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 VWellsMicro (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 13 June 2024 (→16:46, 12 June 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro: 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


June 7

04:41, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Hal Stern's university page) that are not Hal Stern's employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Hal Stern is a very accomplished scholar---book author, professor, and a Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor at a large U.S. University. It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. universities and scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a more level-headed and potentially more knowledgeable user? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garden Lover Asia: please do not make assumptions about what knowledge another editor may or may not possess, or imply that they are not "level-headed"; that is just insulting. Also, one does not need to be an expert in a topic area to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines.
And another thing: draft reviewers are there to review, not to edit. It isn't our job to improve the drafts up to such standard that they can be accepted, that is entirely the responsibility of the author(s) and other proponents of the draft. So no, it is not "extremely surprising" that this wasn't done here, quite the opposite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to make assumption about User4edits. The page of this editor mentions that he "may be found hunting for promotional and paid articles of Indian businesspeople." and he declined my article on Hal Stern. Later, Mdann52 moved the page to article space, because Mdann52 thought that "clearly meets WP:NPROF from the appointment held alone". This reversal by Mdann52 pretty much proves that User4edits was not knowledgeble and is only trying to reject articles instead of being more open and making Wikipedia what it claims to be: an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - I decided to approve the article after spending a fair amount of time to check the notability, add some sources and do some further research - however it would also have been perfectly reasonable for me not to do so given how it was when it was reviewed. The three sources I added while doing so help with the notability, and it appears to meet the relevant guidelines, however given how many primary sources were in the article when it was reviewed, I don't think the other users actions were unreasonable or unexpected. Mdann52 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: you seem to be intent on continuing further down the path of aspersions and innuendo, and I am asking you to please stop, and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which relies on people working together, not against each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Prof. Braun's university page) that are not his employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Henry Braun is a very accomplished scholar---book author, educator, professor, several prestigious career award winners, fellows of prestigious organizations like AERA, inducted into prestigious organizations like National Academy of Science, former VP of a large non-profit,.... It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a user who is potentially more knowledgeable about the U.S. universities and education system? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @User4edits, who was mentioned by name.
@Garden Lover Asia Yes, the subject might be notable per WP:NPROF, but it would need a rewrite and more sources before being published. There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert, and it needs more independent reliable sources. Also, what is your relationship with Seeking absolute truth (talk · contribs)? They asked about the same draft a while ago. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia has a draft in their sandbox which is of the same subject on which @Seeking absolute truth was editing (draft deleted for promotion). I have left a sock notice on GardenLoverAsia's talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a small field of research (educational measurement and statistics). So I meet the same people, read research work from the same people, attend presentations of the same people at conferences etc. as others in our field. So it should not be surprising if I am working on the same article as another person (probably in the same field). And yes---I discussed with a couple of researchers that I met at a conference in April (Conference program: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NCME/4b7590fc-3903-444d-b89d-c45b7fa3da3f/UploadedImages/2024_Annual_Meeting/NCME004-AnnualMeeting_Program_FINAL.pdf) about publishing Wikipedia articles on a few people who we thought were thought leaders there: Henry Braun, Robert Mislevy, Randy Bennett, Sandip Sinharay, Alina von Davier (she has a Wikipedia article, we found) etc. So it is possible that another researcher tried to publish an article on Henry Braun or Hal Stern or Sandip Sinharay (who I am working on right now). In addition, instead of focusing on which account is related to who (and trying to be the next Sherlock Holmes), I request you to be fair to the subjects of the articles submitted. Henry Braun is very similar in stature in his field to Eric Bradlow, Li Cai, Paul W. Holland, Alina von Davier etc. who are all in the same field (Prof. Braun was a colleague of three of them) and the references I submitted for Prof. Braun are very similar in nature and number to the references in these other articles. So it is strange that an article on Prof. Braun would be declined when these other articles exist. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About your statement "There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert", what about the following in the article for Li Cai (who is in the same field as Henry Braun): "The algorithm was recognized as a mathematically rigorous breakthrough in the "curse of dimensionality" or the following in the Wikpedia article for Alina von Davier (same field): "Von Davier is a researcher, innovator, and an executive leader"? If "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "..innovator, and an executive leader" are acceptable, how is "world-renowned expert" be peacocky? Also, I am in the same field and both "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "innovator" are too much of an exaggeration. The only thing that is true is that both Li Cai and Alina von Davier are big self-promoters. Thus, it seems that you are applying double standards in reviewing articles and declined an article on a humble person while accepting those on self-promoters. I will end with the fact that Henry Braun received a career contributions award in 2023 in the same field as Li Cai and Alina von Davier--so an article on him is definitely eligible in what is claimed to be an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I also see that you editors contradict each other. On the article on Henry Braun, I see that the editor StarryGrandma wrote in April on the article on Henry Braun that the references so far are just fine and yet user4edits etc. think references are not enough. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: - the issue here isn't the notability (which I don't think anyone has questioned), however the toning of the article and the fact a lot of the article is not supported by citations, or inproperly cited. I'm happy to do some work on rewording some sections if needed, but in the current form it's not really ready for mainspace. Mdann52 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will highly appreciate if you will help with this article on Henry Braun. As I wrote above, I mimicked the format (and sources) of this article from articles on other people in his field (Li Cai, Eric Bradlow, Paul W. Holland), but probably did not succeed entirely. Thanks---you seem to be so much more helpful than editors like user4edit. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 5 sources to support that his name is Henry Braun that is just weird and completely unnecessary. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A common reason of decline is the lack of reliable sources and different editors have different opinions about what is reliable. So I thought I would add a few to increase the chance of acceptance. :-) I will revise it soon to reduce the number. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing a submission on Sandip Sinharay that is in my sandbox. Will you please take a quick Look and let me know if you consider him to pass the criteria of a notable person stated in WP:NPROF? I think Sandip Sinharay does pass because of being an editor of a prestigious journal (and past editor of two other journals) in his field, publisher of books (with well-known publishers) and 100+ articles, and winners of important awards in his field. However, I was talking with a few friends (all of whom want to make our field of psychometrics more visible and are bloggers, authors of articles in journals and encyclopedias like Wikipedia etc.) at a recent conference and heard that articles submitted by them on a few other people and Sandip Sinharay were declined for different reasons (not a notable person, self-promotion etc.). Please feel free to do your own research, like you did for Hal Stern, about his notability (or otherwise). There is a news article about him in a leading Bengali newspaper, showing he is notable in another way (by overcoming a terrible accident to later become somewhat successful in life): https://www.anandabazar.com/west-bengal/sandip-singha-roy-shares-his-experience-of-harassments-when-he-was-a-student-at-kharagpur/cid/1453550, but I did not cite that as a source as the Wikipedia editors will immediately protest that. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Yatharthsrivastava

Inquiry for decline

Hi

I was told that my article Draft:Sukesha didn't have proper citations, though I had included four citations: three from published books and one from a respected website that has often been cited in wiki articles. I would love to get some feedback on where I can improve.

First source: Amar Chitra Katha, a respectable comic book series that does research accurately on all of its issues on mythology

Second source: Vettam Mani's Puranic Encyclopaedia, a comprehensive work that talks about all mythological figures in Hindu myth.

