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 STContributor (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 27 June 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Steptoe_&_Johnson). 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 21

03:10, 21 June 2024 review of submission by CyberIntel33

I was asked to draft a page to be linked to Mr. Rawlins’ section (Final years) on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Planters. I modeled the page after the approved and published page for Mr. Rawlins’ successor, who is linked at the end of the Final years section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_W._Moore.

After an early rejection saying the subject was not of sufficient significance, many more sources/citations were added, and that objection seemed to be resolved. The draft has since been cut down considerably in response to further reviewer feedback, but there are inline citations from 10+ different sources, that go well beyond passing mentions. Now somehow we’re back to the significance objection. Mr. Moore was deemed sufficiently significant with fewer cited sources, and some of those questionable. Please advise why we’ve hit this blocker again and how we can overcome it?

Thank you!!!

Please CyberIntel33 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberIntel33: this draft has been rejected (several weeks ago), and will therefore not be considered further. The sources do not establish that the person is notable enough in Wikipedia terms. A third of the citations are to a book published by his employer, which is clearly not independent, and most of the rest seem to be routine business reporting.
You say you were "asked to draft a page" – asked by whom? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast reply. The request came from a former Union Planters colleague of Mr. Rawlins. CyberIntel33 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CyberIntel33: Jackson W. Moore predates the drafting process entirely and was never drafted or "approved" in any fashion (first edit Oct. 05, 2008). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast reply.
Wasn’t the Jackson W. Moore page submitted for publishing approval prior to being published? I don’t understand why the same notability standards would not have applied. CyberIntel33 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CyberIntel33: the Moore article was published in 2008. Back then, Wikipedia was more interested in getting articles created. Notability and referencing requirements became the focus much later. And yes, even old articles should meet today's standards, but with nearly 7m articles in the system, it will take a long time to work through all of them, if indeed that can ever be achieved. For now, the best we can probably do is make sure that any new article is compliant, while dealing with any blatant problems in older articles, as and when we become aware of them.
You didn't answer my question, who was it who asked you to draft this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CyberIntel33: The drafting process as we know it today - including reviewing drafts - didn't begin coming into existence until 2011. The article on Moore predates that by roughly three years, when Wikipedia operated more under a "publish and be damned" ethos where standards were not so rigourously enforced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Blakedes2

Hello, i am requesting some assistance with my draft here, in regards to ResearchGate, is this not a verifiable source and if its not, is it possible I can remove this and add another source or do i need to rewrite my draft from the ground up?

Thanks in advace! Blakedes2 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blakedes2: ResearchGate is a bit like Google Books, in that it hosts all sorts of content, from entirely reliable to complete rubbish; therefore you need to evaluate individually the specific content you're talking about. The fact that it will happily host rubbish, however, tends to mean that it is the preferred choice of publishers of said rubbish; hence its somewhat dubious reputation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Thanks again. Blakedes2 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:39, 21 June 2024 review of submission by ManTheCat

This draft got rejected because it the subject lacked notability. From what I can gather it was lacking in independent secondary sources from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). The draft has 11 references total and 7 of them are reviews of the subject’s written work. I assumed those qualify as independent secondary sources. Please let me know if I am mistaken or if I need to add/remove any sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This is my first draft article. Thanks. ManTheCat (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ManTheCat: book reviews might make the book(s) notable, but not necessarily the author, unless they also include significant coverage of them; notability is not inherited. Interviews are not independent or secondary, as they are the subject talking about themselves. Goodreads and YouTube are user-generated, and not generally reliable. Not sure what there is left after that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Really appreciate the information. I figured the Goodreads, YouTube and interviews would be primary. Just figured I had enough reviews to count as secondary. Makes sense now. ManTheCat (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:35, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Meena1998

Hi, I just wanted to know how an article can be tagged as its sounds like an advertisement, I need to sort out my writing style, My recent article got declined because of this even though I tried my best to keep it as simple and neutral as possible, please point out with an example so that i can improve my writing and provide as edits as possible for wikipedia! Meena1998 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meena1998: I have just answered this question at the Teahouse, please don't ask the same thing in multiple venues.
Also, please respond to the conflict-of-interest query I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meena1998 First, if you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Awards (especially niche industry awards) contribute nothing towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(such as Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Tony Award). Investigations of a company, especially ones that don't result in charges or punishment against the company, don't usually do that, especially if all the sources say is "they were investigated and nothing was found". 331dot (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you please let me know how I can enhance this to ensure it gets approved? Also, what are the specific requirements for getting a Wiki page approved? Ysultankpg (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysultankpg: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. If you want to tell the world about yourself, find some other platform, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason userpages are bundled into MediaWiki; on WP, though, you're allowed to express yourself in the context of your activity/goals hereon. Anything beyond that is best left for other avenues or wiki hosts. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Bdicoccosix

I thought that I had a good list of reliable sources for this page. Just wondered if I could get more specific feedback. Bdicoccosix (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdicoccosix: Refer to my /Decode subppage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Since half your sources are behind a pay/registration wall of some sort, I can't really give you a good assessment due to not being able to access them. But two of the rest aren't usable, and the last is potentially usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Bdicoccosix (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, Gale pages are available at WP:Library--the catch being that they're only available for longstanding accounts with 500+ edits. As an ally, I might take a look for myself soon enough. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good news: The Inc. "case study" cited in this draft (via Gale) passes WP:SIGCOV! I'll leave it up to others to get the next two that satisfy WP:THREE.
By the way, this page should be retitled Green Hills Farms once it's approved. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

This G13 rehab candidate, which has doubled as the guinea pig for my new AFC queue, may need a little help re: this Instagram announcement post from the band's official account. Instagram isn't usually considered usable, but this instance might fall into the "acceptable" category. Before I move ahead soon, remind me if I'm right or wrong here. (Filing on behalf of original draft creator CWvN (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Humanitarianpeople

Hi

My article was declined although I had references from the BBC, BirminghamLive and BirminghamWorld. Please help me with how to overcome this problem. Humanitarianpeople (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the decline message- it must remain on the draft even if you rewrite it. You have not summarized what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Sasseren

Is there a resource that can help me write this? I've included a significant number of resources but they all get declined as not "significant." This person has written several books and their project's have won notable awards but Wikipedia does not accept the association's website listing and the articles I've included that mention them have been rejected. I've reduced the entry to just the bare minimum and it is still rejected. I'd appreciate advice. Thank you. Sasseren (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasseren You wrote that he is "known for his contributions to high-tech campuses". By whom? For what? Wikipedia doesn't want a mere listing of what he does and his accomplishments. Any article about him needs to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what he does, and goes into detail about what the sources sees as significant about him. If you had such sources, he would seem to be notable, but notability does not guarantee an article- there must be independent sources to summarize. If those don't exist, there can be no article about him.
I'm wondering, is there a particular reason that you are writing about this person? 331dot (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 21 June 2024 review of submission by IDorbian

So for the draft of Sunbury Press to be accepted, it would have to be written about in major or notable media outlets--instead of passing or casual references? IDorbian (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, @IDorbian. We require significant coverage. Qcne (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Citysetonthehill

Hi,

Please can you kindly highlight the specific references that are deemed not to be reliable in this draft to enable us make necessary amendments where required.

