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 Takeru Watanabe (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 22 July 2024 (→17:38, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


July 16

07:11, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Yara Jenkins

My subject is a fairly new celebrity. There is not going to be a whole lot of coverage on him right now. Yara Jenkins (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Jenkins Please disclose your connection with this person, see conflict of interest. You claim that you took the image of him.
If there is no significant coverage about him in independent reliable sources, there cannot be an article about him on Wikipedia. This typically does not happen with a person until the person has "already arrived" in terms of celebrity, not a new or "up and coming" celebrity. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Metalzoneuae

How can I change this article so that it is not an advertisement but rather an information article. please provide with sections that I should remove and add? Metalzoneuae (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by 103.102.117.13

Why is my draft rejected ? 103.102.117.13 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly given by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The draft has now been deleted as promotional. It seems like you are writing about yourself- that is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. You should learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the most diffficult task here, creating a new article. Your draft was completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Maxim13124

I wanted to create an Article about myself, but I dont have any Sources like Newspapers, because I am only known on Social Media like Instagram or Discord. What can I do, so my Wikipedia Article gets accepted ? Maxim13124 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim13124: you should not be writing about yourself at all; see WP:AUTOBIO. And by the sound of it, you're not notable enough to have an article published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

Hi there, I am editing my sandbox article as per the comments provided by the wiki editors. I'd like to change my article to a BIO:Academic but am unsure how to do this. I have already restructured the article to match a BIO:Academic template. Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. What is "BIO:Academic template"?
Or are you saying you would like to show that this person is notable according to the notability guideline for academics? If so, then there is nothing you need to change or restructure; you just need to provide evidence that they meet one of the eight criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, currently it fails the WP:BLP which is my error. I would like to rewrite as WP:NACADEMIC article. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am adding references for an academic bio. We have more primary references than secondary. I am wondering other than a literature review of the academics works, what other sources are considered secondary and are appropriate to a career academic? Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't start a new thread, just add to your earlier one. (I've merged your two threads.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leemhwiki12: BLP is our policy for articles on living people, which among other things sets referencing standards which are stricter than for most other topics. It is not a notability guideline.
Notability (which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia) is in most cases established according to the general WP:GNG guideline. With some topics there are special guidelines, in the case of scientists/academics, the WP:ACADEMIC guideline. You only need to meet one guideline: GNG is fairly clear-cut, so if you can find sufficient secondary sources to meet that, it's the easiest one to go for. If such sources don't exist, then ACADEMIC is probably your only option, but meeting it requires significant career achievements, meaning that only a small fraction of the world's academics are likely to meet it.
Does this help clarify things? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate your help. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Dt12345673838

Please help me get this accepted, help me what to change or add. please Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dt12345673838: you need to show that the person is notable; see the advice in the decline notice.
I noticed that you've uploaded both photos as your own work. Did you actually take these yourself? If so, what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the decision regarding the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia. I believe Mr. Salkow meets Wikipedia's notability criteria due to his significant contributions as the founder of Ellies Holdings, a prominent figure in the broadcasting technology sector in South Africa. Mr. Salkow's entrepreneurial achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources. These sources highlight his role in founding and leading Ellies Holdings, which has been a cornerstone in South Africa's broadcasting industry. I have compiled a list of reputable sources that provide detailed coverage of Mr. Salkow's career and contributions. I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision and the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia article, accurately reflecting his pivotal role in the company's history and the broader industry. Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to your response. Best regards,
- Firstly he has a wikipedia article about his business- HE the CEO is bigger then the business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellies_Holdings - Secondly search him up Thirdly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12pJxdKSqMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykglp4i95vk Dt12345673838 Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: it's not our job as reviewers to "search him up". We assess drafts based on the evidence provided therein. You say that his "achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources" – then you need to cite those sources in your draft. (In fact, you should base your draft on summary of those sources, citing each one against the information it has provided.)
Whether an article exists on the business this person founded/owned/managed has nothing to do with whether an article on the person can be published. Each subject must establish its own notability, as notability is not inherited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
family Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? As I am lost? Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 I hope this does not seem patronising, but "the work" is what you should do. You want the draft accepted, so do the work as advised. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing The files are up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons as copyright violations 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was just offended by @DoubleGrazingsaying "notability is not inherited". As we know Elliot Salkow worked very hard from selling mirrors from his car to becoming the top 10 wealthiest person in tech in South Africa. So we know that notability is not inherited. But I will include more articles, thanks for the feedback. I have submitted a new draft. Thanks all. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: I wasn't saying that he inherited (or not) anything, or that he didn't work hard. I was saying that notability, in the Wikipedia context, is not transferred by association from one subject to another; see WP:NOTINHERITED. In other words, even if the business in question is notable, this confers no notability on the individual. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Ok. Sorry. Thank you for helping me. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been delated. Sorry, they must have been sent out by other family memebers to websites writing articles about him. Sorry again. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My draft got rejected again. I know it’s not your job to do research. But I have like 8 links on him. Cited everything. I need some help or guidance please 101.173.103.69 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're Dt12345673838?).
The sources do not provide significant coverage of Salkow. Most make only passing mentions, and/or cover his business rather than him. One doesn't even mention him, and one returns 'page not found'. The only one that discusses him more extensively is the TechCentral piece, but it is a first-person account by someone who knew him, so it isn't secondary, and possibly also not entirely independent and/or reliable; in any case, it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
For every source you want to cite, examine it critically against the three criteria in WP:42: only if it meets all three will it contribute at all to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 you may follow the process at c:COM:VRT to seek to have the pictures restored. The copyright owner must licence the files correctly for Wikimedia Foundation to be able to use them.
Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego

I was told that I should try and direct this to the namespace myself, but I'm unsure of how to do that. This article has over 22,000 bytes so it is clearly notable enough. I'm just not exactly sure how to replace the redirect with this article. Shmego (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego I think you need to have conversations with S0091 and/or Hurricane Noah. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam

I was wondering why this article was ruled not relevant enough for Wikipedia as there is over 100k people who consider themselves to be members or citizens of this nation. Mquashiesam (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mquashiesam Perhaps you should ask the reviewer who rejected it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do Mquashiesam (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Aasiea