Third source: Wisdom Library, which is a respectable website that is used by wiki for multiple articles on Hindu mythology

Fourth source: A direct translation of Ramayana, which talks about my character. Yatharthsrivastava (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yatharthsrivastava: it's difficult to tell how much of what you've written is actually supported by the sources, as you haven't cited them inline (which, in fairness, is not absolutely mandatory, but very much the preferred method nevertheless); see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Also, offline sources must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.
BTW, it seems sources 2 and 3 are actually the same? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020

Why is there a block on this? It has been cleaned up and now includes the references which prove notability. 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how you've done that, but if you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! How can I know of my article about Daniel Druhora is ready to be published? Kamila Fomin (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: if you're asking about Draft:Daniel Druhora (like you did the last time), then please link to that draft, not the one in your sandbox.
I declined this draft a couple of weeks ago. It has been edited since then, but not resubmitted. The way you find out if it's ready for publication is you resubmit it for another review (whenever you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 7 June 2024 review of submission by MarkCeline

hi, i recently edited an article, It got declined and the user who declined stated exact reasons too. The problem is, english is not my first language, therefore I am having trouble understanding the instructions. I can try retyping what the user said. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). 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." Please word it in simpler terms and help me. MarkCeline (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkCeline: the decline notice says that the subject is not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you DoubleGrazing MarkCeline (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkCeline It was me who declined the draft. I asked you to go through H:YFA and WP:REFB. Kindly read other articles like Vyapam scam. I would ask you to continue the article. Other users would join for sure. And, we reviewers are not here just to decline. We use to improve the articles appear notable. Keep improving. If you need any help, please ask me. I would be happy to assist. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Twinkle1990. It means a lot. MarkCeline (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For any assistance and improvement of the draft, you are always welcome to my talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Here is the edited article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neet_Scam_2024 MarkCeline (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Sjoseph2024

I am an elected State Executive Committee member of the Texas Republican Party, and I would like to create my Wikipedia page with all relevant information. Sjoseph2024 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sjoseph2024 Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your draft is wholly unsourced and reads like a resume. A Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Frankly, it would be unusual for a state level party official who does not hold public office to draw the coverage needed to merit an article, but it's not impossible. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any article about you would not be "your Wikipedia page", it would be an article about you, no different than if the New York Times wrote about you. You wouldn't have an exclusive right to edit the article, and cannot keep it on the text that you might prefer it have. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. See WP:PROUD for more information, as well as WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Afternoon, Sjoseph2024. Firstly, can I please make you aware of WP:AUTOBIO, which is our guidelines for such pages. Generally speaking, you should not publish articles on yourself.
Secondly, you would need to meet the criteria at WP:NPOL to show you are notable enough for an article. Candidates for office are generally not notable, so you would need to show you met WP:GNG. From a quick search, I cannot find adaquate sourcing to meet that bar.
Thirdly, the draft is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable under our rules for articles on living people. For good reason, we don't allow people to make claims on here they are the subject and X is true, as editors and our readers have no way of verifying that that person is who they say they are. Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mean 52 I think this user isn't seeking public office(which doesn't meet NPOL anyway), they are a member of the party's executive committee, essentially on the board. They would probably need to meet WP:BIO and for that there would need to be coverage discussing their influence on the party/its candidates/its ideology/etc. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I don't identify as mean, I hope that isn't a reflection on my comment :)
But thanks for putting what I was trying to say in a more succinct form! Mdann52 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Singhizking

Hello. My draft has been declined. How do i edit it so that it gets accepted and published as an article. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Singhizking: We don't cite wikis in general (no editorial oversight). The topic of your draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asian social strata and castes). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if i add this contentious topic to my draft will it be accepted Singhizking (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Singhizking: You misread what I wrote; I'll clarify. The draft is in a topic area that is considered problematic - specifically, South Asian castes and similar social strata - and so there will be increased scrutiny on your draft as a result. This does not affect the chance of your draft being accepted, but it does mean you need to be careful about how you go about writing this. As to your draft being accepted, you currently have no usable sources at all; as I said, we do not cite wikis. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please can you give me a usable source. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your job. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject scholarly sources that discuss the surname at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 7 June 2024 review of submission by StephenFlint

Because, I just wanna make sure it will submitted or not. That's all! StephenFlint (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenFlint: Your only source is a video from the subject's own YouTube channel. Not only is this completely unacceptable, one source by itself - no matter how good it is - cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already just wanna know how good or bad it is. Just remind me! StephenFlint (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad and has been deleted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that's right that's never good. StephenFlint (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Abhidiit

I created a page about myself. It was declined. I have little to no experience of creating wikipedia pages. My page was declined and I can see editor's comments. But I dont know how to fix those issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abhidiit (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or post their resume. Please see the autobiography policy. It is not recommended that you write about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden. Any article about you must not merely document your accomplishments, it must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable academic. Please see Your First Article. You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 39.34.132.104

I want to publish the article of Ayaz Sheikh. He is my cousin brother and he is a Pakistani playback singer. Can you help me in publishing or creating his article? I have not made any financial deal with Ayaz Sheikh for this work and Ayaz Sheikh's page is already created administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. Please help and support create English Wikipedia Short Page Ayaz Sheikh. If you have an authority. 39.34.132.104 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You draft has already been deleted as unambiguous advertising, which is not permitted on English Wikiepdia. If there is ever an article about your cousin, it will be a summary of what people unconnected with him have published about him, not what he or his associates wish to say.
Also, if he is your cousin, then you have a conflict of interest, whether you have a financial arrangement of not: this does not prevent you from creating an article about him, but it makes it harder, because you are likely to find it difficult to write in a sufficiently neutral point of view.
What happens on other Wikipedia versions does not concern us here: each version of Wikipedia is a separate project, and has its own rules, policies, and procedures. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 120.56.167.234

The article User: Fishsicles/sandbox has been made redundant by the publishing of Sodium tetrapropylborate, so i want to cleanup the article as per WP:CLEANUP and make it an redirect to that article. Thanks, 120.56.167.234.

120.56.167.99 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make any sense. In any case, you've managed to get yourself blocked (for evading an earlier block, it seems), so take a break and find something to do in the real world instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user seems to have deleted content from today's section, and it cannot be easily restored due to subsequent edits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Reality180

The sources of all information in this document are clearly identified. There are many worse articles on wikipedia, but few are more factual than this. This document should be adopted because it was written based on facts confirmed by solid data. Reality180 (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reality180: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. Repeated resubmission without any attempt to improve the draft is disruptive and will eventually result in rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reality180 The presence or content of an article is not compared to that of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer, see other stuff exists. If there are "worse articles", please help us take action on them by identifying them so we are aware of them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Minejob

Why this page got reject please explain me and tell me the reasons so I can make them good in future. Minejob (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minejob: because there is nothing to suggest you are notable. We don't host personal 'profiles' etc., for that you need to go to the likes of LinkedIn. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic merit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Stephen Ini

