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 Beeleafinme (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 5 February 2024 (→08:56, 5 February 2024 review of submission by Beeleafinme: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


January 30

01:22, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

Hello! I created the Little Z draft article, and it was declined from being published. It said it was because I didn't site references, but I was wondering if I added references if the article could be published, and if not, what would I need to change? Thank you for your time. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan: this draft is effectively entirely unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable for any article, but especially so for articles on living people. For the same reason, there is also no evidence that the subject is notable. If you can provide sources which support the draft contents and establish notability, you may resubmit this for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mayor Orangutan. I'm afraid that you have done what most new editors do if they try to create an article before they have spent time learning the craft of editing Wikipedia: you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Absolutely the very first task in writing an article is finding sources - not just any sources, but independent, reliable, published sources which discuss the subject in depth|. There are two extremely good reasons why this should be the first thing you do:
  1. If you cannot find enough satisfactory sources to base an article on, then you will know that the article cannot be accepted (in Wikipedia jargon, the subject is not notable), and every second you spend on it thereafter will be time wasted.
  2. If, having written your draft, you now find sources, you will need to revise your draft so that everything in it can be verified by a reliable source. This is likely to mean substantial rewriting.
My standard advice is to leave your draft aside completely for a few months, while you learn about Wikipedia's requirements by making improvements to existing articles; learning particularly about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability.
Then you can read your first article and (probably) start your draft again if you find evidence of notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Smadur661

How can i write my submmision accordinly?. 

Smadur661 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smadur661: I have rejected your draft, because it isn't a viable encyclopaedia article. In fact, I don't even know what it's about! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:14, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 74.119.255.46

I need help writing the page for Orato World Media as it keeps getting deleted 74.119.255.46 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material is usually deleted on sight, as promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Pilgrimant

The submission was declined, giving exactly the same reason as months ago. However, in the meanwhile the draft was improved, and is full of references that can be verified. The refusal is thus motivated by other reasons, as what it says simply does not stand up scrutiny. Therefore I ask the submission to be sent to another, more reasonable and not so biased reviewer. Pilgrimant. Pilgrimant (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilgrimant: I would advise against unfounded accusations of bias or other ulterior motives, without any evidence to support your contention, especially when multiple reviewers have seen fit to decline the draft.
Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements: every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Which source gives this person's DOB? Where do the details in the 'Education' section come from?
I believe the draft was correctly declined, although personally I would have probably declined it for the does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations reason, instead or in addition to the not adequately supported by reliable sources one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply did not contain any accusation. If a same reply is repeated, to a much improved draft, without giving further reasons, that etymologically corresponds to the repetition of a previous judgment, so it was pre-judged, or pre-judiced.
Concerning your point, I am using Wikipedia since a long time, and never saw any date of birth or educational details being ever referenced in an entry. It also does not make much sense, as these data are trivial and can be verified, by official sources. I presume Agnes Horvath has all the relevant documents, but don't see how and why this could or should be put online. What matters are publications, reviews, references, and all these were amply referenced, to publicly available sources.
So, I do not understand your claim about minimum online citation requirement, as there are many such online citations in the Draft. Can you "define" minimal citation standard? In terms of number of references per sentences? Or per words? Can you direct me to a site selected by you which meets these requirements? Pilgrimant (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Date of birth is not trivial- if you merited a Wikipedia article, would you not want your date of birth correctly sourced in the article? If you see articles with unsourced dates of birth, that needs to be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY Wikipedia article I EVER read was with unsourced birth. I just checked several scholars I know, still alive, and there was no such reference in any of these sites. I presume if somebody sees an error with his/ her birth date, corrects it. Pilgrimant (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What utter tosh. Every article has an unreferenced DOB, really? If that's your line of argument, then I'm not going to waste my time even trying to explain, other than signposting you (again) to this: WP:DOB. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a seriously abusive reply. Could you send me ONE wiki entry in which the date of birth is referenced online? Pilgrimant (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of them, more importantly please mention the articles that don't have a referenced birthdate because they will need tagging per WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have never seen one. Send please in your reply ONE such link. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rishi Sunak. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the lede section often doesn't have references because they appear further on in the main body of the articles, but the date of birth MUST be referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The following then should be deleted (or "updated"):
Oliver James Dowden
Jeremy Hunt
James Spencer Cleverly
Michael Gove
I stop here, I don't have time to continue going through the current members of the UK Government. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Michael Gove his date of birth is cited in the first line of the "Early life and education" section. As we said, the source will not necessarily be in the lead or infobox. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same for James Cleverly. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see this now. However, these are all politicians, not academics. If you look at academics/ social scientists, this new rule is not shown in their case. See Anthony Giddens or Jürgen Habermas, most famous social scientists. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged those for citation needed, please see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "new rule"- WP:BLP is by no means new. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it isn't necessarily referenced in the lead or infobox, the reference may be in the article itself. I second Theroadislong- please provide one article with an unreferenced DOB so we can remove the unsourced date or tag it. "If somebody sees an error" and corrects it- is ripe for abuse and vandalism with out sources. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pilgrimant ALL of those articles have references for birth dates, you have clearly not read far enough into the articles Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by WW AA 1