I would like to publish an image of Mahgul Ali, the same one that was recently removed due to licensing. After looking at the image use policy, the image provided would be categorized as "Own Work" because it is a photograph provided by the family. Do we need to have a copyright on the image before uploading it again? Aasiea (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aasiea: That is not how this works, at all. As far as images are concerned, the copyright to the image lies with the person who originally took it (or commissioned it), not with whoever happens to own the physical image or an image file. Also, images do not help a draft a whit; your problem is you have no content other than references and an infobox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. There will be more content uploaded soon! However, is there some guidance you can give with photos. Can we commission the photo? Aasiea (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aasiea! What you need to do is either take the photo yourself (in which case you own the copyright to it, because you created it), or get the copyright for it. If you think you might be able to commission a photo, you should tell the photographer that you need to own the copyright to it - they may ask for more money than usual, since if the photo is yours they can't use or sell it unless there is a contract between you specifying otherwise. Discuss this directly with whoever is going to take the photograph.
Something very important is that if you upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which I think is what you plan to do, you are giving up that copyright. Everything on Commons is available for anyone to do whatever they want with, as long as they give attribution (say where it came from). So if someone wants to edit the photo and use it somewhere else, even if it's negative and might harm the reputation of the person in the photo, they can do that and there is nothing you can do about it. Make sure you don't care about that before you upload! Have a look at this page on Commons for more information. I hope that helps! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam

There is currently a group of over 70 people who are looking for micronation inclusion in Wikipedia "WikiProject Micronations" There are also many micronations already included in Wikipedia. Yet this one is being treated as not notable Mquashiesam (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mquashiesam: We don't cite TikTok (no editorial oversight), and we can only cite YouTube videos that are both created by an outlet we consider to have editorial oversight (such as, say, the BBC) and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. I will say it again: Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Producer

Hi guys! Can we approve a draft for a show producer in this case based on this criteria?

I read what you shared. For the WP:producer - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
It says he has served as a talent producer and booker for all 5 seasons of Kelly Clarkson, producing music part in every episode. If we add the links to credits, do you think it could be an option? Considering receiving an Emmy for it- as the recognition of his work on that.

Full discussion here- User talk:Qcne#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

The person produced 104 episodes of the show, and received Emmy for that. He had one acting role, but he obviously does not meet the requirements for the acting category. J2009j (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: can I just clarify what it is you're asking here – are you wanting us to overrule the decline (or rather, series of declines)? And why would we do that? Or are you trying to move the earlier discussion from Qcne's talk page here, and if so what do you want others to contribute to it?
To pick up on your last point, whether this person did 104 episodes, or 1,040, does not establish notability. I also don't think the Emmy does, although I could be wrong on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing sorry, it was my suggestion to ask at the AFCHD. I haven't had much experience with NPRODUCER and wasn't quite sure if the person meets criterion 3, or not. Qcne (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, got it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if we can establish notability by applying point 3. Which is this one : The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
So that is why I added the individual was a producer of major TV show The Kelly Clarkson Show, of all 5 seasons of the show, and was nominated and received Emmy. Does this imply the person meets the criteria 3 or not. As I have seen pages that are quite less developed, with less notable work. I think saying that Emmy does not establish notability is the same as say Oscar does not establish notability. It is the main award, equivalent of Oscar for the television programs, awarded to the top performers for their work. Don't you think so? J2009j (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne what do you think on my reply? I have gather bios of some other similar people- main figures behind the TV shows. I am referring to this part specifically "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Later this - "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Notability of this show is not questionable. J2009j (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j Although I am still wavering, I decided to submit on your behalf and to accept. I feel the wider community, including all who wish who have commented upon and reviewed the draft, should examine this, now, article. I wish it luck despite my wavering. I took the view that it might be borderline. Our job is to accept drafts which we believe have a better than 50% chance of passing an immediate deletion process. Acceptance and wavering are congruent with this. We do not require perfection, we need acceptability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Timtrent. Good outcome, @J2009j! Qcne (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Sometimes the only option is acceptance, even, perhaps esecially, when we are not sure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thank you for your explanations. You can see I made several pages related to film industry recently. I found this particular case interesting as newspapers started using wikipedia as a source and writing press releases about a completely different person. Even some influential magazines, which is funny. J2009j (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j I find that intriguing!
For the acceptance I went back to the terms of reference we are giving as reviewers. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Not major film magazine - Deadline making this mistake 😂. The person is even of a different race. Found this on X https://x.com/AndyBehbakht/status/1799200048313442585 J2009j (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

00:50, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BeExcellent2EachOther1988

What is missing? This is my first time ever setting up a Wikipedia page? What sources are appropriate and which are not? I kind of need a hands-on tutorial from an expert on this and understanding the differences. There's enough sources and he's been in the news enough times to warrant his own Wikipedia page but it's I think a matter of picking the right ones. BeExcellent2EachOther1988 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeExcellent2EachOther1988: what's missing is evidence that he is notable. The sources are mostly about Alternative Baseball, or him talking about something (mostly Alternative Baseball), whereas we need to see significant coverage of him directly. And those sources must meet the WP:GNG notability guideline.
BTW, you've uploaded the photo as your own work. Can you tell us how that came about; how did you happen to be in the House of Representatives to take that photo? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BeExcellent2EachOther1988! Tutorials are something I can do. Let's see if my effort helps you with your draft. There will be quite a few links to click on for more info, so please go ahead and read through them as well. Take your time; there's no deadline and no rush. As long as you make a small edit to your draft every six months, it will remain available for you to work on. You don't need to submit the draft until you are confident you've improved it - and in fact I recommend not submitting it until you've done your best to address the previous reviewers' concerns, because continually submitting drafts with no improvement leads to a rejection and that is the end of the road fo a draft.
Your goal here is to establish that Duncan is [[WP:NOTABLE|notable by Wikipedia standards], which are very strict. Someone might be an amazing person who does great things, but they can still not be notable for Wikipedia. You've got a few pathways for notability, so ideally you'll pick one and sort of tailor the draft towards that. I think for Duncan you'll be using WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines, but there might be something else (like WP:NSPORT) that you think fits better - there will be a whole pile of possiblities at WP:NBIO, which lists various kinds of people who are notable and how you prove a specific person is.
You establish notability by providing suitable sources, which need to fit WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. 'Reliable' requires that a source should have editorial oversight and come from a reputable publisher - most major news sources would count, for this, but a random blog does not.
One more important thing: because you're writing about a living person, you also have to meet WP:BLP, the policies about biographies of living people. That means that everything you write needs to be backed up by a solid source. You can use interviews for very limited facts, like a birth date or partner's name, but not for anything that might be disputed.
DoubleGrazing has mentioned that most of the sources address Alternative Baseball, and my main note was going to be that most of the sources are interviews, which you can't use for notability because they're not independent. If there's no good sources for Duncan himself, you might want to pivot to write a draft for Alternative Baseball instead. Otherwise, go through your sources and discard any that doesn't meet all the criteria of the 'golden rule' - this is probably the most frustrating and disappointing part of writing a draft, honestly, so don't get disheartened - and then look for new ones that do meet all three criteria.
If you're struggling with deciding if a source is okay or not, I'd be happy to look at it in more detail for you. And of course if you have more questions, come back here and someone will pop up to try to help out. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:29, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 105.163.157.109