Please are news publications reliable sources to cite on an article about a politician? I really need the help of an experienced wikipedia editor. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Ini: some are, some aren't. Fox News (sic) is not considered reliable for political or scientific topics. Daily Mail is not considered reliable for anything, and yet they would probably see themselves as a 'news publication'. RT is also not considered reliable, although whether they even think themselves that they are a 'news publication', I don't know. You can find out more about what we do and don't consider reliable at WP:RS and WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help, however, is there a list of news sources reliable for Nigeria, because there are quite a number of News publication platforms in Nigeria that are considered verified and reliable but may not be considered same on wikipedia, I really need a proper guidance to articulate my draft submission in order to get it approved.
I am not a paid editor, I am a new editor learning how to become an experienced contributor for Nigerian informations because I realized there are not many persons interested in publishing Nigerian information for free. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Ini: I'm not aware of anyone maintaining a list of reliable Nigerian sources, although you may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria where they will no doubt know better. The problem is that even if a particular publication is generally considered reliable, an individual article may still have problems, such as being sponsored content or based on a press release.
The problem with your draft is that most of the content is unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an article on a living person. So even if your sources are reliable (which I can't comment on, as I haven't looked), they're not cited enough to support the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help, this would help me make improvement in my journey through wikipedia. I will check on the wiki project Nigeria and also make changes to my references and citations with reliable sources for my article. However, I have made some effort in editing my draft and I would appreciate if you help me check out the improvement made so far. Thank You. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that each source that you are wanting to use to demonstrate notability must meet three criteria: not just being a reliable source, but also being completely independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of him.
So if a reliable source publishes an article based on a press release, that will not count; and if it mentions the subject's name in an article, but says little or nothing about him, that will not count. See WP:42 for more. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, I appreciate your assistance. What about cases where the government mentions the person in a presidential press release? Stephen Ini (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Sonu Deka 2010

How to publish this article? What I have to do to published this article on Wikipedia. Any editing? Sonu Deka 2010 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonu Deka 2010: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence of notability and is effectively unreferenced. It will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I need the reasons why my article is deleted. It had valid source and links. And i'm an independent filmmaker from india. Someone did speedy deletion on my article, which i completely disagree with the action that put upon. Please do check, I'm sure this is wrong. SachiAkhil93 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your draft Draft:Janam Raj has not been deleted, but it has been rejected, because after three attempts you have not managed to adduce any sources which establish that Raj met Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
In order to establish notability, your draft would need to cite (not just list at the end, but give proper bibliographic information which would allow a reader to find the source and verify the information) several sources each of which was reliably published|, independent of the subject, and contained significant coverage of the subject. Not one of the links you put at the end is independent of Raj.
Absolutely the first question to ask when considering writing a Wikipedia article about somebody, is "Where have people wholly unconnected with the subject chosen to write at some lenght about them, and been published somewhere reliable, such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher?"
If the answer is "nowhere", then give up: this person does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "notable".
If there are several such sources, the next step is to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those independent sources say.
As for your user page, that is what has been deleted, as containing material unrelated to Wikipedia's purposes. As I am not an admin, I can't look at the deleted page and see what it said. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 8 June 2024 review of submission by SachiAkhil93

Hi, I need the reasons why my article is deleted. It had valid source and links. And i'm an independent filmmaker from india. Someone did speedy deletion on my article, which i completely disagree with the action that put upon. Please do check, I'm sure this is wrong. SachiAkhil93 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SachiAkhil93: no, it is not wrong. You shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. And when you submit an autobio draft with no evidence of notability, and then resubmit the same again without any improvement on that front, that's when you cross the border into self-promotion. This is why your draft was declined, and subsequently deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

Need to delete this draft VineethVaraprasad (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Deb '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 8 June 2024 review of submission by 109.151.77.86

HI

Not sure what I am missing - I have looed at other similar aerodromes and they have v few references

please advise 109.151.77.86 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has no references, only some external links.
Per WP:NBUILD, we would need to see significant coverage in multiple sources meeting the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, many articles on Wikipedia that have only a few references were created when the Wiki was new and the standards were looser. We're always trying to find and improve or remove those old articles, so if you saw any then please feel free to link them here so someone can help clean them up!
Your draft has now been rejected, so this may be the end of the line for it. If you are able to find at least three suitable sources and can incorporate them into the draft (make sure to cite them appropriately!) then you could leave a message on the talk page of the reviewer who rejected the draft, asking them whether they would be willing to look it over again. Keep in mind you should only do this once, so make sure your draft is at a good standard first!
Use the featured articles at WikiProject Architecture for some articles you could base yours on; Featured Articles are considered to be some of our very best, so they're a much better guide than random aerodrome articles. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

what was missing in the article ? VineethVaraprasad (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer...any evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

already many reference added, what can i do to publish this page VineethVaraprasad (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised The Times of India is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

give me advice what was missing VineethVaraprasad (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. You have been advised above. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not making an error. Wasn't you that requested the deletion per [1]. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

06:09, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Coldgradir

How to change my sandbox to Coldgradir when I search Coldgradir Wikipedia on Google Coldgradir (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldgradir: drafts are not indexed by search engines, only published articles are, and this has zero chance of being published in its present state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Oliverascool

why reject me Oliverascool (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliverascool: because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 9 June 2024 review of submission by MTlegends

MTlegends(talk). 12:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Walter Wetzel Sr. @MTlegends: do you have a question about the draft? It is waiting for review. --bonadea contributions talk 12:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bonadea. Yes I am waiting to hear back on its approval. I made an attempt to get a reply back but no one has updated me on it. I added a few more references but wanted to make sure it is going to be reviewed and approved. I have been waiting for months on get this approved.
Any update would be appreciated. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored the advice that Legacy.com and IMDb are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. There are a few other resources out there on him that can be used in place of these. I will add them. Thank you Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MTlegends please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,223 pending submissions waiting for review.
I see that your user page says you're the grandson of the person you're writing about. Please see WP:COI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. User page info has been updated. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't? You have removed the details of your relationship to the topic whereas you need to add it! Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did add it with a few other items. Hope it helps. I am new to all of this stuff. Thanks for your patience in advance. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 14:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MTlegends: One thing that delayed the review was the removal of some templates from the draft on 13 May – you deleted the current submission template (which meant that the page was removed from the category of drafts waiting for review), as well as the reviewer comments from earlier submissions. I restored them and the draft has already been reviewed again. If you edit and resubmit, please be careful not to remove any of the templates or comments from earlier reviews. --bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 9 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

What was missing VineethVaraprasad (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the advice given to you above. Please do not create a new draft every time an old one is rejected. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VineethVaraprasad: and if I can just add, I reported you for self-promotion, but the report went stale before anyone acted on it. I won't hesitate to report again, though, if you continue in this vein, so please stop now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 9 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad

please review the contact tell me the changes VineethVaraprasad (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VineethVaraprasad: What part of "do not remove rejection templates" do you not understand? The same draft has been rejected four times and will not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been declined and rejected multiple times, your sources are NOT reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

Need advice in publishing the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mira-Bhayander,_Vasai-Virar_Police page... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005, your draft was rejected four months ago. Please read the reviewers' notes, under the big orange/pink box on your draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but, if you analyse the topic, you will know that the topic is notable, yet not published... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratik.S2005 IMO the draft could be merged into Maharashtra Police. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 9 June 2024 review of submission by OkcuhC