Hello, I would like to understand what references aren't approved or if I need to add any more references. I'm struggling to understand the feedback and need it simplified so I can understand and edit the page please, thank you. WW AA 1 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WW AA 1 As said by the reviewer, "This article and the sources it cites to are WP:CHURNALISM pieces or product listing. Current citations do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or raise above WP:PASSING mentions. Does not yet demonstrate WP:N.". Put another way, you used paid promotional pieces or basic product listings as sources- what is needed instead are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this business- sources that on their own(not prompted by or based on information fed by the business) choose to write about the business extensively and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about it- how it meets our special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles.
Do you have an association with this business? 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I work for a marketing agency on behalf of the company. Understood, I will find some more articles and replace them and create a re-review. WW AA 1 (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure. I will post more information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WW AA 1: most of the draft content is unreferenced – where is the information coming from, and how do we know it's correct? (Hint: we would know this from the referencing.)
And the three sources that are cited do not establish notability: one is WP:FORBESCON, the other two are just routine business reporting, and likely to originate with the company in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, are there examples you can give me please of references which establish notability at all? WW AA 1 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give you examples of sources that establish notability for the topic you are writing about- only you can find those. Sources are needed that are independent reliable sources, that speak about this company on their own (not paid promotion, other materials from the business, or annoucements of routine business activities). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Dinky13

Hi, I am submitting an article about a company. I am a bit confused about copyright permissions when submitting images and logos for this document. Am I correct in thinking that if I use images and brand or company logos that are already in the public domain (i.e., have appeared in independent articles on the internet) and credit the source, these will be acceptable? I have read all the information about non-free logos and criteria, etc., and Wikimedia commons, but it is still confusing. The above is my understanding. And I know I have to tick all the boxes on the template. If you could give me a step-by-step or clear and easy guide to understanding this, I would be very grateful. Thanks so much, Daniela Dinky13 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos cannot just be taken from internet and used. They need to be uploaded to this Wikipedia (not Commons) under "fair use" rules. Fair use images cannot be in drafts under these rules, though. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add to this, appearing on the internet is not the same as being in the public domain, in what comes to copyright. The vast majority of images available on the internet are still subject to copyright.
This draft is currently unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. Your primary focus should be to provide sources which a) verify the information, and b) establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 狄の用務員

It seems that someone hit the submit button on this article I was writing, can I stop this manuscript submission process?

I don't think there are any critical issues with the quality of the article, but the image acceptance process at Wikimedia has been difficult, and I for one hope to publish the article when the image issue is stable.

Of course I understand that the draft is already a public text, and I know that in theory anyone can submit it. However, I find it strange that a user who has not added even a single word would just hit the submit button, and that user has most recently submitted a blank draft, and I don't really believe that users who make such a submission have any idea what they are doing.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do about this issue. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@狄の用務員: yes, it seems PlaneCrashKing1264 submitted it, for reasons best known to them (perhaps they can enlighten us all?). If you're happy to have the draft reviewed, just leave it as it is, otherwise let us know and we can decline it, which removes it from the pending pool for the time being. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much. I hope to decline the submission.
I am aware of the issues identified by the reviewers and will work quickly to improve them, but since I cannot predict the outcome regarding the images, I would like to return the article to the pending pool and see the results. 狄の用務員 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員: on second thoughts, I've undone the submission rather than declining it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 30 January 2024 review of submission by RolfSander

Could someone please explain to me why this article was rejected? Initially, the draft included a section called Computers and meridians. The section was important because it contained several reliable sources that added to the notability of the game Meridians. Besides, it was (in my opinion) written from a neutral point of view. It was not promotional as I'm not associated with any of the gaming platforms mentioned there.

Then two things happened: First, someone completely deleted the Computers and meridians section and all references in it. Next, the submission was rejected because the references did not contain sufficient in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

I don't think this was a fair review process. I would suggest that someone reviews the article again, however, this time also considering the previously deleted section about Computers and meridians. RolfSander (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Meridians (game) has no reliable independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that sources must be reliable and independent. What I don't understand is why you think that the 5 gaming platforms mentioned in the original article are not reliable and independent. Is there any reason to believe that they provide false information about the Meridians game? If not, I consider them to be reliable. The other question is about independence. To the best of my knowledge, none of these gaming platforms pays any money to the inventor of the game, nor do they receive any money from him. Do you have any reason to believe that this might be the case? So let me rephrase my questions:
Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms provides inaccurate information, i.e., is not reliable?
Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms is not independent? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RolfSander: I actually agree with the deletion of the 'Computers and meridians' section. It is the same as if an article on a book said that the book can be bought at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Waterstones. How is that relevant (other than in helping to drive sales through those outlets)?
Also, just for the record, this draft was not rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only decline (which means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the decline reasons). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is different. Saying that you can buy a book at Amazon and elsewhere is definitely promotional because they make money when selling that book. However, if several gaming platforms have invested time in writing their own code to implement online-play, this clearly adds to the notability of the game.
Thanks for explaining the difference between declining and rejecting! Do you have any suggestion how I can revise the article so that it becomes acceptable? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RolfSander: okay, I will admit to being unfamiliar with these 'gaming platforms'. I assumed that if, as you say, they've invested time and effort into doing something, they hope to gain something from their investment?
But even if that's not the case, I don't know what their editorial standards are like, and whether they are secondary sources in a strict sense.
Incidentally, the same goes for the last of the deleted sources, which appears to be authored by you.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think) is that this draft is not written as an encyclopaedia article, but rather a how-to guide explaining the rules and the gameplay. As such, this is contrary to Wikipedia's objectives. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming platforms: AFAIK, one of the 5 gaming platforms is commercial (Board Game Arena), one is run by a university, and three are maintained as a pure hobby. Thus, only Board Game Arena makes money. They do this via premium accounts, but they do not get or give money from/to game inventors.
Sources: [1] says that the very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. I do trust that all 5 cited gaming platforms provide reliable information about Meridians, but I would not trust them when they advertise their own achievements.
My program: Yes, the pymerid.py program was written by me. It is open source, and I'm not making any money with it. However, if you think that it should not be mentioned on the Meridians page, that's perfectly fine with me.
How-to guide?: Before I started to create the Meridians article, I looked at similar Wikipedia articles that exist already. All of them have a section on rules, and Gomoku for example, also has an example game. There are certainly things that have to be improved in my first draft, but I don't think that we can expect a freshly created page to be perfect. Maybe someone from the Wiki Project Board and table games ([2]) could review the article and make suggestions how to improve it? RolfSander (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't know what went wrong with your latest comment, but it wiped out several of my recent replies, which I've had to restore manually. When replying to a thread, please just click on the 'reply' link at the end of it, rather than editing the source directly. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this. I guess that we were editing this page simultaneously. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to use the 'Edit' button. I will use 'reply' from now on. RolfSander (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 30 January 2024 review of submission by OmoAyan