Hello, Kindly let me know why the references on the this draft are not accepted. Please explain as I am not understanding 105.163.157.109 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are FazielahWonderCommsSA, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
It's not that the sources aren't "accepted", it's that they are all primary, and therefore cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. There isn't anything in the draft that would suggest obvious WP:NPROF notability for academics, either.
Also, some of the sources don't verify anything in this draft. For example, the last one merely points to the RSTMH website's home page, which doesn't mention Bediako, let alone say that he has received some sort of award or honour from them.
What is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query at User talk:FazielahWonderCommsSA, please read and respond to it. Note especially the paid-editing part. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 17 July 2024 review of submission by JEbert68

My article has been declined several times for not being notable, despite all the reliable and international sources from different areas and several years. I put a lot of work into this and the community keeps deleting this over and over. I cannot get an understandable answer what I have to do to get this online. Can anyone please take a detailled look and explain where the error is and what can be done? Thank you as I am slightly desperate. JEbert68 (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JEbert68 I can see no trace of a review. You have not submitted it for a review. There is a button in the box at the top fr you to submit it. Nothing will happen until you do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I do, they will delete all my work again and again and again. And I cannot understand why. These sources are valid and many. JEbert68 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 Ah, I see now. Your prior attempt was declined as can advert and deleted thus: Draft:Lena Snow (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Notability (people), no real refs) and you then either requested deletion or blanked the page, so it was deleted on 2 May 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in detail. The cited sources are valid, and no advertisement is intended. There are many mentions in publications and exhibitions, this artist exists and is notable internationally. What exactly do I need to provide to you?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 See below. I cannot see what was deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68: User:JEbert68/sandbox/Lena Snow (Artist) was never submitted for review, that I can see at least, whereas Draft:Lena Snow was deleted because that's what you apparently requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please explain in detail which parts or sources or errors did provoke a denial/deletion?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I wish to approach this from the other end. Please read and understand WP:NARTIST. Your job is to prove that Snow passes it.
Then, remove all flowery text. You have written a lovely magazine article. Now write an article for an encyclopaedia instead. No words like 'famous', no emotional words, nothing. Write in your own words only what is contained in references. Do not write what you want to say and then struggle to find a reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I have checked, at random, three of your sources, two of which do not mention Snow, one of which is a blog. So there is work to do here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Darnathiss

Good morning, I have attempted to submit the encyclopedic entry for Enex Technologies several times, but it has been rejected due to issues with the sources of information. I believe that Enex Technologies deserves to be included in the free encyclopedia as it is a highly relevant international Italian company in the industrial refrigeration sector and has received significant media coverage. For instance, major national Italian newspapers such as "Il Corriere della Sera" (the leading national newspaper), "La Repubblica" (the second leading national newspaper), and "Il Sole 24 Ore" (the leading national economic newspaper) have all covered the company. Could you please point out one or two sources among those I have used that are not correct? Thank you very much for your attention and cooperation. Darnathiss (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darnathiss: I'm going to turn this around, and ask you to highlight the three strongest sources in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, as required by the WP:NCORP guideline. Note that this means significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and also no interviews, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, new markets or product announcements, etc.), and no advertorial, sponsored content or other churnalism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, in light of the fact that your entire edit history, both here and on the Italian Wikipedia, have to do with this business, suggesting some sort of relationship. Please read and respond to the query. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Darnathiss! I'll start with recommending you have a look at WP:42, our 'golden rule', which lays out what you need for a suitable source. There are three criteria: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - more information in the WP:42 link. 'Reliable' means you need a source with editorial oversight and reputable publishing standards. Every single source you rely on for notability has to meet all three criteria, which is often what causes problems for new editors. Having a look at your sources, here's what I see:
1) does not mention Enex (not significant coverage).
2) is paywalled, so I can't assess it.
3) is highly promotional and seems to have come straight from the company (not independent).
4) is the same as 3), with an interview from the founder (not independent).
5) is also promotional and only has a paragraph about Enex (not independent, not significant coverage).
6) is also promotional (not independent).
So you might have one source, 2) - I'm not sure if it's usable or not - but you need at least three suitable sources for a draft. DoubleGrazing has given you some excellent advice on what to avoid, and hopefully this analysis will also help you discard sources you can't use. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jdmmpower

I want to know how articles are reviewed and allowed to get published and what mistakes can be avoided when publishing articles Jdmmpower (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a draft about a topic that already has an article. If you want to add to the existing article, you may edit that article, or use its talk page to propose edits.
To learn more about the draft submission process(which is usually voluntary), please see Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BlowAtHighDough

A new page I was trying to publish was turned down because reliable sources do not adequately support it (exact quote at bottom). Could you give me some guidance on what sources are unreliable? Do I need more references? The field of references for regional sports is a little barren and I feel I have used the majority of sources available. For reference, I used the Wikipedia page for LFA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Fighting_Alliance) as a guide for building this page and sourcing. If you could help me narrow down the next steps to fix the page that would be much appreciated.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." BlowAtHighDough (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the sources for Legacy Fighting Alliance are not adequate, because, like many thousands of other articles, it was created before we started being so careful about quality. See other stuff exists.
For your first pass, you need to check each source against the triple criteria in 42. If it is reliable but not independent, or if it is independent but does not contain significant coverage, then it is possible that it can be used to support a basic non-controversial piece of information; but only sources which meet all three criteria count towards establishing notability, and the great majority of an article should be cited to such sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BJP4KERALAM

What is the problem in my article of Draft:Palode santhosh BJP4KERALAM (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Palode Santhosh
@BJP4KERALAM: I couldn't say without reviewing it. The draft was resubmitted c 5 weeks ago and is awaiting a new review. As it says there, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,866 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 41.217.28.63

I submitted the draft above and this remark was made, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Although, I have corrected the second remark for the post to be rewritten formally. However, the sources I provided are the only sources I have, the journals written were not published online. But are in hard copy. From your article on reliable sources, there is no room to have journals that were not published online by a reliable source. so what do I do? 41.217.28.63 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if properly cited. The problem is that you have swathes of unreferenced biographical content, which either needs to get sourced or get removed. Even if you are going for WP:NACADEMIC notability, every claim that a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced to a third-party source that can verify the claim. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be reliable, but they do not adequately support the contents, as approximately half the paragraphs are completely unreferenced, which violates our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP).
Sources do not need to be online, you can cite offline sources as well, as long as they are otherwise of sufficient quality, and you do so with full bibliographical details; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Anything that cannot be supported by reliable sources must be removed. (One could also then ask... where did you get that information, if not from reliable sources?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I'm writing to request assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta, a is a politician and spokesperson for Aam Aadmi Party.