- How to reposition the infobox military person to the top right side of the page ? - How to cite Oman's New York Times 1948 obituary? Should it be in a bibliography? It was a "special to the New York Times" Obit. Have scan of original NYT clipping. It appears in NYT Obit index as: Oman, Charles M. (por) 1948. N 2, 25:5 but can't generate a proper direct link to it. Or is source and date sufficient? - My primary sources were the NYT obituary, and a congruent 1941 Who's Who in America entry - should both be listed? - Oman's 1943 book Doctor's Aweigh is in public domain, and available at https://archive.org/details/doctorsaweigh. Is it appropriate to include it as an External Link? OkcuhC (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OkcuhC Much general housekeeping has been done for you.
The Wordpress reference is a blog, the unreliable by definition. Source and date of the obit is a sufficient reference, though an ideal reference is available online. Even so, many references pre-date the internet and may not have been digitised, and are perfectly acceptable.
As a personal opinion, one reference only for one fact, though others are content with up to three. Three is my limit, not a target! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Timtrent. Should I add the Who's Who as a second reference source, and then go thru the bio section key facts adding the appropriate source? Is his book on naval medical history (1943, Doubleday publisher) appropriate as a second supporting source, including page numbers. His book does provide historical context and details on some of his life events.
Also, what was the trick you used to correctly position the infobox:military person on the page? Should I have put it at the start? 2601:19C:4000:3040:1891:5593:924E:C0C2 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations to biography sections... 2601:19C:4000:3040:7014:82DC:20A7:DBDA (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:32, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Djy Lectxr 727

Why was my application declined Djy Lectxr 727 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the message on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an autobiography with no citations to support notability of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

05:25, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Djy Lectxr 727

What must I do to be approved because it's busy telling me that my entry must be empty or removed Djy Lectxr 727 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djy Lectxr 727 please stop creating autobiographies without any citations to establish notability. The page has been tagged for speedy deletion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 86.135.32.32

Hi This page is based on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Verstappen

This discussion will surround however multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities.

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins. It is worth note that historically these list pages existed for the top 5 drivers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners , however now only one of the top 6 does not have such a list: that being Verstappen.

I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus (especially as on the talk page, Tvx1 wishes to delete the featured lists I have linked below, which is contentious at best as highlighted here on a denied deletion request page from Tvx1 for one of the featured lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna )

It is possible user Tvx1 does not fully understand LISTN guidelines and continues to push for their interpretation in spite of consensus as an honest attempt to improve the site quality, however, it seems to be of limited use for this draft. I previously reached out to Tvx1 on their talk page but received no response regarding this.

(This current post has been slightly edited for readability.)

The featured lists for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being appealed:

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 86.135.32.32 (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Talk:Max Verstappen#Split (2023) clearly indicates there is not a consensus as of then to create this article. The correct venue if you disagree is to establish a consensus there, post on WP:DRV to gain consensus to remove the salting of the title to allow the article to be physically created, then I will happily allow that article to be resubmitted. Mdann52 (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, I do not wish for this article to be created as I agree there is not consensus, I just wish for the rejection to be overruled as it should be an ongoing discussion and the rejection falsely asserts there is a consensus. "I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus"
As it stands there are voices both in favour of creation and against creation, and to deny it on the assertion there are only voices against it has shut down this discussion from taking place properly. 5 users excluding myself are in favour of creation to 2 against, this is not a consensus to either create or deny creation of the article - I merely restated the reason as to why it could be created to show that there is no consensus. Also, as an aside, if two users consistently disagree with all others and a consensus can never be made, how are we to go about this? What ratio of for versus against is needed to be a consensus? Do these two users have effective veto power or is it worth considering continuing this discussion? 86.135.32.32 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The matter (of splitting) can be discussed irrespective of whether a draft exists, and whether it has been rejected or merely declined. That discussion is outside the scope of AfC, and should not be repeatedly brought into the AfC help desk.
I noticed that you've made only three edits, all to this thread. If you have a registered account, please log into it whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I wrongly believed that the denial stopped the split discussion. As for the edits, I do not have a registered account apologies! I will make this my last comment here as per your advice - thank you both immensely. 86.135.32.32 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were one of the registered users involved in that discussion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Andrea Vizzini

L'articolo è stato rifiutato, ho aggiunto la traduzione in inglese e desideravo chiedere se qualcuno può darmi dei suggerimenti appropriati per rendere valido l'articolo su Wikipedia.

The article was rejected, I added the English translation and wanted to ask if anyone could give me some appropriate suggestions to make the article valid on Wikipedia. Andrea Vizzini (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Vizzini I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted- although in this case it is up for deletion.
Note that what is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as it is a different project with its own editors and policies. In this case, you have not provided any sources at all- an article here must summarize the content of independent reliable sources.
If you are associated with this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Izzuddinfz

Hi, is there any chance I can publish an article on behalf of my company? Or is it forever prohibited? Izzuddinfz (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Izzuddinfz I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. If you are attempting to edit about your business, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest. It is not absolutely prohibited for you to edit about your business, but it is discouraged, because usually people associated with a topic have great difficulty in writing as Wikipedia requires, especially if they lack experience and knowledge. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about itself, its offerings, and activities. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. We don't want to know what the business says about itself, or to merely know its activities, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the business as they see it, not as the business itself might see it. That is usually very difficult for someone associated with the business to see and do; you need to set aside everything you know about the business and limit yourself to only summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage.
My advice is that you go on about the work of your business as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow independent editors to notice the work of your business as described in independent sources and decide to write about it, allowing an article to organically develop. Trying to force the issue yourself is not usually successful. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izzuddinfz: you must make a paid-editing disclosure immediately, as instructed on your talk page.
You may then submit a new draft, but it must be completely non-promotional in tone and content, and based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the business. We are not interested in what your business wants to say about itself, as that is inherently promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 5066dk

why are you rejected my Wikipedia submission 

5066dk (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5066dk it is an autobiography without any citations to establish notability. Wikipedia is not for posting your resumé. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 June 2024 review of submission by FourbeEnfant

Hello, I would need asistance because I want to add an English page of the German Wikipedia page. Sadly, there are not better references than I included but it always get canceled. Can you advise me what to do? 

FourbeEnfant (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourbeEnfant if there are "not better references" like you said, it's probably not notable. Wikipedia in different languages have different notability standards. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourbeEnfant: The German article has 48 sources – are none of them independent, secondary and offer in-depth coverage? These guidelines might help; remember a) that Wikipedia is not very interested in what a company has to say about itself so an article must be based on independent sources, and b) that these sources don't have to be in English. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well
it has 48 sources and some of them are secondary, not all, but they are not secondary, but primary about this introductory part I am trying to write. How would it be okay if I write intro based on some article from 1994 in German that only mentions the company by name... FourbeEnfant (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568

im not doing anything bad in this draft wiki so i dont want my draft wiki decline Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roblox678956568: if you keep resubmitting the draft without making any attempt at improving it and addressing the decline reasons, it will eventually be rejected with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Antoinetteramseur

Requesting assistance with proper references.

The sources I've used are office websites, and news articles. What sources should I use that would be acceptable?