I need help on how to fix page and move them from draft to live. I also don't know how to navigate better the page edit. OmoAyan (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmoAyan: which draft are you referring to? Regardless, I recommend that you don't try to publish directly yourself, but instead let more experienced reviewers assess the draft and determine whether it is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you're referring to Draft:Israel Ayanwuyi, and I have hadded a header which will allow you to submit it for review.
But it is not ready for that yet. Your references are formatted so badly that I can't work out whether they are of any value or not: please read WP:REFB, and redo your references.
Please also note that almost the entire article should be based on what reliable sources, wholly unconnected with Ayanwuyi have published about him. Certainly a link to a site selling his book is utterly worthless for this purpose. (A review of the book, published in a major newspaper, might be helpful, if it talked about him, as well as about the book). ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Etienneadaher

Please tell me why portfolio page was rejected? I will add more data if needed. Etienneadaher (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Etienneadaher: that's because there was no evidence of notability, and no indication of even basic noteworthiness. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your professional etc. achievements, try sites like LinkedIn. Also, see WP:AUTOBIO for reasons why no one should be writing articles about themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the founder of Ete-services.
How do you decide if it is basic noteworthiness or not? Etienneadaher (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you founded the business, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid disclosure, please see WP:PAID.
The special Wikipedia definition of a notable business may be found at WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves; our articles about businesses summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a business, showing how the notability definition is met. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 30 January 2024 review of submission by MicroSupporter

I’m not sure why this was rejected based on submissions from 2022 and before. Almost all the sources added are from 2023+. This includes LBC, Daily Express and b92. All of which are mainstream media. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroSupporter: this topic has gone through several speedy deletions and no fewer than three AfDs. Unless someone can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the subject is notable, there isn't much point in recreating the draft, as we cannot keep relitigating the matter at AfD ad infinitum. Additionally, I would encourage you to read and consider well the closing remarks in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is understandable but clearly there are more sources now than over a year and a half ago. What can be done to prove its notability? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Tropicus Chocoholica

Hi there, I seem to have lost my way around Wiki. I was trying to move a page to my namespace (I think that's what one should do if the page isn't ready for primetime?) so that I can "park it" and update it another day. Only I moved it to User: Semperis, which doesn't exist. Then I moved it to User: Tropicus Chocoholica (is that the right thing to do?), but in the process got a glimpse of history that someone else might've converted the page to a draft between my moves? Now I'm thoroughly confused and thought I'd reach out on how best to proceed before creating a tangled web of redirects. Sorry for the mess, and thank you in advance! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropicus Chocoholica: as you can see here, what happened was
  1. You moved this draft into the user space, and in so doing created a user page for a nonexistent user 'Semperis'
  2. UtherSRG rectified this by moving it into the draft space at Draft:Semperis (and for the record, this would have been the most appropriate location for it, as that is a viable article title should the draft be accepted)
  3. You then moved it back into the user space, this time creating your own user page; however, per WP:UP this is not an appropriate location for an article draft, or a correct use of a user page, hence...
  4. UtherSRG moved it again, this time to a subpage in your user space, where it remains at User:Tropicus Chocoholica/Semperis
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've now moved it back to the draft namespace which, as you note, is the correct location. @Tropicus Chocoholica: - UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 12.1.133.226

HI there, I have a question. I see that Ed Stetzer's page (who is a contemporary of David Fitch) has a lot less references and yet was still accepted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Stetzer) Can you help us better understand how to get Dave's page accepted? 12.1.133.226 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If another article is undersourced, you are very welcome to improve its sourcing, or nominate it for deletion if appropriate sources do not exist. You don't have to, but people not doing so is why it is in that state. I see that another editor has now tagged Ed Stetzer as lacking sources and possibly failing notability. Note that that article has been around since 2011, so "accepted" simply doesn't apply. We are more careful about quality nowadays.
But that article has zero to do with the acceptability of your draft: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 30 January 2024 review of submission by BlakeIsHereStudios

I need some help writing this article as I am currently trying to remove unsourced information from it at the moment and add more information. Draft is open for anyone to edit. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of passing WP:NCORP? Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 98.97.114.252

I don't know why my article was rejected. 98.97.114.252 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host how to guides. This is why your draft was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

04:25, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 92.99.181.18

Hi I am trying to understand why the articles were getting rejected. 92.99.181.18 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please read the messages left by reviewers carefully, these explain the issues with the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam

how to improve it for submission Mustafdesam (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Matovu256

This is a real person that exists and so helpful to the Ugandan community Matovu256 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matovu256 No one doubts that the person is real, but the sources you provided are not appropriate for establishing that this person meets the definition of a notable person, so the draft was rejected, meaning that it wil not be considered further, and finally deleted. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean he cannot be added on wikipedia!? What is required now? Matovu256 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every person merits a Wikipedia article; this isn't a mere database of people that exist. Articles here summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Blogs are generally not appropriate sources, as they lack fact checking, editoral control, and other journalistic standards. Please review the definition of a notable person and if you have independent reliable sources that can be summarized and establish that this person meets that definition, let us know. Those would be things like news stories that discuss his influence or significance as the source sees it, not as he himself might see it(so no interviews, blogs, press releases, or annoucements of routine activities). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 116.90.110.172