I've compiled a list of reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Based on these sources, I believe Reena Gupta meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

While I've drafted the article in the Wikipedia sandbox, I'd greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback you could offer to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's standards and is ready for publication.

I'm particularly interested in assistance with the following (if applicable):

Structure and organization: Is the information presented in a clear and concise way? Neutrality: Have I avoided any promotional content or personal opinions? Notability: Do the sources I've provided adequately demonstrate [Personality Name]'s notability? Referencing: Are the citations formatted correctly? Thank you for your time and support. I look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely, Jeswanth Jeswanth2 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your references are not in-line and, looking at the titles of those sources, the likelihood any of them discuss Gupta in any depth is remote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeswanth2: your question, esp. "[Personality Name]'s notability", suggests you're using a chatbot of some sort. We would so much rather hear from you than from an algorithm. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a stretch to call a party spokesperson a politician. Politicians are generally seeking or hold public office. "Party activist" might be better. You've summarized what she's been involved with but not summarized any independent sources that discuss how her work was particularly important or influential. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Shariq Khan 1

I want to create my own Wikipedia page. I made one as well but that got rejected and the reason was the provided information is not notable enough to publish the page. I want to know how i can make a Wikipedia in this situation and if there was some more issues so please let me know about that as well. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not the place to write your autobiography. Please read WP:AB and WP:NBIO before further attempting to publish articles. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 22:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shariq Khan 1 I also think the multiple messages your fellow editors have left on your talk page more than explain why your draft is completely unsuitable. Please read them. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

01:26, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Eva Jacinto

Hello, I have multiple questions: 1. How can I ask someone to proofread my draft in order to be sure it fits all the requirements? 2. I cannot upload a photo. How can I prove I have permission to upload it? 3. There is an error about soft hyphen which I can’t solve 4. I am interested in translating this page, if it becomes a deputed by wikipedia, to Portuguese and English. I am not finding how to do it 5. Could someone give me a structure or an example of a biographical page that works well?

Sorry for such a long message. Thank you in advance Eva Jacinto 

Eva Jacinto (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva Jacinto: In order:
  1. You do that by submitting it for review. "Pre-reviews" are inherently meaningless. (That being said, we wouldn't even begin to attempt to do this as this draft is in Spanish; the English-language Wikipedia will not accept content written in the Spanish language.)
  2. You don't, because you having permission means absolutely nothing. Permission is needed by the entity hosting the photo, and Wikipedia will never seek or use such permission.
  3. "soft hyphen" is a phrase I have never seen before today, so I have no context for this error.
  4. See WP:Translation. Note that this implies you're translating from the Spanish-language Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org).
  5. Any Good or Featured class biography will work for this, but since we're discussing a living person here (where special rules apply) the closest example would be a Good or Featured BLP. Martin Rundkvist seems a good example.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Soft hyphen is used to indicate where a word should be divided, if it needs to be divided, and will only display then. I come across this in Finnish, where long compound words are common, so the editors insert soft hyphens to indicate possible locations where to divide the word onto two lines. They are invisible, so are hard to detect, but can be found by moving the cursor through the word in question one letter at a time. When you find a location where trying to move the cursor doesn't seem to move it, that's where the soft hyphen is (so in reality, moving the cursor does move it, it just moves it past the invisible hyphen). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your great help.
Still don’t catch how to put a photo. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please forget about photos until you have made a draft that has any chance of being acceptable as an article - which yours does not, because you have written it WP:BACKWARDS. You are in the position of somebody who does not (yet) know anything about how to build a house, but has put up a frame that is about to fall down, and is asking how to install windows.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your didactical answer (even though not encouraging).
I didn’t submit any article, just working on it. I understood that sandbox works as a testing room, a space where we can work slowly. Am I wrong?
Every time I ask things I get a better idea how wikipedia works. It’s almost impossible to read all the articles that wikipedia offers to teach people how to contribute.
Contribution: that is what I am trying to do with a subject that interests to thousands and thousands of people, whom would like to search and find a neutral and clarifying article. I hope you can help me on that.
With such rigorous policies I wonder why there are so many bad articles in wikipedia.
Thank you again Eva Jacinto (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 18 July 2024 review of submission by GokuSS400

So I noticed that unlike other modern Kamen Rider series, Gotchard did not have an episode list publicly available on wiki so I tried to submit one. However I'm told that the page doesn't have enough reliable sources (45), and that all of the sources being from the same source/place is not enough and thus the page requires more. In this specific case all sources are from the Japanese tv network TV Asashi, which is the network that Kamen Rider airs on. However I've looked at all the pages for the other Reiwa Era Kamen Rider shows and each of their episode list pages without exception cite only from Tv Asashi. So I'm confused here as to why there seems to be different standards, and what I should look for to improve this article, especially given the series is very near to its end. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GokuSS400 You have made a common mistake for inexperienced users in that you based what you wrote on other articles; that is not usually a good idea, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles have the same issues as your draft and you would be unaware of that as an inexperienced user.(you've had an account since 2009 but only have 42 edits). It's more likely that these other episode lists should be removed, not more added.
As this is a volunteer project, people do what they can when they can; we try our best to be consistent, but we are only as good as the people who choose to help and choose to be familiar with relevant standards. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yes you answered the first half of the issue (regarding why the other articles can get away with this...sort of), but you did not answer the core part of the issue of the fact that more sources are being asked for. There are ultimately a couple issues with that request. First of all you're not going to get anything more authentic/official than Tv Asashi on this matter since the show is broadcast on their network. The show is from Japan, so any source with information on the show would have a 50% chance of being lost in translation (as Japanese and English do not translate 1:1).
So this ultimately leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what more would work here, which is part of what I'm asking guidance on. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Kresnabasudewa

i have edit the content and referensces, please check. Kresnabasudewa (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kresnabasudewa The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. It is not enough for a politician to merely be seeking public office, they must win their election or actually hold public office to merit an article as a politican, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. You haven't demonstrated that he meets the broader notable person definition either. If something fundamentally changes about this, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly.
If you have a connection to him, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you work for him or his party, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i want edit, but not as a politician but as a young entrepreneur, can i do? Kresnabasudewa (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kresnabasudewa: no, for the same reason as explained, ie. there is no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i am surrender Kresnabasudewa (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