This is the lastest rejection reason: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Antoinetteramseur (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 10 June 2024 review of submission by 2pxc

Hello, I am requesting help with searching for sources to verify Glorb's methods of music production as true, as well as expand the "Reception" section to include milestones in Spotify streams, YouTube views and criticisms from other important articles/people to potentially help the article qualify for WP:NMUSICIAN and demonstrate it from cited sources. Essentially, I am trying to make the article stronger and more encyclopedic through additional sources in that sense and although I seem to have gotten pretty good with Wikitext upon one of my first attempts at using it, I can't do it on my own. Please be sure to DM me on my talk page about making edits outside of what I just mentioned I needed help with. Thanks again for the help! 2pxc. chat 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit to that draft to fix some references, and add a reflist. Generally, asking people not to edit or improve the draft is frowned upon (as Wikipedia is a collaborative site), and most of the helpers here can point to many articles at AfC they have improved/changed prior to being reviewed and accepted.
On the sources front, I've found this PC Mag article, but I'm struggling to come up with much else to help demonstrate notability that isn't already in the article. Generally, we don't accept sites such as "TV Tropes" as these are user-generated to an extent, so we can't verify what is on them is true.
I think the NBC News article helps with notability, I'm not farmiliar with Passionfruit but they do seem to be a realiable source in this area and support notability, but the Northeastern Global News one is a student news source which are not usually considered useful for notability purposes, but appears reliable and is useful to support that bit of the article.
The rest of the articles/sources I can find online appear to be SEO/promo-type pieces, so wouldn't be useful here. Unfortunately, it might well be a case of WP:TOOSOON at present, and need to have a "wait and see" attitude to see what further sources appear or do not appear. The final few sections in that article are currently troublesome as well, and would likely not be allowed in any finished draft as per WP:SYNTH. Mdann52 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. While I understand Wikipedia is a collaborative site, I had some edits of my own to make in the other sections I did not mention I needed assistance with, which are for the most part done now, so hopefully that clears up any confusion on that end, especially for others trying to edit the page. Once again, I do need help to get this to become a fully-fledged article- I just want to ensure that the general quality of it isn't degraded in the process because I worked decently hard to develop this from the ground-up, so to speak.
I like the PC Mag article, I can tell it's a reliable source, and I would recommend using it anywhere that it can prove something about Glorb, for example, if it can prove that the music video for "The Bottom 2" has 12 million views (as of today). As I just mentioned I have also added some sources onto the article as part of the work I wanted to do myself that helps verify presence on Spotify and YouTube as well as the naming convention for Glorb's characters' stage names. As for the TV Tropes source, that came from a previous version of the draft which was abandoned almost 4 months ago, probably due to WP:TOOSOON, and I can agree that it does need to be removed if it is a user-generated source. Even so, though, the fact that so many new articles about Glorb have been pushed out ever since his interview with MoistCr1TiKaL (especially considering the number of sources I have found) makes me think that WP:TOOSOON may not apply here. The final few sections are something I can agree has a lack of sources and wouldn't be allowed in a finished draft, but I don't want to remove it just yet until we are sure that we can't find anything for it or until I put a copy of it in my sandbox to potentially save for later use when there are more sources indicating the further success of Glorb.
Whatever the case, my best advice is to keep looking for sources and this time invite more people to work on the draft and potentially develop the chronology of songs Glorb has made more as part of the "Music career" section.
Thanks again for your edits and feedback! I appreciate the help. 2pxc. dms 01:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Kjbhawk

Hi

How do I resubmit for review?

Thanks Kjbhawk (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kjbhawk, you cannot as the draft was rejected, and therefore will not be considered further. If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft and the rejection reason no longer applies, you can reach out to the rejecting reviewer and see if they will consider it again. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Brewster - Wikipedia Page

Hi - I was recently hired to create Clark Brewster's wikipedia page draft. I made all of the suggestions the editor, Liance, recommended and resubmitted the draft. This is a bit of a time sensitive publication, so I was hoping to get someone to look at the updated version. Thank you! BDOklahoma24 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Clark Brewster
First things first, Wikipedia does not respect your external deadlines. Second, every claim without a source needs to get sourced or needs to get out. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Blakedes2

Hello, i have recently added a new source and i have received a message regarding that there is no content in the reference area. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks Blakedes2 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - see my change here where I've got rid of the error. Wikipedia generally prefers inline citations - you can see more at Help:Cite. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks again! Blakedes2 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Euroz

The professional athlete and executive in question has significant coverage including the USW magazine article that was just published. Euroz (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is based on an interview with him, which is not an independent source, him speaking about himself. Even if that were somehow acceptable, that is still only one source- an article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Errant1905

The entry was declined again because "all of these sources appear to be from related parties". However, this is not the case, as the works of Bourrinet, Leonzio, Bourseiller and Peregalli are all examples of independent coverage. Errant1905 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you explained this to the reviewer that made that comment? 331dot (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now but the reviewer is currently on a "wikibreak". Errant1905 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

04:47, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Canadachoral

It was mentioned in other comments that the subject was notorious enough. Vallee is the leading choral conductor in Canada - there's not reason to deny an article on him and his work. The sources have been modified since the first version to include more secondary sources. I would like some more guidance if possible. Canadachoral (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadachoral The term is "notability", not "notoriety"(which usually has a more negative connotation). If you believe that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of the reviewer, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly, on their user talk page.
I'm wondering, do you have a connection to this individual? 331dot (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:01, 11 June 2024 review of submission by CyrilierOne

To be honest, It is an FOS (Free and Open-source) High-level programming language in the Philippines. CyrilierOne (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyrilierOne: well, thank you for being honest. Did you have a question in mind?
Please don't resubmit declined drafts without adequately addressing the decline reasons. It is annoying and pointless, and will eventually cause the draft to be rejected outright with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes CyrilierOne (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... could you ask that question here? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Movieverse88

i am having trouble in creating an article Movieverse88 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify the trouble you are having? 331dot (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Nizami Brothers
@Movieverse88: Your article is woefully undersourced, and the two sources you do have are useless (the first being too sparse and the second connected to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Movieverse, writing a draft without first finding several sources that each meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. If you manage to build the house, is it likely to fall down, or to break laws so that you have to pull it down,. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Kelviszng

This article is a about a famous Sportler and Influencer from Germany. I cant understand why this shouldnt be on Wikipedia. Kelviszng (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelviszng: apart from the fact that this draft is in German, whereas where are the English-language Wikipedia, there is no evidence that this person is notable. The draft has consequently been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 133.106.134.9

why 133.106.134.9 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:BMAX? Yes, that is indeed pure promotion, and possibly also a copyvio. Hence why it's up for speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Brookesurrett

Hi! This draft was denied due to the page Phil and Tim Hanseroth already existing. I wanted to see if it would be possible to appeal this because while that page does exist, The Hanseroth Twins is the name of their band which is a separate project from just them as brothers. Brookesurrett (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brookesurrett: but isn't the Phil and Tim Hanseroth article also about "just them as brothers"? In other words, could you not incorporate whatever is the new salient content from this draft into that article, perhaps in a new section? It seems to me pointless to have two articles on the same siblings' musical career. Or have I missed something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Haresh26

Please tell me how to improve this page to get it selected for article. Haresh26 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haresh26: We don't accept hagiographical writing. We don't cite IMDb or Instagram (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if i publish another article without tagging IMdb and Instagram, and make it sound neutral, does it work? Haresh26 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haresh26: what you're asking is "if I do this better will that be accepted?" Possibly; possibly not; impossible to say speculatively.
You shouldn't be writing about yourself, though; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haresh26: No, because the only source that would remotely come close to being acceptable is the Hindustan Times piece, and I say that without being able to actually assess it (language barrier). The only other non-Instagram, non-IMDb source is to ZEE5's streaming service, which is also unusable (connexion to subject). We have much stricter sourcing standards for articles on living people, and this applies by definition to autobiographies as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! This helped thankyou! 2406:B400:B4:E893:E15C:560C:BC29:A036 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 11 June 2024 review of submission by Martyn66