Portable Site Offices,Portable Houses,Portable Labor Camps,Portable Mosques,Portable Restrooms,Portable Storage,Portable Warehouse,Portable Staff Camps,Portable School,Portable shop Portable Log Cabin, Portable Storage Facilities,Portable Bathrooms,Portable Pantry,Portable Mess Halls,Portable Building,Portable Hanger,Portable Toilet Units,Portable Meeting Hall,Portable Water Tanks,Portable Joint Room,Portable Containers,Portable Hotel 

116.90.110.172 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely portable refusal, since this is just a list of stuff and the draft is deleted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Infomanfromearth

what sort of sources and cites would make it go through, eg how many different sources. Infomanfromearth (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about number. It's about quality and purpose.
The purpose of a citation is to validate a statement about the subject of the article - nothing else. In order to do this it has to be a reliable source; and the majority of the article must come from sources which are also wholly unconnected with the subject.
A citation that does not mention the subject of the Wikipedia article - like many of yours - is a waste of everybody's time.
The way to write an article in Wikipedia is first to find several sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find these, then you write a summary of what they say about the subject. Nothing that the subject says, writes, creates, or does, is relevant unless some of those independent commentators have written about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Lisapaulinet

Hi, I would like to publish my Labthink article on Wikipedia. I have disclosed that I work for Labthink on the talk page. My references are very good. I know there are other articles about companies on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you. Lisapaulinet (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisapaulinet: the last logged action was decline (for promotionality), and you haven't edited the draft since then. Therefore my suggestion would be to edit it, addressing the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisapaulinet: as for your "very good" sources, could you please tell us which of them provide significant coverage of the company itself? It's difficult to verify them, as they're almost all offline (are there really no online versions available?), but a quick glance suggests they cover all sorts of indirectly related topics, rather than the company directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work on those points. Lisapaulinet (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Twentysumn

wondering if the subject has enough citations for publishing, and if not which ones are not credible? Twentysumn (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twentysumn: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
For future reference, BroadwayWorld, IMDb, and the NY Post are not considered reliable sources. You can find out more about specific publications at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 98.114.59.56

I wish for this article to become real. I feel Michael is a worthy enough voice actor to have his own to get to have his own Wikipedia page. 98.114.59.56 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, your wish won't come true, on this occasion. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that "worthy" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wikipedia has articles on worthy people and thoroughly unworthy people. What matters is whether there is enough indepedent, reliably published material about the subject, to base an article on. Unfortunately, voice actors seem to be one of the groups of subjects that don't get written about much, so they tend to be under-represented in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Dfrankow

To me, this page is clearly notable. It is a government agency that spends >$100 million per year, and is already mentioned on several pages on Wikipedia. I can find lots of articles referring to it from accepted media. See for example https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22minneapolis+public+housing+authority%22+site%3Astartribune.com&atb=v154-1&ia=web.

However, I cannot find any secondary sources that describe it. I know Wikipedia wants secondary sources, but people do not tend to write long reference articles about government agencies.

So, I fear it will not be accepted due to sources. Not sure what to do. Ideas? dfrankow (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfrankow: you have submitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment of notability sooner or later. Was there anything specific you wanted to ask in the meantime?
Please note that notability for organisations is defined in WP:ORG, and essentially depends on appropriate sources being available which can be summarised into an article. Being a public body, spending a lot of money, or being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
After I posted this, User:Suriname0 added a bunch of links, and I added more links, that I hope show notability by the rules. I have no other specific questions at this time. dfrankow (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang

Can you help with anything for this, please? Ngaihthang (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngaihthang: nothing doing; this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than 11 previous declines, I might add!), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


February 1

01:47, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Mya Project

Hi there, My name is Dalila Mya and I just created a page for my music project Mya Project - which has been declined right away for some copyright infringement. Since all the material on my page is my own creation, I would like to know what's the problem with my page. Thank you. Mya Project (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

op blocked indef. ltbdl (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 1 February 2024 review of submission by McMi!!ian

Hello,

I am being accused of writing an advertisement for Storm Internet Services. I do not work for Storm Internet Services, it is a notable organization on its own (as notable as any of the organizations here: List of internet service providers in Canada).

I am asking for assistance as I do not know how to adjust this article further in order to not be accused of advertising.

Thank you McMi!!ian (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McMi!!ian: who has "accused" you, where, and when? All I could find was a comment in the draft saying that it is written in a promotional manner, which it is.
You say this is a "notable organisation", but there is no evidence of that. Notability doesn't mean 'well known locally' or 'one of the biggest in their sector' or even 'household name', etc.; notability means that the subject has been written or talked about in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McMi!!ian You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; you just need to place the title in double brackets as I've done here.
Your sources just document the existence of the company and its activities. Wikipedia articles must do more, as DoubleGrazing describes. We don't just want to know that the company exists, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the company as they see it(not as the company itself might see it). 331dot (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Humaira28

Hi. I wanted to know why my page was declined? 

