just simply state when he entered politics, dry facts, nothing more and also remove the Challenges and Achievements section. See also WP:Words to watch. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Chicano Culture

This has been rejected once for notoriety. Another for lack of sourcing content, but the articles that would qualify appear to be ignored since the turnaround time between the rejection and read time for them is lower than the timing behind the rejection. Chicano Culture (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean resubmission was not possible. It was declined because notability(not notoriety, which has a more negative connotation) was not demonstrated. See WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Fyathens

Hello there, I wonder what is the specific reason it rejected again. Fyathens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Yevrowl

Please help me improve the article... or point out what is currently not exactly consistent with being posted on Wikipedia. Yevrowl (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer already answered this question. This is the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 12

00:56, 12 November 2023 review of submission by LovelyAngel1004

Excuse me, I really need some help with adding more information on the show "Audrey and Friends". The show is so obscure that it has been lost media for a long time. Also, I'm afraid that the article would be deleted after I submit it once again if I don't add enough information. I also want the article on Audrey and Friends to be seen on the web. So could you please help me with that? LovelyAngel1004 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try newspaper archives or the Wayback Machine? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Noseallergy

Hello, Not sure what is needed on this article to get it approved. The instructions are very convoluted, even for a college grad. Please tell me what needs to be fixed, added, removed, etc. in specific detail. Thanks, Noseallergy Noseallergy (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least 3 non-promotional sources of in depth coverage that are independent from the subject. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:39, 12 November 2023 review of submission by RBROBERTSON

I am writing to ask for help in addressing the November 3 comments on my submission about Marco Pasanella. The reviewer mentions that I should announce any potential conflict of interest as I am his wife. This seems like a fair request; but exactly how should I do this? In the body of the submission? Also, the reviewer requests the tone to be more neutral and warns against subjective words. I am happy to do so but am wondering what words seem non-objective. I don’t seem to be able to find any adjective that is not backed up by fact. Finally, the comment mentions that the entry should refer to a wide range of “independent reliable published sources.” Sources like Time, Esquire, Architectural Digest, Food & Wine, The Washington Post, NPR and The New York Times seem to meet this standard. I’m not sure what to do here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your guidance!

Best, Rebecca RBROBERTSON (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times and Esquire sources don't look that bad but it won't let me read them. Maybe someone else can take a look. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RBROBERTSON Regarding making a conflict of interest declaration, please post it on your User Page by following the instructions at WP:COI. Let me know if you need any help.
The tone is still not great: you need to write in a completely dispassionate way (which is going to be difficult if you are his wife!) and state the facts in a dry, formal tone. The easiest way to structure this is by paraphrasing or summarising the sources directly- don't include any information not stated in a published source. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Palauisagoodcountry

bro how can i make this better Palauisagoodcountry (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources. I have no idea what that is supposed to be. It looks made up. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Aaditya SYY

I have attached all the website articles I have got regarding the movie. And I don't know what else to do. That is why I have resubmitted it the same. I am feeling helpless regarding getting the article accepted by wikipedia. I have given all the references that I got. Please help. Aaditya SYY (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaditya SYY: after no fewer than seven earlier declines, this draft was finally rejected as non-notable. If, as you say, better sources do not exist, then there is nothing to be done; this is the end of the road, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving our article a chance 7 times. Is there a chance I can come up with a secondary source and resubmit the article in the future? Please give me that one chance. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY Rejection typically means the draft is at the end of the road. If something fundamentally changes about the draft, like new sources that the reviewers did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the most recent reviewer directly.
This film is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have a connection to this film? 331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got a contract to prepare a wikipedia article from the Producer of the movie. This is my first attempt to prepare a Wikipedia article. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY You must declare your paid editing relationship immediately, this is a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID. I will also post instructions on your user talk page. You should also read conflict of interest.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, even without a conflict of interest. That you chose to dive right in without first gaining some experience and knowledge is on you- if you are being paid to be here(unlike most of us), it's up to you to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guiding me. I will gain more experience. Yes, it is a work I'm being paid for, but the movie is genuine. The movie is real and it really got released, and the tickets for the movie were sold in Bookmyshow app as well. I understand that wikipedia article publication is not at all easy. But I will gain more experience and will get better at it by taking good guidance. Thank you. Aaditya SYY (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaditya SYY: just to clarify, nobody is saying this film isn't real; it's not like we're claiming it's a hoax. We're saying it hasn't been shown to be notable by Wikipedia standards, which is a hard requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

i want to create a page for a school in sanath nagar hyderbad india, but it is not getting approved Rutvik888 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. It is also clear you used an AI chat bot like ChatGPT to write your letter, don't do that. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention the absence of a Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School located in Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, India. Hindu Public School is the largest educational institution in Sanath Nagar, and I believe that creating a dedicated Wikipedia page for the school is essential to provide accurate and comprehensive information to the public.