Why not accept my article Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meattaeiwondota: the reasons why I declined Draft:Lav Kumar are given in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not work for any party.I am her to improve my writing skills.I am PHD student this is my 3 years. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I publish research paper in forms of article. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: do not resubmit drafts without any attempt at improving them. Fair warning: next time, I will reject this outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me.I am not aware about..
What I have to Improve? Tell me Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: meant to say also that you're not supposed to be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comedy me? Who give responsibility of this..your sentence like a children writing in class 6-5. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not writing about my self.. It topic after study on internet but it not on Wikipedia. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: your user page literally says "I am Lav Kumar website developer,News article writer." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is user page it about me. But on article I have written that is different you an search on internet. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see information on google AI or WhatsApp AI you ask about Lav Kumar Taekwondo player.you will get information. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI hallucinates. Anything written by it is worthless for notability. (You could argue that it'd be acceptable if someone actually edited its output, but that would make the source no longer AI given the extensive rewrites that would be required to make it accurate and sensical.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Fcontrepois

Hello amazing team.

I do think that the topic of Cloud FinOps is of interest, but I do not manage to express it a encyclopedia way. Can I ask others to take over the writing of this article in a more encyclopidic style and submit again? Have a great day Frank Fcontrepois (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talk about. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Individual not in Team.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road for it. I think it's unlikely anyone (certainly anyone here at the help desk) will want to get involved in editing a rejected draft, although I guess it's always possible someone may choose to write a new one on this subject at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help me to improve my rejected article.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all; it reads like an internal whitepaper from an IT firm was stitched together with an investors' brochure to create a Frankenstein's Creature of inappropriate-for-Wikipedia. What is your connexion to Cloud FinOps? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the feedback. I was trying my best. I hope other will try to write the article better.
Cloud FinOps is a discipline, not a company. Most of the current standards are set by the FinOps Foundation that is under the Linux foundation. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: Which doesn't answer my question: What is your connexion to (companies entities promoting) Cloud FinOps? This sort of article isn't accidentally written by someone with no direct connexion to a subject or to entities with a stake in that subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very involved in FinOps, I work for a company that in involved in FinOps, I have a podcast on it and participate in setting the standards. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: The second of those things requires a disclosure even if your work on Wikipedia is otherwise completely divorced from that firm's business operations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer my initial question: Can I ask others to take over the writing of this article in a more encyclopidic style and submit again?
Or in other words, how can this topic be worked by others and submitted? Fcontrepois (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

Give some advice Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not publish research papers, so the best advice: please publish it somewhere else, such as at a blog. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

How do we cite original sources like podcasts with the artist making statements? Monniejaym (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is about  Courtesy link: Draft:Kenyon Dixon?
It's basically web content, so you can cite using {{cite web}}.
That said, an artist talking about themselves or their work is primary source and therefore of limited use, and can only support factual, non-contentions statements, but does not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Forgettonexo114

I wasn't expecting it to be published but I think that it would be a good placeholder until I can sit down and finish the page the more. Forgettonexo114 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro

I am having a difficult experience with the Wikipedia editor for the topic I am attempting to publish. I've provided numerous verifiable sources and citations, but he has declined every single one. This is a digital online code and protocol for search engine optimization that provides direct communication to search engines, similar to the Sitemaps protocol that Wikipedia has published. However, the reviewer does not see digital industry journals as having integrity on the subject. This is very confusing. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. With all due respect to him, I'm not sure anything I provide or do will satisfy him. Is there a way to have another editor review my submission? VWellsMicro (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been declined by 4 different reviewers. I haven’t checked the sources but the draft is promotional in tone and stuffed with spam links, the “Benefits” section is also entirely inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro I have left an overlapping comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro "he has declined every single one." Er, no. You have had multiple separate reviews by multiple reviewers. Multiple different opinions telling you that this draft is declined. What you need to do is to do the work that has been outlined. Perhaps we need be clear:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I hope that helps you to earn how to check your references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no spam links. This is a protocol that works as an interface between search engines and websites. It is offered as a plug in on multiple content management systems and delivery networks such as Wix and Duda, which is why they are mentioned. This is a completely legitimate internet protocol utilized by tons of major companies - and is currently administrated by Microsoft Bing. And thank you I believe I have done the work. It's an online protocol that is written about in online digital journals like Search Engine Journal that has a readership over of over 1 million people. Here is a completely valid article on the protocol by the journal. I recognize this may be a bit complicated subject. Ive tried providing everything I can. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro You can argue, or you can take advice. Your move. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to argue. I am simply trying to get this published. I simply thought that we were supposed to link out, there is no goal of spamming here. I am not a spammer. I am just trying to publish this article. I am sorry for the confusion. I will remove all of the outbound links. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro Then please take the advice. Generally, reviewers here know more than new editors. You have declared that you are paid by Microsoft for your edits here. (I tidied up the note on your user page, please correct any inaccuracies). Please use your salary to learn what you are doing. A paid editor should be able to get their article accepted on their second attempt (assuming it passes our notability criteria).
If you want it to be accepted, please do the work, and do not resubmit for review before you have done it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro You are wrong, your draft has 21 spam links to involved companies, we simply don't use external links in this manner. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VWellsMicro: Apart from the other problems which have been mentioned, the draft is unsuitable as a Wikipedia article because it is totally promotional. It reads exactly as though it was written by a marketing professional (which it probably was) and is full of what looks exactly like marketing copy. As for the question of whether it contains spam links, I think the word "spam" may not be appropriate, as it suggests deliberate dishonest aims, whereas you were probably acting in good faith, unaware of Wikipedia's requirements. However, the draft contains a large number of links which are clearly intended to attract readers of the Wikipedia article to the websites of various businesses or other organisations, with the purpose of publicising those businesses or organisations and their products. That is editing for promotional purposes, and is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. JBW (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The links were provided to show the credibility of the subject as previously we were told that it lacked appropriate references. I think I am the 3rd person to attempt to come in and get this post up. Removing all links and will attempt again to provide what you are looking for. VWellsMicro (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Hasalaka Sumiththa thero

approve page Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero You have not submitted the draft for review. In its current state it will not be accepted. Please read the notice at the top and do the work it explains 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why your article submission was declined Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero Please DO NOT open multiple threads here.
You deleted the notices when it was declined. They told you why. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

03:25, 19 July 2024 review of submission by TonyGadreal

I am a New article creator TonyGadreal (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyGadreal: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You should not be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text from freely licensed material to Wikipedia

Can I partially copy text from freely licensed material, such as works by the Government of India (and licensed under GODL) to create articles?