I am a candidate in the general election on 4th of July for the constituency of Bethnal Green & Stepney. You can find confirmation of this on your wiki page with data supplied by the local electoral commission. Ideally I wanted my name there in blue so that people could find out more. I am an author of books and articles on the new political philosophy called Political Humanism. This can be verified in such periodicals as The Ethical Record which I cited with a link to. I have also had plays on in reputable off-West End theatres including The Waterloo East Theatre which again I cited. Please advice me on how I might get my page established as soon as possible and while the election process is still running. Thank you Martyn66 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martyn66: Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion of any sort, and that includes political campaigning. If you are deemed notable, an article may be published on you, but you shouldn't assume that can or will be done before the election takes place, or that you can control the content of such an article in any way. In any case, such an article shouldn't be written by you yourself, for reasons laid out in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thank you. I appreciate you explaining that. I thought there might be enough there to warrant having a page but ok, I guess I’ll have to wait to get more recognition of the writing. All the best Martyn66 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martyn66: We do not cite Wikipedia (circular reference) or social media (no editorial oversight). As to the rest of your sources:
You have one questionably-usable source; the rest are unusable. For a biography of a living person this isn't anywhere near acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess I didn’t appreciate all that’s involved. There are clearly no shortcuts towards having your work recognised I suppose. Oh well. Martyn66 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martyn66: If you win the election, that in and of itself could be considered notability, but the issues in re our biographical policy would still exist. That said, being elected generally begets coverage, both good and ill, that can be used for an article on you, and there is nothing you can do to dictate the content of any article on you beyond the drafting process. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 66.165.31.64

I have no real idea why this page was rejected or what corrections might be made to be acceptable. It is a bit like submitting a draft of a book and having it rejected because "there is a missing comma somewhere". This page was submitted in February, and as an old retired guy who does not write web pages or Wikipedia entries for a living, I have tried to follow your formats to the best of my poor abilities. Can you give me some help here? I can not see why Cuis is the only major dialect of Smalltalk with no Wikipedia web page.

Perhaps note/mark places for improvement? I really have no idea what, specifically, is bring objected to. 66.165.31.64 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite GitHub (no editorial oversight) or ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me! Just because masters theses or conference talks (e.g. https://smalltalks2023.fast.org.ar/talks) are not "editorialized" does not make reliable, verifiable information "go away". You can easily download, say, https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis7-0 and verify all aspects and claims. Don't you believe software is real if it is open source and available from GitHub? You seem to be eliding much of the world here via editorial solipsism. Have you looked at the references and seen any invalid information? Surely you must accept some aspects of the world which exists outside of an encyclopedia. Some information is self validating by its existence. KennethDickey (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethDickey, what is being said here we don't provide proper editorial oversight or in depth fact checking on the content either. This is why the article needs be based on what others not connected to the subject have said about it in what we consider reliable sources. This means the sources used must show us there is impact on the greater world though the independent and significant coverage in these reliable sources. Github, Researchgate or theses do not achieve any of these criteria. You can use connected source for simple uncontestable facts, but again they will not help to demonstrate how they impact the greater world. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethDickey: The problem here is that we are looking for evidence a subject is notable by Wikipedia's terms, not that a draft's subject exists. Existence has never been a criterion for inclusion. There is also the matter that the bulk of your sources are to GitHub, which does not exercise editorial oversight in the journalism sense (i.e. corrections, retractions, fact-checks). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you know of nobody who has the programming/computer science expertise to fact check this directly. Sigh.
The antialiased rendering engine and Unicode support are quite unique. KennethDickey (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethDickey: I invite you to re-read what I just wrote. We're not discussing the accuracy or veracity of the article; we're discussing if the sources demonstrate notability for software as Wikipedia defines it and so far they do not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see that the inability to be able to make a judgement is quite limiting on your ability to accept material. Again, sigh. KennethDickey (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethDickey, quite the opposite actually, we have made the judgement, that you have not demonstrated how that the software you are writing about is notable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. The onus is on you to prove it, not us. If you are not interested in making an effort in understanding our guidelines, policies and processes then it's probably best you move on to other things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent _much_ time reading through your guidelines. I find some irony in having a Wikipedia page for GNU DrGeo, which has been re-implemented in Cuis Smalltalk due to its small size and unique graphic rendering and has a dead link to Cuis-Smalltalk. Cuis has been around for a couple of decades, used to implement non-trivial software, used to teach OO, some of its algorithms have been adapted by Squeak and Pharo, but somehow there is a hole where its page should be.
There have been many talks featuring CUIS in European Smalltalk User Group (ESUG.org) and Fundación Argentina de Smalltalk (fast.org.ar) conferences over many years.
TheCuisBook's three authors live in Austria, the USA, and Argentina.
There is a vibrant and notable world outside of peer reviewed journals.
I though I had done a reasonable job in documenting Cuis's notable features -- features which differ from other Smalltalks and other language IDEs. I see no discussion of actual notability.
The guidelines also say "Exceptions
As with other essays (or guidelines), this essay is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Go ahead and tag that article for deletion or present reasons to keep an article. "
I was hoping to convince you of the notable work of a large number of people over many years.
I have obviously failed. KennethDickey (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethDickey: That is because convincing reviewers means providing sources to satisfy WP:Notability or WP:Notability (software) - which are guidelines that must be followed, not essays which are opinion pieces - and not trying to pettifog your way into an article with logical fallacy appeals while disregarding what the people trying to help you here are telling you. GitHub and ResearchGate aren't helping your case because neither have any sort of rigourous editorial oversight, which is one of the things we look for in reliable sources (the others being independence from the subject or those associated with it, significant discussion of the topic and the coverage not being routine). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 11 June 2024 review of submission by 1.40.68.212

I received an email from someone reporting to be a Wiki Administrator. His name is Alan James. Is this legitimate? 

1.40.68.212 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not; junk it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of active admins can be found here. That's a scam. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

03:03, 12 June 2024 review of submission by 240D:1A:E34:2800:2562:914D:A94D:76EF

日本語版にあるJFE商事エレクトロニクスの英語版の翻訳をWikipediaに掲載したいと思っているのですが現在私の編集しているランクだとできないようです。 出来れば、どなたか代わりにお願いしたいです。 または、私が掲載する場合どのような方法がありますか？ 240D:1A:E34:2800:2562:914D:A94D:76EF (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note automated translation generally fails on Japanese text; please restate your request in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 12 June 2024 review of submission by 81.14.182.130

This article is about a german Track and Field athlet and Influencer. He has a big Fantasie on Social Media and is Part of the U14 National Track an Field team. I think He is very notable and should have a Wikipedia Page. 81.14.182.130 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even back when WP:NSPORTS had "top-level appearance" criteria U## squads were never part of it for reasons which should be obvious, and we are generally hesitant to have articles about minors even today for much the same reasons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please don't hijack articles, like you did here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 12 June 2024 review of submission by 180.151.224.214

I am not sure if I understand the reason for rejection. The subject is noteworthy with multiple new coverages in reliable independent sources. Can somebody help me with identifying and rectifying, please? 180.151.224.214 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to that draft? I don't see any in your contributions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 12 June 2024 review of submission by Siva999498

This is for our own organization details Siva999498 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


advise me Siva999498 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siva999498: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Please do not start multiple threads.
And please respond to the conflict of interest query posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 12 June 2024 review of submission by 27.34.66.172


I am writing to seek your assistance regarding a Wikipedia article draft I have recently completed. Unfortunately, the article has been declined as it does not meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia article.