Humaira28 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Humaira28: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the large pink one), and the accompanying comments. (It could also have been declined for insufficient referencing and/or insufficient inline citations, but wasn't.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Don6655

i write article about this company because this company is famous and top ranked in Pakistan Don6655 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? And I report you for socking. Call it even? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 1 February 2024 review of submission by RabiatMuhuch

Hello. Please help me what exactly i have to add to get my page approved RabiatMuhuch (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RabiatMuhuch: you have to reference the draft, to enable the information to be verified, and to establish the subject's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, finding suitable sources is the first activity in creating an article in English Wikipedia. Writing an article without first finding sources is like building a house without surveying the site or checking local building regulations. Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or I know, or any random person on the internet knows) about the subject: it is only interested in what has been published in reliable sources about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Wisni126

My draft was declined because it sounds like an advertisement and possibly does not meet the verifiability requirements. I have used sources that talk about my subject and I and struggling to see where my language sounds like and ad. If someone you highlight some specific things I need to change that would be very helpful. Wisni126 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance "created with a mission to help small businesses access capital." is promotional language. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are useless towards establishing notability(WP:ORG), as are brief mentions or mere documentation of the existence of this company. What is needed are independent reliable sources that give significant coverage of this company, discussing what they see as important/significant/influential about it.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID; I've also mentioned this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Also, the purpose of references is to validate information in the article about the subject: references which do not mention the subject are almost always a complete waste of everybody's time. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Mpiazza2016

I want to confirm that the page, Christopher Manske, was successfully submitted for review on January 31, 2024. Thanks. 

Mpiazza2016 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpiazza2016: I can only find this  Courtesy link: User:Mpiazza2016/sandbox. And no, it hasn't been submitted yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've added the AfC template to your draft; it has a blue 'submit' button which you can use to send it for review when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just successfully submitted. Thanks for your help! Mpiazza2016 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpiazza2016: yes, successfully submitted now. And I've moved it to the draft space, which is the preferred location for pending drafts; you can find it at Draft:Christopher Manske. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I appreciate your assistance! Mpiazza2016 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Ashvik08122023

Hello,

I just made few edits in this page adding few links and sources. I have submitted it for review. I just wanted to know as how can i improve this article furthermore and if any one would provide me some path or specifics as where in this page should i improve and flaws. it would be much appreciated. Thanks in Advance for your help.

Thank You!

Thank You! Ashvik08122023 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reviewer will provide you with feedback- we don't really do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Sockwearer

How many sources do I need in order to submit an article? I don't know if it was declined because the source was unreliable or because there weren't enough citations in general. I'm just starting with writing Wikipedia pages so I would appreciate advice. Thank you. Sockwearer (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockwearer I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). There is not a specific minimum number of sources, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the overwhelming majority of insect stub articles cite only a single source. I suspect that the real issue is (a) format, and (b) context. Those two things are interrelated. I looked at your draft submission, and it had no taxobox. That's a crucial part of the format of any article describing a plant or animal species. But it's hard to draft a proper taxobox for a species when the genus it belongs to has no page - that's missing context. My advice, after over 30,000 edits of these sorts of articles, is to work from the top down. The paper you cited specifies the tribe that Herbstellus belongs to, and that tribe has a WIkipedia article - at Pepsini. Since Herbstellus is not on that page, you need to add it there, and create a redlink. Then you need to create the Herbstellus article itself, and list Herbstellus chango on that page as a redlink, along with the other species in the genus. THEN you have established context, and can create an article for Herbstellus chango at that point. If you're not sure how taxoboxes work, just look at the scripting for a related genus like Cyphononyx and you should be able to figure out how they work. There's a learning curve, but it's not that hard if you follow good examples. Dyanega (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That gives me a really good starting point! Thank you so much for the advice. :) Sockwearer (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sockwearer (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

02:10, 2 February 2024 review of submission by ILovetodraw21940

why cant i have help from over people like jeez how rude and hard is it for you to accept on conditions mf? lil bro L rizz im walt rizzney im a rizzard dumbledore so... are you free tonight? cuz i would never buy your love .- Butter NYC Feb 3 9:50 you free tmr? ILovetodraw21940 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? ltbdl (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been warned both formally and informally. I have a feeling they're heading for an early block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Lovefortravel

Hello! I would love to learn what constitutes as promotional or advertising? I referenced Wikiepedia pages of many other celebrities of similar back grounds and created a framework similar to theirs in order to make sure everything written was within the Wikipedia guidelines. Any recommendations is appreciated! Lovefortravel (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovefortravel: seriously? This is so promotional, I couldn't get past the lead section – you've managed to include "celebrated" there, twice! Pretty much every sentence includes praise or peacock words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know! I am new to Wikipedia so wanting to learn the appropriate verbiage to create articles. Will edit promptly and keep this in mind for future pages! Lovefortravel (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovefortravel: okay. Go for 'boring and factual'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have published about them (good or bad), and not at all on what the subject or their associates say or want to say.
It is quite possible that the articles about "other celebrities" that you have found are very poor articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. See WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:24, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Ashgabat 2024

I am writing to seek your assistance and guidance regarding the evaluation and improvement of a Wikipedia draft that I have been working on.

Upon reviewing the feedback received, it has become apparent that the draft lacks sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. To address this concern, I am seeking your assistance in incorporating multiple published sources.

If you could provide assistance in reviewing the draft and suggesting appropriate sources, I would greatly appreciate your input. Additionally, any guidance on how to effectively navigate this process would be highly beneficial.