Many Thanks. Citysetonthehill (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account.
You have much unsourced information, I think that's the main issue. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

07:21, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy

When will my wikipage be reviewed? Its been a while since i submitted it. Belleandpoppy (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criteria are WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC you need to establish how she passes one of them and "she lives in the beautiful beach side village of Bundeena" is hardly neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belleandpoppy, you'll notice that at the top of your draft there's a notice reading in part "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,321 pending submissions waiting for review." Often drafts that are an easy "accept" or "decline" get reviewed quickly, because it doesn't take long to look through them. So your best bet for shortening the wait time is to make it an easy review.
Having a look at your draft, I would strongly suggest you spend some of the waiting time looking for some better sources. You can keep editing it while it waits for review, and the reviewer will just look at what's on the draft when they first see it. Remember that you need sources that have significant coverage of the subject, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject in order to establish that O'Brien is notable by Wikipedia standards. With that in mind, looking over your current references, here is how they measure up in terms of proving notability:
-anything hosted by an institution she is affiliated with cannot be used; it's not independent (refs 1, 2)
-anything written by O'Brien cannot be used; it's not independent (refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
-interviews cannot be used for notability, only to establish basic uncontroversial facts about her (for example her birthday, partner's name, etc) (ref 5)
-references must contain significant coverage of the subject, as in the article/book/etc must be about her and not a petition (ref 5)
-articles citing work she has written, but not speaking about her as a person, cannot be used (ref 9)
Ref 10 might be usable, but it's behind a paywall so I can't review it. Hopefully you can compare it with the others and get an idea of whether it will be a solid reference.
In summary, you might have one reference that can be used; you need at least three that meet the golden rule to have any chance of proving notability. As an Aussie myself, I am always thrilled when people want to add articles about fellow Aussies, so please do not take this as an effort to dissuade you. I want you to have the opportunity to find the kind of sources Wikipedia needs so that this article can be published. If you find more sources and aren't sure whether they're reliable, you're welcome to comment on my talk page and we'll have a look together. Good luck with your search and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 22 June 2024 review of submission by 86.169.132.52

I'm hoping you can help me with this article on chemsit Harry Lister Riley. The person here I have tried to add a biographical page for here, linking to your existing article on the chemical process "Riley Oxidation" named after him died in the 1980s before the days of wide use of the internet and consequently there is not much of a digital footprint for him. The details I have found come in part from an entry in a 1972 edition of Who's Who, and earlier local Yorkshire newspaper cuttings I've got hard copies of from the 1940s and 50s. Is there any way to reference these? 86.169.132.52 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources do not need to be online. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we need a minimum amount of information for offline cites, and we use specific templates for citing them:
  • Periodicals use {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} and require the publication name, edition (e.g. 1 Jan 1924), article name, article byline, and the pages the article is on.
  • Books use {{cite book}} and require the title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or the OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 22 June 2024 review of submission by NDLaity89

how to find a version of wikipedia in french ? NDLaity89 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NDLaity89 go to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal 331dot (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Rainbobrain

Hi, I was wondering why my submission was denied. The company I own and run is the source for the information. The company is explicitly dedicated to the study of this phenomenon. Rainbobrain (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbobrain: this draft was declined for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that it is not referenced. You may well be an expert in this subject matter, but even then, we don't want to hear what you know about it, but rather what reliable published sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbobrain: I would also not edit in this topic as a new editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbobrain what do you mean by "The company I own and run is the source for the information."?
That statement clearly confirms WP:COI which you haven't yet declared. Please go through WP:COI and WP:UPE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 22 June 2024 review of submission by 118.179.205.98

He is an important Bangladeshi journalist, lyricist, dramatist and actor about whom this article is written. People constantly want to know information about Shamim Hossen. So I want Wikipedia to have an article about this person. I want your advice in this regard. thank you 

118.179.205.98 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't assess almost all of your sources (language barrier). I will, however, note that anything he writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have moved on the draft for a quick check. But what I have found is the subject is not even borderline notable. You have just done WP:REFBOMB on the draft with same ref in multiple claims that failed verified claims. Kindly go through WP:NMUSIC and WP:REFB. I am well aware about Bangladeshi media. Most of them use to publish with payment. Should I provide evidence? For your check here is one [1] and check for the paid article section. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Kharavela Deva

To perfect the references area by using variable and reliable sources. Kharavela Deva (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Anuvadi Svara StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Uglykidboe

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, and started to edit recently. I was asked to replace my references with independent reliable references in my draft. I believe I did that, can you please verify my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Llblgen_Pro Appreciate the help Thanks Uglykidboe (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uglykidboe: if you believe you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline, then please resubmit your draft, that way you will get another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 22 June 2024 review of submission by Faisalpkavil

Kindly inform what I need to do to accept this submission. Faisalpkavil (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left 'm my standard deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

00:30, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy

I asked recently when my wikipage would be reviewed as it has been two months since I submitted it. I would be grateful to receive a response to this question. Belleandpoppy (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belleandpoppy: for the record, you most recently submitted this draft on May 13; it is now June 23. As it says on top of the page, reviews may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,310 pending submissions. It is impossible to answer your question, as this depends on when a reviewer picks up your draft – could be today, could be weeks from now. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:00, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rijomamo

Dear Wikipedia team, I am writing to inform you that my recent article submission to Articles for Creation has undergone a review process. Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that it has not been accepted at this time. The reason provided by your team for the rejection was as follows: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I would like to inquire about the specific requirements for reliable sources that are necessary for the acceptance of my article. I have included inline citations with links to the official websites of the relevant companies, where the information in the article is stated. Additionally, I have provided links to websites that showcase interviews with the person the article is about, and other relevant sources. Despite these efforts, it appears that the article still fell short of meeting the necessary criteria. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide further guidance on what exactly needs to be addressed in order to meet the requirements for article acceptance. I am eager to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the article for reconsideration. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,

Rijomamo

P.S. What criteria are used for acceptance? Are there alternative sources that I can use? Any suggestions to improve source credibility? 