I have gathered additional information, like newspapers and magazines between 2000-2010 which are not posted online and that I believe will help in meeting the necessary criteria.I would appreciate your guidance on how to properly incorporate these references into my article.

I would be grateful for any advice on how to include these citations appropriately.

Additionally, I would like to know if it is permissible to reference the books authored by author himself within the article.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your guidance on how to proceed. 

27.34.66.172 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and similar publications are cited using the {{cite news}} template.
Please see WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing offline sources. The main point to note is that you need to populate enough of the citation template's fields to provide sufficient bibliographical details of the source to enable it to be reliably identified for verification purposes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 12 June 2024 review of submission by Napoleone89

I can't understand why you believe it's not correct.a page in italian already exists and this is the mere translation Napoleone89 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Napoleone89: Straight translations from another Wikipedia project generally won't work due to the English Wikipedia having stricter and more-rigourously-enforced sourcing requirements, such as WP:Biographies of living persons. A biography with a list of sources lazily tacked onto the end will be declined every single time; inline sources at the end of claims are mandatory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest? it's not strictly the same.
could it be possible that it has been disapproved cause the sources are all in Italian? Napoleone89 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Napoleone89: no, we quite readily accept non-English sources, as long as they're otherwise of sufficient standard (reliability, etc.).
There isn't much to suggest, since the draft has now been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will i be able to recreate it? Napoleone89 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Napoleone89: well, you can. Whether you should, is a different matter. You would need to find sources that demonstrate notability; then summarise those sources, in your own words but without putting any spin or embellishment on things. You didn't do that this time around – do you think you can do it when you recreate it?
BTW, what is your interest in this subject? Do you, for example, have some sort of real-life relationship with it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably create it once more. But please note what I said to another editor further up this page:
"Writing a draft without first finding several sources that each meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. If you manage to build the house, it is likely to fall down, or to break laws so that you have to pull it down".
This analogy applies even if you are translating from a different Wikipedia: you are making a copy of a house you saw built on a different site, with different local building laws. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 12 June 2024 review of submission by Bmusc bandar

hello I am trying to submit my school's history and other info in the wikipedia page but sorry to say that is has been suspended... what's the problem.. kindly tell me. Bmusc bandar (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are writing a draft in Bengali for English Wikipedia. Perhaps you would be better working in bn-wiki? Try asking at bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:সাহায্যকেন্দ্র. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 12 June 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro

Our article was declined for what looks like lack of credible sources. We're unsure how to correct the issues, as our comparable subjects have very similar, if not the exact same resources- and fewer resources than we've provided. I have updated and added a few articles from a strong authority in SEO. Comparable articles include Bing Webmaster Tools, Google Search Console and Sitemaps. I'm not sure if we're having trouble because we have been categorized with Math and Science? We are not math and science and cannot figure out how to remove that categorization. We would like to add the category search engine webmaster tools but not sure how. Any guidance you can provide will be helpful. Thank you! VWellsMicro (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VWellsMicro I fixed the link to your draft, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. Note that only a single person should be operating your account(you say "we"). Computer science is a science, that's probably why it was categorized that way, but categorization doesn't affect editing the article. Please note that articles and drafts are judged on their own merits and not based on other articles that themselves may not be appropriate. See other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are inappropriate and have just not been addressed yet. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles so we can take action. 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) 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your response and correction to our draft. I am the only person editing this. It is owned by Microsoft, however I am the authorized editor of this page. IndexNow is an indexing tool for search engines, utilized primarily on Bing but also other smaller engines. Most major companies utilize IndexNow. I am really struggling with why my resources are not considered credible. SEO Journal is a highly respected journal in SEO as is Search Engine Land and SEO expert, Barry Schwartz. I have removed Microsoft authored resources due to previous reviewer comments that we could not use internal sources. In terms of similar pages, Google Search Console is a good example. Its references are all internal Google sources. Sitemaps is a Google developed similar tool to IndexNow and does not include extensive references. Could you suggest what more I can do to provide the proper references to get the page approved? Thank you very much VWellsMicro (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro: We do not recognise "authorised editors", and notability-by-osmosis is not a good argument to make, not least because the articles you point to predate the drafting process in its entirety (GSC first edit 2007/04/15, Sitemaps first edit 2005/10/04). Sitemaps even has a maintenance tag on it, but both articles, frankly, are in dire need of people who can improve them, rather than the spammers and SEO hacks both have been getting as of late. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response...what can I do? Am I able to use Microsoft sources at all? We publish a lot of research and research papers that are used as references for a lot of topics. All references I have provided in the post are mostly all earned articles in the professional journals within our industry/niche (SEO). Search Engine Journal and Search Engine Land are the two most read by professionals in the industry. Thank you VWellsMicro (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 12 June 2024 review of submission by TheCodaEdits

I got declined because I do not have enough citations. The topic I am writing about is hard to find information about, so I can't get many references. TheCodaEdits (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCodaEdits: this draft wasn't declined because it doesn't have enough citations, it was declined because the sources you're citing don't show that the subject is notable. Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If sources don't exist which would satisfy the main notability standard WP:GNG, then it won't be possible to have an article published on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 12 June 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:8E:CC50:584C:48FF:FE2E:9BCD

Alhamdulillah For Everything 2409:40D1:8E:CC50:584C:48FF:FE2E:9BCD (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Saddam 2409:40D1:8E:CC50:584C:48FF:FE2E:9BCD (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for posting your resumé, nor is it a social media platform. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 12 June 2024 review of submission by RJDiogenes

Hello. My above submission was declined (probably not surprising since it was my first), but I was wondering if I could get more specific info. The reason given was "not adequately supported by reliable sources." Was this a specific reference to the Awards section? I had intended to contact Mr Mihm directly for more info about the ones that have no references, but I can as easily delete them for now. But I also want to be sure that I'm not missing something else-- I wouldn't want to get deleted. Thanks very much. RJDiogenes (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJDiogenes: Every claim the article makes MUST be cited to a third-party, in-depth source. This is not negotiable. Anything Mihm himself tells you isn't going to be any good unless he has news articles that he can point you to that corroborate what he says. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the reply, Jéské. I understand that there are a couple of references in the Awards section that have no citations, and I've contacted Mr Mihm for assistance with that (if he has no links, I'll just delete them). But as far as the personal information on Mihm himself, everything seemed to me to be consistent with the "Using the subject as a self-published source" guidelines under the "Biographies of living persons" section of the manual, since it is not self serving and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I just want to be clear if I'm correct about that, or if there is something else on the page that I'm missing. Thanks again for your help. RJDiogenes (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RJDiogenes You still need something to cite, like a social media posting, or a published autobiography, something that a reader could theoretically look up to confirm the information. We can't just take your word that Mr. Mihm said these things.
Since you intend to communicate with him about the content of the article you are writing about him, you should declare a conflict of interest. Typically, an article or draft is written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RJDiogenes: You would be surprised just how little that guideline actually covers content-wise. It's consistently been interpreted to mean only claims no reasonable person could actually challenge due to it being part of the subject's self-identification. Religion, nationality, sexuality, etc. A good rule of thumb is "If a reasonable person could possibly challenge the claim, it needs to be sourced." Where he lives and his wife are both challengeable facts, as is his birthdate (blame Hollywood). It isn't just his awards that need sourced, it's almost everything. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 12 June 2024 review of submission by Canadachoral