Thank you very much for considering my request. I look forward to your insights and appreciate your time and expertise in helping improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards. Ashgabat 2024 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stop using chatgpt for your comments. ltbdl (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me as if you have a single source that meets the conditions in WP:42 that is, places where somebody who has no connection with the CCT, or with the government, has chosen, of their own will, to write at some length about the CCT. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Errajeevsharmabjp1

i have put reference link. kindly approve this

thnaks Errajeevsharmabjp1 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has already been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 2 February 2024 review of submission by 49.43.230.103

Its any promotion its an app used by public in Andhra Pradesh can somebody help me in submitting my article 49.43.230.103 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Rabbitrace

i need to put up a biography page, with simple basic content for a lebanese business man and everytime i try to do so the draft gets rapid deletion notice 

Rabbitrace (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@rabbitrace: are you being paid for this? if yes, disclose it now. ltbdl (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rabbitrace: that's because Wikipedia is not like LinkedIn where anyone can post their 'profile'. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable. There was zero evidence of notability, and the sources cited didn't support anything of substance, in your drafts. They were also promotional in both tone and content.
BTW, what is your relationship with this Joseph Chubat? If you're him, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Tahaharris

i am resubmitting an article that was declined and when trying to publish it the following message appears: How do I address this issue please?

No stashed content found for 1194415356/fed5ee84-ae72-11ee-80f9-2cea7f81fe52 Tahaharris (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahaharris: I'm no expert, but I believe it's a problem with the visual editor, whereby it stores information temporarily in a local stash, which can get deleted or possibly corrupted (?) if the browser is left open for too long or the cache is interfered with. If the stashed content has gone, it may not be recoverable. Or something like that... this is really outside the scope of this help desk, or at least this particular help desk bod. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! Tahaharris (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it has absolutely nothing to do with the content of your submission. It's a purely technical issue. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Ukvc

Help creating article I would like assistance with the creation of Draft:Silicon Roundabout Ventures. I followed the outline I found in Amadeus Capital Partners and I believe the references are stronger as they either come from reputable databases not everyone has access to (eg: being one of the registered small regulated investment firms in the UK), or from extended articles covering either the launch and strategy of the firm or the founder and general partner. Ukvc (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukvc Please see Other stuff exists; it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as that too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. I see some of the same problems in the article you used as with your draft. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years- we can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be disclosed, please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll review your suggestions Ukvc (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information from databases is unlikely to contribute to establishing notability, which is basically about "Is there enough independent reliable published information to base an article on?"
extended articles covering ... the launch and strategy of the firm will be great sources if they are wholly independent: if they come from the company or its founders in any way, including articles based on a press release, then Wikipedia is not interested in them. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 2 February 2024 review of submission by Noseallergy

Hello, I have since revised the article on Los Angeles-based interior designer Claudia Morales a few times now. I believe I achieved taking out the "advertising" element in the text and included more citations for her. I am at my wit's end about how to get this article approved. She does not have many citations and much of what she has is from one source, Laguna Beach Magazine. Is this article never going to get approved? Please assist. Thanks. Noseallergy Noseallergy (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no draft for Claudia Morales? Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be at User:Noseallergy/Claudia Morales. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 2 February 2024 review of submission by CoryHReynolds

Hello, after getting my page on the writer, actress and filmmaker Nadja Tesich added to the mainspace last week, I added quite a few new primary and secondary citations, as requested by the Wiki editor who reviewed the page. I did not want to delete the box at the top because I wasn't sure if I'd be penalized -- even though it looks like I am authorized to do it. I am writing to ask about a second comment. Another editor commented that the page "contains content that is written like an advertisement." I am not sure what to do about that one, as all of the text was written originally! Thanks so much for any help you can give! CoryHReynolds (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryHReynolds: this isn't really an AfC matter any more now that the article has been published, but since you're here: anyone can add or remove maintenance tags, but they should be neither added nor removed without good reason. The 'primary sources' tag can be removed once sufficient secondary sources have been added for it to no longer apply, and the removal can be done by anyone including you. The 'promotional' tag will require some editing of the text, to remove peacock expressions and hyperbole, such as "starring role", "exceptional student", "youthful triumph", etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and articles therefore should be written in a dry, factual manner. (And whether the text was "written originally" [whatever that means, exactly] does not preclude it being promotional in tone, or vice versa.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Very clear. I will remove the peacock expressions. Much appreciated. CoryHReynolds (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 2 February 2024 review of submission by LetsWalkTheDinosaurs

why are my edits getting declined? but according to articles they have 76 aircraft? LetsWalkTheDinosaurs (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum to ask about existing articles, you should use the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

05:37, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Nzkaioshin

Hi,

I have had this page rejected for submission a few times and I would like some feedback/assistance on how to improve it. In particular, I want to know how I might improve the structure, tone and the range of sources to meet notability criteria for an academic.

I believe that the page meets at least one of the eight academic-specific criteria, if it doesn't I'd like to know what would need to be changed. I received some feedback from a user in Teahouse that it is perhaps too soon for this person to have a notable career as he is a Senior Lecturer as opposed to Associate/full Professor. I do notice that most staff at this university (Massey University) that have pages are in higher academic standing.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated - thanks! Nzkaioshin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzkaioshin: it's not that one has to be a full tenured professor, let alone holding a named chair or similar, to be a notable academic, but there is a certain correlation between those things, given that one's notability prospects obviously grow along with one's academic career.
There's nothing in this draft that would suggest any obvious WP:NACADEMIC notability (and the sources cited fall short of general WP:GNG notability also), but you said you believe this person does meet at least one criterion of NACADEMIC – which one would that be, and on what basis do you assert it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks. I suppose it just means it's much more difficult to prove notability for academics below a certain standing, even if they are notable in their own way.
The only criteria that I think realistically applies is the first, but can I ask what would amount to a "significant impact" in this case, and what number of independent, reliable sources would help quantify this? I only ask because it can be quite subjective to determine. According to the specific criteria notes, it mentions the academic having authored highly cited work - in this person's case, he's had 40 citations across 14 documents according to Scopus. Is that a relatively low number? Nzkaioshin (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nzkaioshin: academics "below a certain standing", as you put it, usually need to rely on the WP:GNG general notability guideline (which applies to most subjects on Wikipedia; the NACADEMIC one is among a few exceptions to this) to establish their notability; in other words, they need to show significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Whether this is easier or more difficult, I'm not sure – arguably easier, if such sources exist, but impossible if they don't.
The "significant impact" is explained in the criteria notes, as you will have discovered already. Whichever of the points a–i you wish to rely on, we need evidence to back that up. Point a, level of citations, is often (rightly or wrongly) equated to the h-index metric alone, but that's quite a simplistic view, and in any case can be misleading as citability depends on many factors – one person's h-index of 15 may actually be high for their domain, another's 30 may be low. Anyway, this person's h-index of (per Scopus) does seem very low to me, and I wouldn't think that would suffice as evidence of satisfying point 1.a of the guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 3 February 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8