Rijomamo (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rijomamo: Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent-of-the-subject source that explicitly corroborates the claim or, failing that, removed wholesale. This is not negotiable, and slapping a source at the end of the paragraph is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rijomamo: And after actually scanning the draft rather than skimming it, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rijomamo! You might not have spotted it, but the words 'reliable sources' in your decline notices are a link to a lot of information about the kind of sources you're looking for. We often sum it up as WP:42 or the golden rule: you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You are trying to establish that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, which don't always match what you might think makes someone notable. So let's have a quick look at your current draft.
First, you'll need to learn about how to do citations. Once you've found some reliable sources, read through referencing for beginners before adding any to your draft. You must get this right so that people reading the article can verify your sources and be sure that you're accurately recording what the sources say. Since you are writing about a living person, you also must read WP:BLP, the rules for articles on living people. If you don't follow those rules, parts or all of your article will be removed very quickly.
Okay, now we're finally onto the sources! Here's what you have:
-Refs 1, 2, 7, 10, 11 are promotional and appear to have been written by Martinez or his publicity team, so they cannot be used (not independent)
-Ref 3 is a list of credits, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
-Ref 4 is an interview, which cannot be used for notability; you can only use interviews for basic biographical facts like his birthday (not independent). This citation is also completely wrong, because at the moment it's saying that Martinez wrote the article, which he did not.
-Refs 5, 6 are images of diplomas, which cannot be used (not significant coverage and probably not something you want everyone on the internet to see in any case)
-Ref 8 is a list of people, which cannot be used (not significant coverage)
-Ref 9 doesn't mention Martinez at all
-All the rest of the references are pages about other artists altogether, and are absolutely useless
Unfortunately, you have no reliable sources.
As a last note, it seems to me that your username suggests you might be Ricardo Jose Martinez Mora. If that is in fact you, I'd like to direct you towards the autobiography policy. Please read it carefully, and also read through why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You'll also want to read the conflict of interest page and follow the instructions to declare your conflict of interest.
I hope that's helped you; if you choose to continue with either this draft or joining the wider Wikipedia community to work on other articles, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi StartGrammarTime, thank you for your response. I'm clarifying some point though. I understand everything you said regarding the first part of your reply; however, there are a couple of things you should know in order to have a clearer picture.
Ref.4 I think you're mistaken. At any moment it's sayin "Martinez wrote the article". It is literally an interview supporting the claims.
Ref 5 and 6 are specific support of the claim they come from. The only way is to show the diplomas from the website the were originated.
Ref.8 isn't just a list of people, Ricardo is in that list but there is no direct link to him, rather it has to be scrolled and search but he is in there, again, as a support of the claim of sponsorship from that brand which is very relevant in the musician's world.
Ref.9 Effectively doesn't mention the person because it doesn't have an artist section. However, it's mentioned within the Hartke citation that Hartke owns Michael Kelly and in fact, in the Hartke citation it says specifically that the person uses "Michael Kelly Basses".
The ref. 10 and 11 in fact were written by the companies referring in the citation and rather than promotion, the citations are intended to support the statement where they come from which is the fact that those companies promote the person and that's significant achievement in the musician's world (I don't know if you are aware of that).
The other references were intended to support the fact that Ricardo indeed participated in those recordings that certainly were recipients of the awards it's stated they won.
The rest of the information you pin point is accurate regarding the articles and section you suggest to read. I just pointed out these points specifically that I think you should know. Rijomamo (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rijomamo: My responces:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Spongebobguy2

I tried to style it after the "List of unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media" but the fail the submission I've made sure to use sources known as reliable by wikipidia and picked well known fan media am I still to broad with my sources and selection? Spongebobguy2 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page did not look like it was finished when it was declined and it still has sentences that do not have punctuation. Everything on the list needs to have a source. Reconrabbit 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Akachukwu Vitalis

I am seeking guidance in ensuring that the article is formatted correctly and that all sources are cited accurately. Akachukwu Vitalis (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akachukwu Vitalis please read WP:CITE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Rullanjar

The article I submitted is the same one I wrote for another website (medium.com). Do I still need to revise it? Rullanjar (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rullanjar Fixed your link to go to the correct location. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot simply copy word for word text that you wrote elsewhere to here, this is a copyright violation(even if you are the writer) unless the text was explicitly released with a licence allowing its reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which your text was not). Original text is preferred anyway- text that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the (in this case) musical group, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musical group. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Or, in simpler terms, we can't use text that was published under all-rights-reserved standard copyright because it is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright licencing.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nakhungu Mukopi

i need reasons why my article was rejected for submission 

Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakhungu Mukopi because it is pure spam and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean it's pure spam? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The submission is littered with promotional text like Committed to developing local talent, she has a keen eye for recognizing and fostering potential to benefit her business empire and the Kenyan economy. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback , so what would you recommend instead for it to be published? Nakhungu Mukopi (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakhungu Mukopi: this draft will not be published, it will be deleted. If you wish to write a new draft about this person, you need to do so by summarising (in your own words, but without any additional 'spin' or embellishment) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about her. This draft cites no such sources (or in fact, any sources at all). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Find places where people with no connection with the subject have chosen, off their own bat, to write about the subject at some length and been published in reliable places. Ignore anything written, published or commissioned by the subject or their associates, and anything based on an interview or press release.
  2. Forget everything you personally know about the subject.
  3. Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject, citing the sources appropriately.
ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 23 June 2024 review of submission by TheNuggeteer

I got my draft rejected for non-notability, but I dont think this is non-notable/non-reliable, is this topic reliable/notable or not? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has not been rejected (which would mean the end of the process) but declined. The decline notice is not saying that the party is non-notable, but says that the draft does not yet cite adequate sources to establish that it is notable in the special sense used by Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 23 June 2024 review of submission by 5.62.145.144

shut it you have no advice over me 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you ask a question here? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I AM NOT SHAPED LIKE A FERRIS WHEEL
-CaseOh 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this neccessary? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
idk lol. just my C O U N T R Y 5.62.145.144 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, as a geofiction guru myself, I've long learned the hard way too: Worldbuilding is frowned upon across WP (even in userspace); see also WP:FAKEARTICLE. There are different other avenues to discuss/showcase your creation--Reddit, StackExchange, Cartographers' Guild, your own blog (if you do have one), maybe a Miraheze wiki of your own (like I already have)...the list goes on. Should you come back in July (when your block expires), we encourage you to take up editing pages on real-world places and subjects, and creating material that adheres to WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Pentpark2019

Hello, this page was recently rejected. I was curious to get more thoughts on the sources I had provided on the talk page Draft talk:Arthur L Aidala. Any help is appreciated. I have already declared my conflict of interest at my user page. Pentpark2019 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentpark2019 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that a draft may be resubmitted.
The draft does little more than document his media appearances. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely documenting facts about the person, it goes into detail about what the source says is important/significant/influential about the person. Has Mr. Aidala had a particular influence on the legal field? Created new legal theories or strategies? Argued notable cases before SCOTUS? Things like that. Merely appearing on TV does not confer notability. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi

My Wikipedia article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vellachintalagudem) was not approved. Could you please tell me what changes are needed to get it approved? Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources for ALL the information not just the census figures. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using "beautiful village" in the very first sentence alone won't cut it per WP:PUFFERY, either. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Nicholas Cusanus

I am trying to create a new article, but it keeps on being rejected. The last time because of unreliable sources. The page (on a university professor) contains sources and references to university and publisher’s pages, so I am not quite sure what the reviewer could possible mean, because it was not specified. How to move forward? Every time I change something, I have to wait for months for a new version to be reviewed. Nicholas Cusanus (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are having a similar experience to most of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new editors who plunge straight away into the challenging task of trying to create a new article, before they have spent a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works.
My advice is always to not even think of creating a new article until you have direct practical experience of the meaning and application of fundamental principles such as verifiability, reliable independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
What I will say is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nicholas Cusanus, let's see if I can help make sense of it. You're writing about an academic, so you need to establish notability (in Wikipedia terms) via either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG.
I'm going to assume you're attempting to use NPROF, because that's usually much easier for an academic than GNG. There's a list of criteria on the NPROF page, and interestingly, I see that one of them (#5) states "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". In your draft, I also see what appear to be two named chairs, and as an Australian I think it could be argued that ACU is indeed a major institution of higher education and research. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but that does make me think he might meet criteria 5, and that your only problem here is finding non-primary sources. But then it does seem like secondary sources usually aren't interested in people becoming chairs (fair enough, it's not super exciting news).
It might be worthwhile either waiting to see if someone with more experience comes along to help answer your question here, making a comment on your draft that you're relying on NPROF criteria 5, or politely asking the most recent reviewer whether they could clarify the problem with sourcing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 23 June 2024 review of submission by Carolynpethick

I need assistance for Carolyn's Wikipedia page Carolynpethick (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To refrain @CanonNi's AFC-rejection summary: "Promotional autobiography. 3 previous declines." WP offers userpages that you can use to express yourself in the context of your activity/goals/pursuits hereon. Remember, taking it to article or draft space is highly discouraged; see also WP:COI (which you must have disclosed beforehand). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

00:49, 24 June 2024 review of submission by CG214

Hey there, just wanted to learn more about why this draft article was denied?

According to the article "Wikipedia:Notability (books)":

"A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."

As linked in the draft article, this book has been reviewed in full by the highly prominent Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, plus several other independent book reviewers, while also being the sole focus of full articles by Christianity Today, Religion Dispatches, and Sojourners. It's also appeared on the bestseller list maintained by USA Today and been the subject of discussion by a number of figures who themselves are the subject of Wikipedia articles.

At minimum, it's been the subject of not just two or more non-trivial published works, but five or more. CG214 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CG214 I haven't looked at all the sources yet, but the reviews don't seem reliable. The Kirkus Review is part of their indie review program, which, if I understand it correctly, is purchased by the author. The Booklife review isn't promising either, as it is paid for by the author. Are there any other reliable sources that aren't paid for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, the draft article includes several reviews/articles that weren't part of any indie-specific program. Additionally, Kirkus Reviews isn't in the business of including paid-for reviews in its print edition simply because they were paid for, nor does it award recommendation accolades to books simply because they were paid for. CG214 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CG214: yes, it's true that there are Kirkus, Christianity Today, and Booklife (Publishers Weekly) reviews, and those may be enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK. It's also true that these are buried amongst 25 other sources, most of which are primary (interviews, podcasts, the author's own website). If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a case of too much content and too many sources hiding the good stuff. But that's just my guess, so I'm pinging the reviewer SafariScribe for comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I trim the section about the book's writing process? I included that section because I was following a Wikipedia template for articles on books. CG214 (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looks like SafariScribe removed a couple of paragraphs that had lots of links to Twitter. Guessing those were the cluttery links? CG214 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, not SafariScribe :) yes, most of those were me. I removed the review links from the EL section (as most of those were already inline), and some of the twitter sourcing as this doesn't meet our requirements - with the hope this makes it easier to review! Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! CG214 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52 did a wonderful clean up. @CG214, I have cleaned up finally and moved your draft to article space. Please beware of our ways of verifying contents through reliable sources. Apple podcast from a non notable host or itself is not reliable and usually contains (like an interview) something an author or person will say about themselves or their products. Cheers for adding one to Wikipedia, as we hope you do create good articles as you've matched a foot into that. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'll keep that in mind! CG214 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks for the ping. Though the article may meet WP:NBOOK, I don't see the sources supporting certain facts as some of them reads like novel announcements and advert . Welp, I found only few reviews from heavily dependent unreliable ones. I will only do a favour of cleaning up the draft since I see the submitter is really here to build an Encyclopedia. @DoubleGrazing, don't you think so? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Angela RSM Stone Forest

Dear Helpdesk Assistant,

My article was rejected due to This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Would you please advise which part of the article needs further adjustment? Thank you! Angela RSM Stone Forest (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Helpdesk Assistant'? I guess that's me...
@Angela RSM Stone Forest: the entire draft is written in a promotional manner, and appears to be the company telling the world about itself. We have no interest in that; you can save such content for your own website. Wikipedia articles should simply summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Helpdesk Assistant, thank you for the prompt response. I will tailor the content to meet the guideline. Angela RSM Stone Forest (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Wkln

This draft was rejected because the article already exists in article space, and I was encouraged to merge it into the main article. The problem is how I have a WP:COI with the subject of this article, which means I'm not at liberty to do so without permission. Can someone look at it and determine if it can be posted before my draft gets deleted? Wkln (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wkln: we can only have one article on a given topic, that's why this cannot be accepted.
You may make edit requests on the published article's talk page, using the {{Edit COI}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wkln: I've done a partial merge of your edits to the main article, with some cleanup and citation changes, including the relevant attribution. If this is an issue, please let me know. Mdann52 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 24 June 2024 review of submission by A Guy Like Ivan

I'm a little confused why my draft was rejected. Did I not include enough citations, or were the existing ones not adequate? A Guy Like Ivan (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Guy Like Ivan Much of the sources are the subject's own website. You need to provide other sourcing with reliable significant coverage of the topic. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understood. I think it should be better now. A Guy Like Ivan (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Afiddle