Hindu Public School has been a cornerstone of education in the community, contributing significantly to the intellectual and cultural growth of its students. Despite its prominent position, the school is currently not represented on Wikipedia, and this absence is a disservice to those seeking reliable information about educational institutions in Sanath Nagar.

I am eager to contribute to the Wikipedia community by creating and maintaining a well-researched and unbiased page for Hindu Public School. I have gathered extensive information about the school, including its history, notable achievements, faculty, and the impact it has had on the local community. My intention is to ensure that the Wikipedia page adheres to all guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia.

However, I have encountered challenges in getting the page approved. I understand the importance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in maintaining the quality and reliability of information on the platform. I am committed to meeting these standards and request your approval to create the Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School.

To facilitate the approval process, I am open to any guidance or feedback from the Wikipedia editing community. I am confident that with your support, we can create a valuable resource that accurately reflects the contributions of Hindu Public School to education in Sanath Nagar.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response and the opportunity to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Rutvik888 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutvik888, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is simply no evidence this school meets our special definition of 'notable' (the guidance of which you can find at WP:NSCHOOL). You've had seven (!) reviews. This is enough now, find something else to work on. Qcne (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search. There appears to be nothing in English about the school other than bare mentions. You could possibly try searching in Hindi, Telugu, or Urdu, but unless you can find three independent reliable sources, all of which contain significant coverage of the school, the school simply doesn't meet notability standards, which is the minimum requirement for articles.
Please don't keep posting your request for help at multiple boards and user talk pages. If you do find three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you can post those links to my user talk and I'll take a look, once. I'd strongly suggest that before bringing me three and only three such sources you read WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and stop using chatgpt for your messages. ltbdl (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Bbilin

Hello,

Thanks a lot for accepting the page for publication. As I mentioned previously, I have no conflict of interest with the person, we are coming from the same small community and I think she (and other people including her partner) deserves having a wikipedia page. Myself I am a physicist working at CERN Switzerland, and hence have neither economic nor social connections with her.

Therefore, I would like to learn how we can remove the disclaimer on top of the page. The page now contains all the references that I have found about her career, also in English on top of the existing Turkish sources of Cyprus.

Many thanks, best regards,

B. Bbilin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Found out how to remove the box from the page, and updated accordingly. Bbilin (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 12 November 2023 review of submission by FoxtrotAzad

Dear Editor,

I have made amendments on the Rezal Khairi article and included notable references. Please consider to publish it based on the recent amendments.

Appreciate your kind understanding on this matter.

Thank you. FoxtrotAzad (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxtrotAzad the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, there is nothing more to do. Qcne (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83

I need help, with the permission, I ask that the draft of Georgios Dritsakos to be transferred improve and let somebody else to create an article of Georgios Dritsakos. I'm not good at it. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Www.mioshy

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have revised my submission about Yitzhak "Itzik" Barlev, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, neutrality, verifiability, and proper formatting. I have focused on providing factual, well-sourced information about Barlev's career and the impact of his work, avoiding any promotional content. I have disclosed my relationship with the subject to avoid any conflict of interest and have used reliable, independent sources to back all statements made in the article. I believe this revised version aligns with Wikipedia's standards and would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if there are any further adjustments needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yitzhak Barlev Www.mioshy (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR1Wp1jtXzaBidgHmkWB9leeonr_qufmbqrr41sqPHTPsj72q6kwh9b2VjQ I kindly ask for the deleted draft to be restored and the subsequent publication of the page on Wikipedia because I believe it was deleted unfairly. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to request this is at WP:REFUND. However it is fairly clear that this will be declined due to the issues surrounding paid editing, sockpuppets, and lack of notability.
Please give up this endeavour, and refund any money you took from the clients to create this article. Qcne (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Ghrimovich

i do not understand why nokeric is not "notable" enough for wikipedia? i think this is a mistake, maybe this is a case of corruption and personal sabotage. i would like this to be reviewed by another individual. Ghrimovich (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghrimovich What is your connection to Mr. Bernhagen? (since you took a picture of him)
You have no independent reliable sources in the article. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable source with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
Corruption and personal sabotage are very serious accusations requiring serious evidence. Provide your evidence(without outing) or withdraw the accusation. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 74.74.209.253

I do not understand how this article has twice been rejected for not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article references two separate articles hosted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as three separate recognized news outlets covering both the subject's campaign and incumbency. Other incumbents on the Massachusetts Governor's Council have entries (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Iannella_Jr.) with less information. Please help me understand the specific issues involved. 74.74.209.253 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1184820744"