This should be published. 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 3 February 2024 review of submission by 195.137.183.2

Hi I am not sure, if this draft has been forgotten, of if I just should be more patient? :)

Regards, Anna 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was reviewed and declined on 25 November, and has not been resubmitted since, so nothing is happening with it at the moment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you. 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're AnnaStoneG, please remember to log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I just did that. I also saw that I must have submitted the article, perhaps another draft (?), on the 7'th of December. Perhaps I have just submitted the same changes for the second time.
Is that bad to do? AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: I can only see the one draft. You did edit it on Dec 7, in quite a major way.
And to answer your question, yes it would be 'bad' to create multiple drafts on the same subject, as that causes all sorts of problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I am might be understanding it now. I was confused of the "publish" versus "resubmit". Now I have submitted it again. And hopefully I have only been submitting the same draft. I think that is the case. Thank you so much for your heltp. It is really appreciated :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know when it is better to use citations and when is is better to use direct links? I have just edited so that direct links are only Wiki articles, and citations are all external links. Is that a good idea? AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: that's correct. There should be no inline external links in the body text. In fact, with the exception of one (optional) external link in the (optional) infobox, there should be no links pointing to external (non-Wikipedia) sources anywhere before the footnotes in the 'References' section. Only internal links (aka. 'wikilinks') pointing to other Wikipedia articles are allowed in the body text. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Then I still have some work to do 😅 I need to remove all external links ALSO from the lower sections and make a references sections where I have them all. Really informative - thank you. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or no actually. It is probably good as it is now. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: the problem now is that most of the content is unreferenced, with all the referencing coming only in the 'Exhibitions' and later sections. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have been mixing citations and links: Citations MUST be there, links can NOT be in the body of the text. Still learning… AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank agaaaaain. AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right – inline citations required (or at least very much preferred), inline external links not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aand the citations are back in! Is it bad that citations are repeated in the lower sections? Should I just delete those or is it better that evere statement is supported every time mentioned? AnnaStoneG (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: not sure what you mean by 'lower sections'?
If you mean multiple (ie. 'repeated') citations of the same source in the 'References' section, then ideally you would avoid these by using named references (see WP:NAMEDREFS), but it's not a cardinal sin if you don't.
If you mean repeating sources, which are already used for referencing, by also listing them in the various appendices ('External links', 'Further reading', etc. sections), then no, you strictly speaking shouldn't do that, although it is quite common to see it done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you :) By “lower sections” I mean the sections from “Exhibitions” and down. For instance especially in the sections “Exhibitions” and “Awards” I have a lot (of the same citations as in “Biography”. I think my issue is the first you described, so I will look in to “named references”. Thanks again again. AnnaStoneG (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to skip the Named References. It is really hard to understand what to do at my humble level. As soon as code pops up I am having a hard time... Thanks for the tip anyway. Then I just have to hope that usind the same ref twice without naming is "not a cardinal sin" ;) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Lizzy0213

About resources If the draft I create does not have reliable information on the Internet, but the content is recognized in daily life. Which method can I use to create this related article? Thank you so much. Lizzy0213 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy0213: before I categorically say that you do need reliable sources to back up any article, can you be a bit more specific, please – what do you mean by "recognized in daily life"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answers. 'recognized in daily life' I mean this fact may be well known, but lacks professional verification yet. I want to submit the articular about a kind of cat(this kind named 'Linqing lion cat', I did not find reliable recourses in English. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizzy0213: I certainly wouldn't know what a Linqing lion cat is, but then I'm no expert on lions or (other) cats. Then again, most readers probably won't be, either.
There's an essay that you may find helpful in this context: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Forgot to say that sources don't need to be online, or in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK,thanks so much, it's very useful. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 3 February 2024 review of submission by יאַנקל

Hello! I have two reliable secondary source citations in my article, and wonder if there is a minimum needed in order to consider the artist "notable."

Please note that this entry is part of a larger endeavor to create knowledge about Polish-Jewish artists and cultural workers who have not received sufficient recognition. יאַנקל (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a specific minimum number, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 3 February 2024 review of submission by RîzgarîKurdîstan

Hello! My question is why was my draft cancelled? The references are from government website. RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@rîzgarîkurdîstan: government websites count as primary sources and don't count to notability. ltbdl (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely correct statement. However, this draft was not declined for lack of notability, but for lack of reliable sources. So it could be a case of correct decline, but for an incorrect reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t understand? Isn’t government websites reliable source? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if I resubmit will they accept the draft or it will be taken down again? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RîzgarîKurdîstan: the point ltbdl was making, and I was concurring with, is that for notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, we need to see coverage in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.). Primary sources, no matter how reliable, are not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the only problems are the citations and references and if I add news or TV sources will it be accepted? And is Facebook source reliable? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you add news sources that should be okay. No, Facebook isn't reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Paola-D99

i cannot understand the problem with this submission. i used as main source Gisella Marengo IMDb profile. this website is the most reliable for entertainment workers where all info and projects are indicated. my info came from a reliable source but the draft has not been approved. coudl you please explain me better the problem? thanks Paola-D99 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia Terms because it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this actress to summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 3 February 2024 review of submission by MaxDevlin