Unsure why my article was declined, didn’t see specific comments left by the reviewer (unless I’m just missing them!) Afiddle (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Afiddle: the actual decline reasons are given in the grey box(es) inside the large pink one. Please study them carefully, including following all the links in them, which elaborate more on the issues. (If the reviewer provides additional, optional comments, they would appear below the pink box, but in this case there weren't any.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi—Thanks for the quick response! I suppose I’m more confused because I didn’t see any more specific comments beyond “Not formal enough” and “seems like an advertisement,” which I hadn’t picked up on while writing/reviewing at all.
Would love if you/someone else would be able or willing to talk through the finer points of that, because I’m not entirely sure where I’d begin in adjusting things (even having clicked through the linked terms in the grey boxes themselves).
Thanks again! Afiddle (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Afiddle, it can be very difficult to spot promotional writing when you're the one doing it, and especially if you're unused to writing Wikipedia articles! Your aim here is to make the text a collection of facts, and only facts. Trim sentences down so that only the most vital information is there. Never add any contention that is not in your source. Never use words like "vital", "leader", "key role", and others along those lines unless the source is using identical or near-identical words, and even then you should probably quote the source in order to use them - these are considered peacock terms and not allowed.
I'll grab some sentences at random:
•"She is a former American government official, a global development and foreign affairs policymaker" - the source says she is "a senior member of the State Department’s vaccine diplomacy office who has worked for years on global health, anti-corruption and economic programs during Democratic administrations". So you can say she's a former American government official, but the source does not say she is a global development and foreign affairs policymaker. You could say her focus has been on global health, anti-corruption and economic programs.
•Further down: "Following the Addis Ababa negotiations, Goodman participated in the U.N. negotiations for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." But the source does not mention her at all; you can't say this without a source that agrees with you.
•"Goodman also played a key role in the U.S. Government’s response to the Panama Papers, and represented the U.S. at the U.K.’s 2016 Anti-Corruption Forum." The link does not work, so you need to find a new source or an archived version of the current source, or else remove this too.
•"Goodman led the negotiations between the U.S. and the Chinese governments to partner on joint international development goals. This resulted in the groundbreaking 2015 Memorandum of Understanding on U.S.-China Development Cooperation." This link also doesn't work, but I did find an archived version. The source is a government memorandum, which we can't use to establish notability, and it also doesn't mention her name at all. These are pretty big claims so you need an impeccable secondary source, such as a reputable newspaper, that specifically says both that Goodman led the negotiations and uses the word "groundbreaking" to describe the memorandum. The reference is also an external link rather than an inline citation, so you would need to fix that when you find a source.
•"In the last six months of the Obama Administration, Goodman assisted President Obama in efforts to secure major commitments on international development. The culmination of these efforts was the White House Summit on Global Development: Real Lives, Real Outcomes, held in July 2016." Again the source doesn't mention her name and is a government press release in any case. You need a secondary source that confirms everything in those sentences.
Basically, because this is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person), you need to source every single statement you write. Every source you have needs to fit the golden rule: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that because of this, BLPs are the hardest articles to create!
If I were in your shoes, I would go over the entire draft sentence by sentence, making sure every claim has a good source, and that the draft never claims anything that is not stated in the source. It's a big job, but if you want to continue, take your time: there's no rush and no deadlines. As long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it won't be deleted and you can keep on trucking. I hope that's helped! Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Abeeha Awais

can you please suggest me how can i improve its notability? 

Abeeha Awais (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abeeha Awais: There is nothing you, the subject, or anyone associated with either can directly do to help with notability. Any sources written at the behest of the subject are tainted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Sarandasatsangi

1. " your username suggests you have a relationship with the organization." What sense is made by this sentence, How can someone judge me based on my user name, Do not have a little professionalism. can you proof how I have a relationship with that organization. based on my username? 2. SSI organizes NSC with topmost national institutes including IITs, details of these conferences on their website is given and attached. what reliability do not you got, on top national institute website. 3.SSI is an independent and pioneer organization of system science, their focuses are research , conferences, books , research paper based on system science research, its not an ancient organization that you searching for in depth data. 4. I created this page because SSI is a national organization , educational, research institute, that it is going to transform human life and solve world problem through research and systems approach. Sarandasatsangi (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarandasatsangi: In order:
  1. Would someone with a name similar to yours be mentioned in the draft in any capacity? Maybe as its founder, as listed in the infobox? Yes.
  2. We don't cite government sources (gov't document). We prefer secondary sources.
  3. We're looking for evidence that the organisation has been written about for more than just doing basic organisation things. This argument also reinforces the suspicions of you being associated with the organisation.
  4. Resorting to trying to advertize your organisation is an argument that will always lose.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many people in India having similarly with my name. Your claim is baseless and I am an undergraduate student not an advertiser. I thought this as an important topic that's why I created.Now you made me an advertiser, but don't worry, from now I will never edit or create any wiki page. I was not knowing the fact that I will become an advertiser by creating wikipage.Thanks a lot to wiki team.no Need to reply my message , I just get the way of your response already.Thank you. Sarandasatsangi (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "[make] you an advertiser", you did that yourself in bullet 4 of what you wrote above. At the very least, you're too connected to the subject (despite your protestations) to be able to actually write this article neutrally. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 24 June 2024 review of submission by Greenbeetroot

How can I change it so that is is a plausible encyclopedic article? Greenbeetroot (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbeetroot: Start by finding three in-depth, independent sources with editorial oversight, then write an article from scratch based on whatever information those sources explicitly provide. We do not accept plagiarised text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

04:38, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Whithhh

How do I successfully submit a page? How many references should I add? Whithhh (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whithhh: you need as many references (citations) as are required to comprehensively support the contents. Which source the personal details shown in the infobox? What about the educational background of the (entirely unreferenced) 2nd paragraph? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi

I have incorporated some changes on the article . Could you please let me know in detail what exactly you are looking here. 

Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudheer Mattaparthi: we want to know where all that information is coming from, and how it can be verified. You currently have one single source, cited once at the very end where the citation supports nothing. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 25 June 2024 review of submission by GS1921

Please, be so kind and review a little bit changed page. If it has mistakes, please, could you specify it for me. Thank you very, very much for help. GS1921 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GS1921: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk; if you believe you've addressed the decline reasons sufficiently, you can resubmit the draft, and a reviewer will assess it some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which essentially depends on the sources. It looks like you have since removed three sources, without adding any news ones. Does it not stand to reason, therefore, that there is still not enough evidence of notability, and possibly less so than before? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Flamemadragon