I am asking specifically about text. @CharlieMehta had mentioned that there is a possibility that this is allowed only for images & diagrams. Is it true? Skratata69 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skratata69: this isn't really the place to ask about copyright, but in basic terms, if by "freely licensed" you mean material in the public domain, then as long as there is evidence of this status, and you're clearly citing the source, and the copying is otherwise appropriate, then you can use such material. See WP:Public domain for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skratata69 However, it is a general truth that text from external sources is unlikely to be of the style or quality required by Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, I was not blindly copy pasting it. I took a lot of time and wrote content and added comparisions on my own, since it was my first article. It got a ~50% overlap with the freely licensed content so my draft article was declined. Skratata69 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skratata69 If the location of the freely licenced content contains a compatible licence you will not have this problem again. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for all sorts of details to help you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieMehta Please enter this discussion, there appears to be unfinished work here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website is of the Reserve Bank of India, a body of the Government of India. The government has licensed all non-sensitive content automatically under a free license as seen here, so there is no need for an explicit license on every site.
[1](page 5 here) Skratata69 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0

I don't know how to add references and What should I do to improve it. Please tell me🙏🏻 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, you have correctly added references, so you know how to do that in theory. It's just that you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, you need to cite the sources where you got all this information from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Panchayet

Could you please provide feedback on how to improve this? Panchayet (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panchayet: the draft is completely unreferenced, with zero evidence of notability, and as such is basically just the subject telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional. This is why it is pending speedy deletion.
What is your relationship with this institute? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

The article was declined for insufficient citation. Would it be possible to see what claims need the addition of a citation or better sources. The subject of the article means that scholarly sources are not particularly available. Instead, most information is derived from the websites of galleries which I would see as being fairly accurate when discussing thier own galleries. The range of citations used in inline with pages on similar topics. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the references are not seperated from the last section (they are just at the bottom of the article without a seperate subheading). Could this be part of the problem? Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: no, that's not the problem; that's easily fixed.
It's also not about insufficient citations. That point was added just as a comment.
The reason for declining is that the sources do not demonstrate notability. Please click on each of the links in the decline notice to see what sort of sources we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia We (primarily) don't want to know what associated galleries say about this organization, we want to know what independent reliable sources say about this organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. As the reviewer notes, much of the draft is unsourced(especially the history section)
Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So with regards to notability adding more sources such as news articles or books referencing the work of Venetian Heritage would fix that. There are existing articles on similar organizations some of similar notability. No I am not directly affiliated witht the organization but am from Venice (and am interested in its history) so am well aquianted with their work, history and activities. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right - as long as the articles and books weren't written, published, or commissioned, by VH or anybody it works with.
As for other articles: we have many many seriously flawed articles, which nobody has got around to doing anything about. If you want to compare an existing article, make sure it is a Good Article or a Featured Article. See Other stuff exists . ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by EbrietanPhasmid


Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and am having trouble creating an article that passes review. This article was declined on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria for a wikipedia article due to lack of depth/reliable sources. I was wondering what advice you could give me when it comes to improving this article?

My digging only yielded two secondary sources which I have made use of. The remainder of my article utilises primary sources (the language's creators).

How can I make this article fit for the wiki?

-EbrietanPhasmid (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EbrietanPhasmid: by finding, and citing, 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. If you cannot find such sources, then the subject is probably not notable enough, and the draft cannot be accepted. It's all about the sources, no amount of editing will magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

This article was rejected and in the accompanying explanation, it states that the copyright violation that caused it to be rejected has been removed. Does this mean that I can re-submit it and that it will be re-assessed or do I have to do something else first? I've made no edits to the draft myself. Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janep1814 Fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok.Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean I can resubmit without making any other changes (as the copyright violation has been cleared)? Janep1814 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may. On the surface it looks remarkably good (and well-sourced) for a new editor's first attempt. I haven't looked in any depth, though. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll resubmit. Janep1814 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

I am making my first article about a micronation that is named Ironland. It was established on 26 Jun 2024. I am new to making articles so that's the reason I need the advice. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics I like _magnify, but this micronation is not yet a notable topic for Wikipedia. The draft has therefore been rejected and will not be considered further for the time being. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malaysian guy who likes politics: please see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you can point to at least three independent, reliably published, articles or books which talk in some depth about your micronation, then it might be worth considering it as a possible topic for a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 19 July 2024 review of submission by KnotWhen52

My Article is about a national sports coach who is also a published sports scientist - I am aware that the article fails due to notability. Can you advise on what steps I should take to rectify? For example, should I make the article shorter, should I remove some citations and references that aren't relevant? Do I not have enough? I've tried to be as detailed as possible, so any guidance would be helpful. KnotWhen52 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnotWhen52: as the draft has been declined for lack of notability, that is what you should address. Find sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ACADEMIC notability guideline. Other edits may be useful also, but they won't help you get around the notability problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

This article was considered to be deleted because it states that it's just a "hoax" rather than an factual article. I am requesting assistance because this is the first time I am establishing an article. It took two days for me to submit this article. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: this draft has been deleted. Please don't recreate it.
And please don't start a new thread with each comment. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Pratap555

Why the article declined Pratap Keshari Das (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was stated by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please read it, and the policies linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4

Béla Sipos, who has edited the article until now, does not understand the information the Auric reviewer provided. József Móczár wrote the request for help, as Béla Sipos gave up further editing, citing insufficient programming knowledge. After several years of corrections, please finish the editing and publish the Wikipedia article. 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it for review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. It won't be accepted unless it is written in the neutral point of view, which it is not right now. Articles are not supposed to promote the subject. Since it is a biography of a living person, all statements must be supported by inline citations to reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you must also disclose that before editing it. C F A 💬 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lucasirby