I have reasons to believe this draft shouldn't have been rejected. I would like advices on how improve the draft. Canadachoral (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadachoral: It was rejected because you ignored the advice given by three previous reviewers who declined the draft. Anything Vallee says, writes, films, records, dictates, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for both notability and biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

02:20, 13 June 2024 review of submission by AZaMas

I created an entirely new artist page and tried saving the draft. For some reason, it doesn't let me. I cannot see the article or edit anything. Please help AZaMas (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: OP indefinitely blocked for promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:27, 13 June 2024 review of submission by HarryNewart

HOW. you were saying it wasn't notable even though i knew it was. Now there exists a page on this topic! even though i made it first! (Personal attack removed) HarryNewart (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HarryNewart: No, they were saying the article's sourcing was not up to standard. Any content on living or recently-deceased people MUST be sourced to an in-depth, third-party source that corroborates the claim, especially so for anything involving claims someone committed a crime. And honestly, this is something new users should be staying far away from. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 13 June 2024 review of submission by FRAIOLI73

Dear all, my submission was rejected. However, I followed the same structure, style and I provided the same sources of another submission that instead is accepted and published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamshed_Bomanji). Can you please tell me what it is different? Any help would be useful.

FRAIOLI73 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FRAIOLI73 first of all, it it an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. The references are also improperly formatted, see Help:Referencing for beginners. The sources also do not establish notability, as all of them are from places you have worked. Please see our notability guidelines for academics. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FRAIOLI73: That draft was never actually reviewed. It was moved to mainspace by its original author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FRAIOLI73: this draft has a number of issues, but the reason why it was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) is insufficient referencing. There is content which is not supported by citations, and at least in one case the source cited doesn't seem to support the content.
Note that we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, many of which can also have their own problems, but rather by reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Mirkha Shahbaz

i don't understand why my article is rejected. plz, tell me what changes should I have to make to make it acceptable. plz, highlight the mistake. Mirkha Shahbaz (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirkha Shahbaz I'm assuming you're referring to User:Mirkha Shahbaz/sandbox, instead of Pakistan. The topic is already covered by the Necrocapitalism article, so it would be better if you improved the existing article instead. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft seems to be about a different topic, 'neurocapitalism'? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. right. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirkha Shahbaz: FWIW, I also would have declined this, albeit for a different reason, namely lack of evidence of notability. A single sources is not enough to show that the concept is widely enough discussed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Shsalami

Hello, Thanks for the quick rejection! You rejected this article before my submission for review! Can it be submitted by extending and adding more references or is it rejected because I am the author of the base method? Anyway, the promotion of a method is not an advertisement! Please clarify the reason.

Regards Dr. Shahram Salami 


Shsalami (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shsalami. Your draft isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia, as it seems to just be an academic paper you wrote. Wikipedia is not an academic paper repository. Qcne (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Mother10

I have read about COI. And I think people might find I am too connected to Ancestris to write about it. I am one of the volunteers for this program, writing the Dutch documentation there. I saw sofar no Wikipedia page for the Ancestris program existed. So I decided to write one or at least to write anything here. I am trying to be as objective as possible. So not advertising but just describe.

I take the Gramps page as an example (also a genealogy program) and that page is accepted, so if i try to do it the same way i hope its acceptable too. So I would appreciate if i can get some advise about how to proceed. Its still draft, because it misses a lot and many links should be added to make it follow the wikipedia standards.

Thanks for reading, Tineke Mother10 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mother10 Since you have read about COI, please make the needed disclosure. "Just describe" is a form of advertising, at least on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a topic. Any article about Ancestris must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.
You haven't submitted it yet, but if you were, it most likely would not be accepted, because it just tells about it, it doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. If no such sources exist, this topic would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, I will try to follow what you said and read a bit more the articles you pointed to.
The only problem I have is that Ancestris is not so wellknown, so those sources might be difficult to find.
A bit like the chicken and the egg. But I give it a try. Mother10 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mother10 Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. Wikipedia summarizes what others already say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 13 June 2024 review of submission by MANISHSWAMI01

how can i start same article MANISHSWAMI01 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MANISHSWAMI01 The "same article"? Don't. The draft was deleted under G11, meaning it was blatant promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that it was blatant promotion, and largely unsourced. Are you associated with this individual? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how can i create another article on same subject. MANISHSWAMI01 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't. Qcne (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MANISHSWAMI01 Please answer my question. You need to learn more about Wikipedia and what we do here before you attempt to write another article. Please see the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Alban2024

I need some help here, the Luan_Muça is a well know businessman in Albania and mention in a lot of independent websites Alban2024 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alban2024 where has Luan been mentioned in reliable independent websites? Qcne (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Ali4abs

Hi, This is my first time trying to contribute, can somebody tell me what is wrong with this article? It is a copy of the German version of the Wikipedia page. So I am not sure why it was rejected. It has all the reputable sources as well. Ali4abs (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali4abs: I can't tell you why it was declined for the reason that it was, but I can tell you why I would have declined it. The sources (which aren't cited correctly, and are just inline external links, but still) don't show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Worth noting also that each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. Just because an article has been accepted into one version doesn't mean it will be necessarily accepted into another one. The English-language Wikipedia has almost certainly the strictest criteria for notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the response. At least It is not more clear why a German version of the same entry can be accepted but not the english one. Can somebody ellaborate how I can show existence of a research institute with significant coverage? For example, In Germany we have many Helmholtz Assosciations. Out of 18 centers, 16 have Wikipedia entry in English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_Association). I was trying to add the 17th association entry. So I doubt the reason is notability. Unless I am missing something here.
I did not know I was not allowed to do inline citation, I guess I have to read the citation guides carefuly then. Most sources are also very reliable sources at least in Germany? (sr.de (which is the public broadcaster of the state of saarland), helmholtz.de (which is homepage of Helmholtz Assosciation announcing the new center), saarland.de (which is the website of state of Saarland, literally official government page), IHK aka Germany Chamber of Commerce)). So I am not sure as a German, beside inline citation issue I could guess the sources are not reliable and therefore causes the rejection. Is there a guideline one what is a reliable source in Germany for English Wikipedia? Ali4abs (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Embassyhunl

The submission was declined. The page of the previous ambassador András Kocsis was not. Please let me know which changes I need to make to the draft in order for it to be accepted. Thank you in advance, kind regards Embassyhunl (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Embassyhunl: András Kocsis was never drafted, and I'm likely going to send it to WP:Articles for deletion if I can't find any sources for it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Embassyhunl: As for you and your draft, you are obligated to disclose your employment if it involves editing Wikipedia, and your draft is horribly undersourced, as is the article on Kocsis. Content about living people is held to a much stricter standard than most other content on Wikipedia, and the dearth of sourcing here wouldn't meet even the lower threshold for non-biographical, non-medical topics. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Gabriel601

What is wrong with the article. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 only musicians who meet our special notability criteria for musicians merit an article on Wikipedia. You did not demonstrate notability. If you feel there has been a gross error or that you have improved the draft since the rejection, please reach out to @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1228863092"