My submission was declined and I don't understand why. The two issues were credibility and notability. On credibility, I referenced Tapology, one of the mainstream MMA record websites. On notability, there is a page for CES MMA, which is debately a less notable MMA promotion than Cage Titans (based on my experience as an MMA journalist in New England). Flamemadragon (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flamemadragon: this draft is far from acceptable, and could have been declined for a number of reasons.
You list (without even citing) a single source, Tapology, which seems to be at least partly user-generated, with no indication of editorial oversight, fact-checking practices, etc.; I would consequently question how reliable it is, regardless of whether it is "mainstream" or not. Besides, that source doesn't seem to provide any real information, and doesn't therefore support the contents of this draft. Please feel free to correct me on that, if I got it wrong; I only had a quick look at the source.
In any case, a single source is nowhere near enough to establish notability, which is another reason this draft could have been declined for. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tapology's information is gathered from accounts of MMA promotions, fighters, and coaches, when is then moderated through a team. I went through all of Cage Titan's events on Tapology to figure out who the current champion of each division is as well as the day they became champion and their # of defenses. Each of the listed fighters' tapology pages also shows their fights for Cage Titans as well as the higher promotions they fought for. Should I cite each of their individual tapology pages? I can also attempt to find articles about some of the fighters moving up to the bigger leagues if that works better.
Most of the champion information isn't readily available anywhere (as Cage Titans's own champion page is greatly outdated), which is why I wanted to establish an article showing said information after scouring the Tapology pages. I also established championship history from looking through Tapology that I'm waiting to get confirmed with Cage Titans. Optimally I would like to add that to this article in a similar way that CES MMA has a championship history on their article.
However given all this, do you think it might just be better for me to post an article on a journalism website rather than Wikipedia? My only qualm with posting on a journalism website is that articles are usually time locked, and it would be harder to find it say a year from now as opposed to Wikipedia that more time-permanent articles. Flamemadragon (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flamemadragon: putting aside everything else, the main question is can you find sufficient sources meeting the WP:GNG standard, to establish that this subject is notable? Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, and without demonstrating it it isn't possible to publish an article on this subject, no matter what. Therefore this whole matter hinges on sources. Tapology (even if for the sake of the argument we accept it as reliable) isn't alone enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 25 June 2024 review of submission by NGraywolf

How can I delete my draft? I jumped too fast and need to start over! NGraywolf (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NGraywolf: as you're the only editor of it, you can just blank the page or place the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template on it, and an administrator will come around and delete it (only admins can do that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 25 June 2024 review of submission by E11e99

I would be very grateful if I could please get some assistance and clarity around identifying the "peacock" terms used in this article and why the references are not considered appropriate? many thanks and kind regards, elle e11e99 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Volodymyr Dudnik

I have already supplemented the article several times and provided all possible categories and links, maybe I am missing something important or making some mistake. I really don't see how the article could be improved. I am asking for help. Volodymyr Dudnik (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Volodymyr Dudnik: Your draft has swathes of text that is completely unsourced. Four sources for an article of this size is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Devlimon

Article submission was rejected based on not having enough reliable sources. Would a link to the organization's active status be considered a reliable source? Or their website? Devlimon (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. To show that the organisation is sufficiently notable for an article you need to reference what other people say about it. See WP:NORG: you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organisation. Mgp28 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 25 June 2024 review of submission by MaryGaulke

Hi! This draft was rejected for failing WP:GNG. I submitted this as a COI editor for Oyler's company BeiGene, so just hoping for a little clarity – Oyler has been the focus of what I believe is substantive coverage in Life Science Leader, South China Morning Post, and Pharma Exec. Are these publications too niche to meet WP:NBIO? I appreciate any guidance to inform my future work. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

02:41, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Noprita

Halo, may I know why this declined? and what can I do to make that page better as Wikipedia standard page? Noprita (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noprita: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halo Jeske,
I put the references link that JCPR indexed already
== JCPR's References ==
  1. ISSN Portal
  2. Garuda Kemendikbud RI
  3. Scilit
  4. Dimensions
  5. Academia
  6. LinkedIn
and I write the short about JCPR:
The Journal of Communication & Public Relations (JCPR) is a peer-review international academic journal published by LSPR Institute of Communication & Business. Issued twice a year, JCPR focuses on both theoretical development and practical research in communication studies and public relations studies. The journal's first edition was published in 2021 by LSPR Publishing, covering various areas including organizational communication, development communication, reputation management, government public relations, media relations, corporate communication, marketing communication, and public affairs communication.
How many words does Wikipedia require to create one page? Noprita (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noprita: Anything that merely indexes the journal is useless for notability (too sparse) and LinkedIn is worthless as a source full stop (connexion to subject). The heading of that section also implies something very different than what you think it does (specifically, that JCPR themselves use those as its sources, instead of the article citing them). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Do you mean that to create a page on Wikipedia, it must have coverage in the mass media? Noprita (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have sources - which are more likely to be in the realm of academia/more specialised sources than the mass media - that show that it meets one of the three criteria listed at WP:Notability (academic journals):
  1. That it is considered influential in its subject area;
  2. That it is widely cited by other reliable sources;
  3. That it has some historical importance in its subject area.
Sources that only index it do not help meet any of these criteria. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sdsbran

Would like further explanation of why my article was denied because it is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I want to learn more, not debate. Thank you very much. Sdsbran (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsbran: The lists of services and notable clients should be removed wholesale. Aside from that, the draft overall reads like it was intended for potential investors, not Mitty from Kansas City. What is your connexion to Walz Tetrick Advertizing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. I do not work for the company - I am retired, and a writer - the CEO hired me to write this for his company. Sdsbran (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The CEO hired me to write this for his company" is tantamount to working for the company. You are also obligated to disclose this on your Wikipedia userpage per our Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related to WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. (User has been blocked as a promo account.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:11, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film

Hello, I have made some new edits today (26 June 2024) to my submission Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow. This is my first wiki submission so I just want to check the latest revision has been submitted correctly. I can't work out where it tells me that the latest submission is in and awaiting review. All help that I've been given so far is greatly appreciated. 

Kim alice film (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kim alice film: you have made one edit to this draft today, but haven't submitted it yet; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button (when you're ready). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your help with this. Much appreciated. Kim alice film (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sivaanandgr

How to improve my articles Sivaanandgr (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivaanandgr: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. I don't believe that you have any articles. For advice on article creation, see WP:YFA. For general advice on editing Wikipedia, try the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kingofstyle

more what should be improved in article 

Kingofstyle (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofstyle: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. Please don't write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 26 June 2024 review of submission by KingMaker69

need help and suggestion for pulbiation of the article KingMaker69 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KingMaker69: Try again, this time without writing an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 26 June 2024 review of submission by ParulP0206

Hi Marcus, I recently submitted an article on Petrolink services, which was rejected with feedback indicating that it was not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it seemed to be a test edit rather than an article worthy of an encyclopedia.