Hi there! I wrote an article on a newly-published unfinished novel by the American author Flannery O'Connor. It was denied. I added more examples of "coverage" in the Reception section. The guidelines on the notability of books states that the book's "author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." This is certainly true for Flannery O'Connor, the first post-war female writer enshrined in the Library of America, the winner of the National Book Award in 1972, and the subject of many books, scholarly articles, and films. This is my first ever article, so I want to learn what I've done wrong. I'm a great fan of Wikipedia--thanks! MaxDevlin (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link- we don't need the whole url, just the actual title. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The connections section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that notability is not inherited: it's possible to have a notable book by a non-notable author and vice versa. (I'm not saying that is the case here: I haven't looked. I'm just warning against making that assumption) ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 3 February 2024 review of submission by Westbrook1980

I am not fully understanding what is wrong? any idea of what else is needed? Westbrook1980 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Westbrook1980: two things:
1. The sources do not prove that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. The standard they would need to satisfy is the WP:GNG general notability one.
2. As this is an article on a living person, you must cite your sources inline, against the information they support; now you've piled all your citations to the end, so it's not clear which source supports what statement, and how much of it remains unsupported. See WP:REFB / WP:ILC for advice.
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

10:14, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Rojja1996

Kindly help as some users have declined the page and i want help Rojja1996 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojja1996 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You seem to have a connection with this person as you took a picture of them and they posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. What help is it that you are seeking? Please see the advice left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not like that. I don’t have any connection and doesn’t have received any payment. How to make it look more valid. Kindly help. Rojja1996 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you personally take the picture of him? Have you seen the advice left by the reviewer? They told what it is that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I took it from the source of that reality show. With his consent Rojja1996 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He can't give consent to using an image of the show, it's not his to give. This means that you must declare a conflict of interest as you communicated with him, and you must immediately request deletion of the image from Commons as you are falsely claiming it as your work.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images may wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your suggestion what can I do to look more relevant? Rojja1996 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is almost completely unsourced, and the sources you give are not appropriate for establishing notability. You have gone about this backwards. You should first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage and then summarize them. These sources cannot be interviews, press releases, announcements, or brief mentions. Once the image is removed and a deletion request made, and you declare a conflict of interest, please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Sukhi vale

Please help me for create mahroos siddiquee Nadim article Sukhi vale (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the advice left by reviewers. Social media is not an acceptable source. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Musicworkflowacademy

Hello,

Please publish my page for DJ Omar Meho

Thank you. Looking forward to working with you. Please keep me in mind for all future opportunties.

Kind Regards,

Omar Meho Musicworkflowacademy (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a venue for promoting your business, try Linked in instead. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of your sources is independent of Meno. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 4 February 2024 review of submission by 69.118.230.235

This article seems notable, even if not for the play, and it seems that the comment about the article being restructured wasn’t listened to. I know this is an OSE argument, but Lunatic Lateral is leaning towards keep at the AFD and I fail to see how this is less relevant. Yes, it is too soon to determine a lasting impact, however that means no article should be created at the time. I don’t see how the article could possibly be merged effectively into 2023-24 NFL playoffs without bloating the section. Even if the field goal isn’t notable, the viewership record is. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Origamikuren

Hello! I am working on an entry for a band. The band's active years were in the late 90s/early 00s--before they were able to establish a significant digital footprint, which makes citations difficult. At this time, my greatest concern is that I am the primary author. What is the best way to include additional contributors to the page while it is still in a review mode? Is this something I should promote in a public manner? Not many people I know who were fans of the band have experience with contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your advice. Origamikuren (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be online, only that they be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. In this case, you will need to establish that they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band.
You are free to invite others to edit the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 4 February 2024 review of submission by WV Veritas

Hi,

My draft was rejected and not sure why. The information I submitted was essentially the same as what wa on the following page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloat-Horn-Rossell_House WV Veritas (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WV Veritas! One thing to keep in mind is that not all articles are created equal - and many, many older articles are not up to the current standards. The article you have used as a base was created in 2011 and is only a stub; I think it would probably be declined (as yours has been) if it were created today. Have a look at the Featured Articles and Good Articles listed in the Historic Houses Task Force page for the kind of article you should be basing yours on.
What you probably need to look for at this point is independent, reliable secondary sources - articles in newspapers/magazines/etc that are about this house, for example. The National Register you are relying on is a primary source and is not useful for Wikipedia.
However, I do see there's an awful lot of citations in the National Register application you have cited! Starting on page 9, many articles from what look like potentially reliable sources are cited. If you can track down those articles, use information from them in the draft, and cite them properly, you may well have a notable subject on your hands. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64

Hello! I have added more information to the article in order to prove it is notable. May it be analyzed again? Thank you! Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64

Hello! I have updated a draft I made. Could you please take a look? I have done more research since it was rejected and I've added more information and sources 

I feel like it is worth reconsidering.
Thank you for your time!  Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

08:56, 5 February 2024 review of submission by Beeleafinme

Help to write the article in a formal tone Beeleafinme (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeleafinme: no, we don't get involved in editing or co-creating drafts here at the help desk; that is entirely your job as the draft author, or you may ask for help at one of the relevant Wikiprojects if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edits on Wiki get approved but creation of a page for a user gets either rejected or declined. I feel it's cool If ask for helping hand on some of my articles Beeleafinme (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1203662785"