1. I took all the sources available to support this topic. Should I wait for more sources to become available, or are there specific types of sources I should focus on? 2. Could the formatting or length of the article have contributed to the rejection? I intentionally did not include detailed descriptions of their products and services to avoid appearing promotional.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards. ParulP0206 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ParulP0206: I'm not Marcus, but I'll reply while waiting. Your draft Draft:Petrolink has been deleted as promotional. You have also been issued a warning against trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, please heed it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 26 June 2024 review of submission by PaulDRamkissoon

I had added my company page and it was rejected without anyway of resubmitting, I would like to know what needs to be done to get approval? PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what needs to be edited in my article so that it can be approved. PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulDRamkissoon: please don't start multiple threads.
Your draft was rejected as promotional, and speedily deleted for the same reason. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of any kind. Also, you clearly have a conflict of interest, which you must disclose if you intend to attempt this again (which I would strongly advise against, in any case). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Dear moderator, please look at the article 1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique You can approve, if you need information I will add it Arahi991 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Del Mar Energy Company
@Arahi991: I've no idea what "1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique" means, let alone has to do with anything, but this draft was rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Incidentally, do you have a connection with Solyankich, who recently created Draft:Del Mar Energy? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Al Right

We try to make a english version of the austrian-kurdisch musician and artist Scharmien Zandi. can you help us to verify the draft. thank you Al Right (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dutch page of Sharmien Zandi. You can translate it. For the English Wikipedia, you need to understand and establish notability of Sharmien Zandi with reliable references about the subject person with minimal criterion to meet three mandatory nobility criterion. For further interest please check about reliability criterion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Mistymoon222

Hi there,

I've recently submitted my first article and I am questioning whether my English is correct.

Does anyone know if there are guidelines as to what English region needs to be used?

For example, I wrote the article in English (UK) so words will be spelt like 'recognise' as opposed to 'recognize'. Do you think this will be an issue?

Thank you very much! Hope you're having an awesome day. Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistymoon222: if she's Australian, then Australian English would seem appropriate. That said, if you naturally write in British English, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect you to 'fake' Aussie English. In any case, none of this has any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, so don't worry about it too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok that makes sense - thank you again for your time (and answering so quickly)! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222: All that really matters with regards to the dialect of English used is that it is consistent throughout the article. While it is standard practice to use the dialect most associated with a given subject this is not a hard rule, and it's something that could very well be handled when/if the draft is accepted. The reviewers aren't going to ding a draft for ENGVAR unless it's bouncing between dialects like a drunken polyglot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, thank you!
If you (or anyone) else is available for a few more questions, I would be very grateful.
I‘ve recently had my first article reviewed (for this page, Draft:Michaela Cook) and it’s been unaccepted due to unreliable sources. I am still learning (I read hundreds of similar Wiki’s to study their constructs so I could best create this and others I’m drafting within the guidelines) so would it please be possible for you to tell me which sources are deemed unreliable on this page?
Also, are articles behind a newspaper paywall not accepted either? The articles were included in the print copy of the newspaper, so would it be best to include the hard copy sourcing (incl. page numbers etc)?
Thank you again for your time! Mistymoon222 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222, as an Aussie myself, our spellings are basically British anyway - colour, recognise, etc - so no need to worry about that bit.
Paywalls are fine but can be hard for reviewers to properly assess - so if you have non-paywalled sources as well that makes things easier.
Some short notes on sources to start you off: you are trying to establish that Cook is WP:NOTABLE in the very specific Wikipedia meaning of the term. Your sources must fit WP:42, our 'golden rule' - more info at those two links.
In general: LinkedIn can't be used. Interviews can only be used for really basic facts, like her birthdate or birthplace. Anything that only mentions her as part of a list of performers is also not going to help for notability. What you really want to find is articles that people have written about her, without any input from her, and for no reason other that they're interested in her (ie not by a company who she works with, or an employee of hers, and so on). I'll be happy to come back and review your current sources later if no one else has done so, but I'm out of time for Wiki right now - so good luck, happy editing, and perhaps we'll talk again! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you so much for your time and linking further information!! Secondly, your explanation was really helpful and I’m about to pour over those links! If you by any chance can review a few of the sources and give me an example of what ones are reliable out of the ones there, I would be extremely thankful! I went through and added the ISSN numbers of publications and as much sourcing info as I could find as well. I didn’t realise you could tick extra boxes if you had extra information lol. Ps our spellings are the best! Thank you again and no stress if you’re unable to review any sources! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 26 June 2024 review of submission by MuseumOfSilence

Could someone please review this entry which has been waiting review for over 3 months?

The article submission has not been reviewed after correcting it completely.

Thanks for your help,

Museum Of Silence MuseumOfSilence (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MuseumOfSilence: This reads more like a curriculum vitae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8

where do i write the text 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write the text in the draft, and pick "publish" (which means "save", but was changed for legal reasons, to remind editors that everything in Wikipedia is public).
Make sure you don't write your draft BACKWARDS, because that will waste your time and other people's.
Also consider whether you are duplicating information in Flora of Pakistan, or adding information which does not justify a separate article but should be added to that article. ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Rainbowdoor

I tried carefully to avoid promotional language and I don't see this article as substantially different in regards to promotional language to similar articles for actuarial organisations such as Society of Actuaries and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries which have been accepted, but clearly I don't understand. So, I would appreciate your advice on specific words/phrases/sentences or the overall approach that are considered promotional and what changes I might make. Actuaries Institute is a major professional organisation in Australia and, in my opinion, deserves a Wikipedia entry. Your assistance to create an entry which meets Wikipedia guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Rainbowdoor (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowdoor: Society of Actuaries (first edit Oct 08, 2003) and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (first edit Aug 02, 2010) both predate the drafting process entirely and were never formally reviewed or accepted. We don't cite government sources (gov't document) and cites to the subject themselves are useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rainbowdoor. Your draft reads as what the Institue wants people to know about itself. (And this impression is backed up by most of the references being either closely associated with the institute, or barely mentioning it).
Baldly, Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what the Institute wants people to know. What Wikipedia is interested in (almost exclusively) is what people who have no connection with the Institute have chosen to write about it and been published in reliable sources. Almost the whole article should be based on such sources - and if little independent material has been written about the Institute, then it simply won't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have reason to believe that you have a conflict of interest in writing about the Institute (I am aware that you changed your username, and I suggest you remove the welcome messages from your User Talk page that addressed you by your original username - you are allowed to remove messages from your user talk page, see User talk pages - but the rename is recorded and public).
The COI does not forbid you from working on this draft, but you ought to declare it. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine. That's very helpful. You are correct that I changed my username some years ago but only because Wikipedia gave advice that usernames should be anonymous. Otherwise, I wouldn't have. I'm happy to declare that I am a Fellow of Institute of Actuaries of Australia but would also like to note that I am a volunteer and have no financial interest in seeing the article published. How do I do that? Rainbowdoor (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbowdoor: See WP:PAID. (Whether you or paid or volunteering is immaterial; you still stand to gain from writing an article about the organisation, and so must disclose all the same.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree with Jeske here - I think being a Fellow of the institute means you certainly have a COI, but, I would not regard you as coming within WP:PAID, unless you were actively working as part of the institute's admin or governance. But I would still advise disclosure on your user page. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Grizly1960

Hello! How can improve this article? Grizly1960 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve it by starting again, basing it on independent published sources. Almost nothing published by the centre or by the Ukrainian government is of any relevance for this article.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

00:19:36, 27 June 2024 review of submission by MauriceAgerOfficial

I represent Maurice Ager & we would like to update his wiki

MauriceAgerOfficial (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MauriceAgerOfficial: I think you've come to the wrong help desk, this is for new article drafts undergoing the AfC review process, which Maurice Ager (or for that matter, Sam Froling) isn't.
However, now that you're here, I need to tell you that you have a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed before you do any further editing. I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Note also that you are not allowed to edit directly articles to which your COI applies, you must instead make edit requests via the article talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Livvin1

This draft has been rejected several times. I made all necessary changes—there are quite literally no other sources I can use. He is a food influencer in which the only information I will get is from previous interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.). All sources I've used are credible. I've seen all of these used in other wiki pages for celebs as well, so I'm not really sure why this is continually rejected. I'd really appreciate any specific help that will get this pushed through. Livvin1 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Livvin1: firstly, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you can resubmit, once you've addressed the decline reasons).
Secondly, what other articles may exist, and how they may be sourced, is not the point: we are assessing this draft, and that is done by reference to the currently applicable guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
You say "interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.)." Interviews are not independent (or usually reliable), as they are the subject talking. Podcasts aren't much better. Forbes may be reliable, but usually isn't; see WP:FORBESCON. It seems that there is something of a gap between what you consider to be an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability, and what three experienced reviewers (with 300,000+ edits under their collective belt) think. As it is, I'm minded to side with the latter, but note that I haven't done a proper source analysis.
If, as you say, there aren't better sources available, then it probably isn't possible to have this published. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Virgilio lauro

Hello, good evening. How are you? I want to thank you in advance for your time and advice.

The reason for my message is to ask about the article I am creating about the musical artist Michael Q. Trucks.

I have already made several modifications to the draft and removed all the self-references that you kindly pointed out to me. I also revised the US NAVY honors, as I suppose they have no place in a musician's profile. Additionally, I adjusted the tone of the article to be more neutral and used references from reliable sources to avoid a lack of credibility.

Could you please review if all the information and additions are correct?

I am very interested in following all the guidelines to comply with your standards.

Thank you very much once again.

Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgilio lauro: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. However, having taken a quick look at your draft, the previous decline reasons are still there: it present no evidence that the subject is notable, and the whole thing is written in a promotional manner. Additionally, the referencing is wholly inadequate, eg. the entire 'Early life and education' section is unreferenced, and much of what is referenced is done so using unreliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I get it. Thank you very much for your comments. They really help me to include the necessary information to make it relevant for the platform. I appreciate your time and considerations.
Best, Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Sumanrsb2

This article which I have published is related to one of the popular Indian youtube and a contestor of popular OTT Show broadcasted on JIO Cinema named Bigg Boss. Allmost all the contestor have a Wikipedia page. kindly help in publishing it or help me in improving it. Allmost 100 relevant news article available on internet regarding this. Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanrsb2: Any reality show contestants - including and especially contestants on Big Brother and its variants (of which Bigg Boss is one) - need to be found notable independent of their reality show appearances due to them being designed to distort or exaggerate players' personality flaws for drama. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what notable means to you. having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article is not a criteria of notability ? Being contestor of a Popular OTT show is not a crtiteria for notability ? If you need I can cite all those news article related to this Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: the general notability guideline is given at WP:GNG, please study it carefully. That is the one that reviewers usually work to (unless there is a special guideline that applies instead).
And yes, "having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article" may prove notability, but it depends on more than just the number of sources; their quality matters just as much, as the GNG guideline makes clear. Besides, your draft does not cite 50 or 100 articles, it cites four sources (of varying quality) in total. Our job is not to go hunting for sources, that is entirely the responsibility of the draft authors and proponents; we merely review what is cited in the draft.
Having said which, please do not cite 50 or 100 articles, as that would be pure WP:REFBOMBING and as such counterproductive. Find the best 3-5 sources (per the GNG criteria), and summarise their coverage. That gives you both the appropriate content and the necessary proof of notability in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done the same despite you guys nominated for deletion. Its worth for Wikipedia. Kindly approve Sumanrsb2 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: you're only making matters worse by creating multiple versions of this. The published article has been nominated for deletion, and rightly so. Your draft will not be approved while there is no evidence of notability, and certainly not if you don't actually submit it for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 27 June 2024 review of submission by KBN College(Autonomous)

I have given general information about college in vijayawada but you are saying it seems like advertising , i have been added courses they offer , infrastructure , land area etc... i think it is an information about the college

please guide if anything wrong in my page post KBN College(Autonomous) (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked, draft G11'd.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Caspal

goodmorning, I've translated the dutch article form the Chassé Theater in Breda. the original had no references at all so when my translation was moved to draft I added different (dutch) references. now I also found some English. I have no idea what the criteria for wiki references are . the explanation in the draft description is 'to English' for me and I don't understand them. How can I summit the article about this theater to wiki. Caspal (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspal: WP:THREE gives a good rule of thumb. Note that we accept non-English sources, offline sources, and offline non-English sources, so where and in what language the source is written is irrelevant. What matters is that the sources are independent of the subject and its surrogates, discuss the subject at length, and have strong editorial oversight with competent fact-checking processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caspal: yes, I rather suspected it may have been a translation. You need to attribute the original article as the source, see WP:HOWTRANS.
For future reference, please bear in mind that the English-language Wikipedia has higher standards for referencing and notability than most if not all other language versions. It often happens that the sources cited in the original article are insufficient for publication here. For that reason, I would recommend that before even starting to translate, you check whether the sources meet our requirements, and if not, whether you can find more and better sources. If you cannot, then there is no point in proceeding further, as you are likely to be wasting your time and effort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Roggenrol

Can you review my draft, please? I don't get what's wrong with it exactly. Roggenrol (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roggenrol: the draft was reviewed, and consequently declined, for lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 27 June 2024 review of submission by STContributor

Hello,

I recently saw my submitted draft, Steptoe & Johnson, was declined and the Wikipedia article, "Steptoe LLP" was noted as the subject already existing. Steptoe & Johnson is a separate firm/entity from Steptoe LLP (even though part of their name is shared) which is why I thought the article would be helpful to distinguish the two law firms.

Can you let me know how I can make this more clear so that the article submission can be reconsidered for publication? STContributor (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1231285756"