Would like to know how/why more references are not reliable Lucasirby (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasirby: We don't cite Liquipedia (no editorial oversight) or the subject's own website (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Clarkin1573

I am new to wikipedia, and it is unclear to me how the page I have created in materially different from many many other university pages on wikipedia, including these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania_School_of_Engineering_and_Applied_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University_College_of_Engineering 

Clarkin1573 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarkin1573: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And unlike the other three articles, this lacks usable sources and is written primarily to promote the college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, I just resubmitted this post for review last week and would like to know if I am going to get assigned the same reviewer for my submission that I had the first time around. If so, is there a timeline I should follow for when the Wikipedia draft will be reviewed? If not, is there a way of following up with someone at Wikipedia to get a better sense of what to expect? Thank you. Wyneep (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "assigns" reviewers at all, ever. Reviewers look through the list of drafts awaiting review, and choose which they wish to pick up, and which order to deal with them. I suspect that some reviewers, sometimes, look at the oldest waiting drafts and pick them up even when they don't really want to (but I'm not a reviewer, so I'm only guessing that). ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reviewers find drafts the same way. Some look at drafts relating to their specific interests, some go by date, some go alphabetically, and some choose them randomly (which is what I do). Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation system is very backlogged right now (there is almost always around 3000 drafts submitted for review at any given time!). You shouldn't have to wait any longer than 3 months for a review. C F A 💬 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Heikdong

This page was deleted and restored. Submission was declined on 21 October 2023 by Rich Smith (talk). He stated that: "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds."

I have resubmitted the draft with the corrections and removal of infringements. What's the next step? I'm new to Wikipedia and have taken over this page from previous person who is no longer working on this page.

Thank you, HK Dong Heikdong (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you need do other than wait.
However, if you want to increase the chances of a reviewer accepting your draft, you will carefully read what we mean by a reliable source, and get rid of all the obviously unreliable ones you have cited at present. We do not accept social media, blog posts, and we certainly don't accept articles from random weirdly-named sites that all have exactly the same appearance and the same "about us".
Obviously, when you get rid of a source, you get rid of all information which is cited to that source - unless you can find a reliable source which provides the same information.
When you say you "have taken over this page from previous person", what is your relationship to that previous person, and to Dong? If you are in any way employed by or on behalf of Dong or his church, you must formally declare your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Elithton

How long do I have to edit the text?What content is prohibited, and what should I avoid using in the text? Elithton (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions may be carried out at any time as long as an admin feels the criteria is met- I believe that's the case, so I deleted it. I would suggest that if you have independent reliable sources that give this game significant coverage, that you start fresh. I would advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is a good idea to first get experience under your belt by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Mdahmke

Hi, I've added a couple of references... I wrote much of the original material about the Computalker for BYTE and onComputing back in the late 70s and developed applications for the computalker. Unfortunately there are very few other independent sources. Mdahmke (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are very few other independent sources, then by definition, this system does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Linwoods96

I was told I did not have enough reliable sources for verification. I included a reference section which included at least two articles, plus discogs to verify music Klubjumpers worked on. Do I need another article to verify their notoriety? Also, I am not sure how to include the links within the body of the article. I need help putting the citations in. Please help. Linwoods96 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Linwoods96: We can't use Discogs (no editorial oversight). All of your references need to be in-line, citing specific claims, rather than just slapped on the end of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Brandonweiss8

Hi, I submitted the draft with many references as noted at the bottom. Not sure what the issue is here. Thanks Brandonweiss8 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brandonweiss8. The ADDITIONAL REFERENCES section seems redundant- surely these should all be converted to in-line citations to support material in the body of the draft. Otherwise, what is their purpose? Qcne (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes I did just that when re-submitting 4.7.17.138 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you have (and please remember to log in while replying). For example, the Silicon Valley Business Journal reference has no accompanying in-line citation, and doesn't appear in the References section. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brandonweiss8, please read WP:CIRCULAR. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

01:44, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Charles Nsugbe

please what do i need to do for my article to be accepted Charles Nsugbe (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Nsugbe: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Fade258 who reviewed the draft, and possibly above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 20 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

Hello. I do not understand why my article is not approved. I thought I had a good selection of reliable third party reference resources. Is this based on language differences? CymaSonic (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions too. While Wikipedia isn't based on language differences, it seems you didn't read the reviewer's comment about the draft. Since you're here, look at what is needed. Your draft is about a living person, and per Wikipedia policy, such biographies needs adequate sourcing to almost every credible/noteworthy content. In your draft, there doesn't seem to be any citation in the "Early life and education", and "career". Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 20 July 2024 review of submission by ArtHistorian1014

Hello! This submission was just rejected because of unreliable sources, and I was hoping for more clarity into which sources were unreliable so I can avoid using similar ones in the future. I'm trying to add prominent contemporary artists to Wikipedia and believe Punkmetender is among them so would love to optimize this page to a place of submission acceptance. Thank you! 

ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ArtHistorian1014! A point of semantics first - I know this will sound a bit silly, but 'rejected' and 'declined' are different in Wikipedia terms. Rejected means the draft won't be published; declined means you have another chance. Luckily, your draft is only declined!
In terms of sources, you're trying to find sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. More info in that link! As a quick note, 'reliable sources' here also means the source must have editorial oversight (eg not someone's blog) and be a reputable publisher (eg doesn't accept pay-to-publish articles). If sources do not meet all the criteria, then they can't help establish notability.
For bonus difficulty points, because Punkmetender is a living person, your second goal is to comply with the WP:BLP (biography of living people) rules; this means that every statement needs a good source. You can use interviews for basic details (birth date, when he started painting) but they are otherwise worthless to you. I know this is probably very frustrating. Writing new articles is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and BLP articles are the hardest of all.
You may have too many sources for the reviewers to tackle easily at the moment, so cutting the list down a bit should make it more manageable. I'll go over your first 10 and hopefully that will give you enough direction to look at the rest yourself - of course if there's some you're really not sure about, please feel free to come back and ping me if you wish!
1) only has a paragraph on the artist, so it's not significant coverage; it's mostly about an exhibition.
2) is an interview, which is not independent of the subject.
3) is a gallery of work, and it seems to me that they are selling his art, so that's a problem both in terms of significant coverage and independence (the gallery has a financial stake in what they write)
4) is a forum thread, which is user-generated content and thus not a reliable source.
5) is also an interview, see 2)
6) also seems to be a gallery selling his work, see 3)
7) looks like a biography written by the artist, or at least approved by him, so this is also not independent.
8) is not actually about him, but rather about current trends in the art world, so it is not significant coverage. If this were about him, I'd say it's a reliable source since everything else checks out - you're looking for this kind of coverage, except you need it to be focused on the artist in order for it to count.
9) says it's an artist profile, but either there's nothing there or my computer is really upset with the site. Whichever it is, I suspect this would also be written or at least approved by the artist, so see 7)
10) is another gallery of his work, so not significant coverage.
Unfortunately, I don't think any of these sources help to establish notability. That sucks, because he and his art seem very cool!
Despite being a disappointing analysis, I hope that is of at least some help as you decide what to cut and what to look for in new sources. Good luck and happy editing - I hope you find some great sources and this draft can become an article! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate the time it took you to write all of that. To clarify, when you offered those numbers, were those in reference to that number citation? As an Art History professor, I want to make sure I submit the best and most thorough draft for future review so it's accepted! ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtHistorian1014, you're very welcome! I'd love to see more interesting artists getting articles on Wikipedia, so it's a pleasure to help.
Yes, when I say 1) I meant the first reference in your list at the time (Bakian). Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. And just to reiterate, I'm more than happy to help out with more source analysis if you find something you're not sure about - feel free to come ask on my talk page. Plus of course this page is always here for any questions you might have! I'm not an academic myself but I spent most of my working life being their administrative fixer-upper, so I have a soft spot for those in the field.
One final note - you probably don't need it, but just in case - make sure that whenever you submit the draft for review again, you've done your best to fix up whatever the last reviewer noted as a problem. Reviewers understandably get very frustrated when people resubmit the same thing over and over, and it usually leads to the draft being rejected since the assumption is that no other sources exist so the subject can't be notable. If you make a minor edit to the draft at least once every six months, it won't be deleted, so you can work on it for as long as you need. By minor edit I mean even just adding a space, pressing 'publish', and then editing the space back out again.
So once again best wishes, happy editing, and I look forward to seeing more drafts about fascinating artists! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Electricgirl22

My draft is a little bit of some help, could you help me make this draft even better, I couldn’t do this by myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricgirl22: This seems like it would be more appropriate for Fandom, even disregarding the article's poor sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but could you at least improve it for me. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Electricgirl22: I invite you to read what I just wrote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, but where can I read it. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has already been mostly copied from https://rubygillman.fandom.com/wiki/Ruby_Gillman. It can technically be licensed from there but it is not going to be accepted with no references and a non-encyclopedic tone. C F A 💬 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are references, but I needed you to rewrite it in a non-encyclopedic tone, as you just said. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus falls on the editor(s) who want the content, not on random people who read and reply on a noticeboard. If you want this, you need to do the research and put in the work yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually done the research and did the work myself. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Electricgirl22, as much as we'd like to assist you, please be reminded again that the responsibility for making the article suitable for publication lies solely with you. We can provide guidance and suggestions and point you to our policies and guidelines, like we have already done. However, if the article requires a more encyclopedic tone and proper referencing, like it clearly does in this case, you are responsible for making these adjustments. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Electricgirl22 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Electricgirl22: Then I'll stop being coy to avoid hurting your feelings and will start actually tearing down your draft. I'll start with the sources as currently there (Refer to my /Decode subpage, linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The fact that your sources almost all pre-date the film's release is a problem bigger than a kraken's tentacle. In order to have an article about a character, we need to have articles discussing that character and their impact on the cultural zeitgeist, which universally means that sources need to come after the media the character debuted in. We cannot judge a character's impact based on their unreleased debut media (regardless of the notability of that media). If you don't have such sources, then you flat-out don't have an article until sources that discuss the character specifically are released. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

It will not publish the article without a reference but we have taken this from The Gazzetino newspaper in Italy which is a reputable newspaper which wrote Mr. Vidals' obituary at the time. How can we reference this newspaper properly so that the article can be published? Artico13 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13 Is this a verbatim translation? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artico13: How do you know of Mr. Vidal? C F A 💬 02:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:REFB for how to cite sources.
You need more than one independent reliable source in order to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
The text is not written in a neutral way, but is full of peacock words: for example, "influential", and "universally recognized". ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 20 July 2024 review of submission by LuminousPathGlimmer

Need help: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 20 July 2024 review of submission by LuminousPathGlimmer

I'd really appreciate some help in identifying which citations are not reliable and should be removed. Thanks so much! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuminousPathGlimmer: Haven't looked at the references in depth, but the "Early Life and Education" section is completely unsourced. All claims on Wikipedia should be verifiable with a reference. Since your draft is a biography of a living person, inline citations are required after essentially every claim. Happy editing, C F A 💬 02:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Very kind of you to review it for me. I've added more reliable citations - would you mind helping me again? Thanks! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LuminousPathGlimmer: Lots of sources look reliable, though they seem to be mostly primary which might not be very helpful for establihsing notability. The Wind Repertory Project appears to be an open wiki, which would not be reliable on Wikipedia because it is user-generated content. There also appear to be quite a few blogs, like this one, this one, this one, this one, etc. Blogs are self-published sources and not reliable on Wikipedia, especially for verifying claims about living people. I'd recommend replacing those with more reliable sources. If you want to resubmit your draft for review, you can click the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. C F A 💬 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is so helpful! Thank you :) I've edited more and resubmitted it. Feedback and comments are always much appreciated. Enjoy your weekend! LuminousPathGlimmer (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

04:09, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Gvbkwikiya

I would like to delete the draft and start again. How can I do that? 

Gvbkwikiya (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the draft deletion has already been done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metroboy2011

I have put some references in place, put I am not sure, how to implement these. I am very new to this, I believe, the geocache description page is reputable enough as it is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Metroboy2011 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this collection of geocaches that show how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A Fandom wiki is user-editable, so it is not a valid source. The other source you use seems to just document the existence of this collection. You need independent reliable sources like news reports or published books that detail what makes this collection important/significant/influential. Personally, it seems unlikely to me that such sources would exist. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

Hello. I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi with reliable references and enough out sources but this page was declined. may I ask you why it was declined even though all the links and references were reliable? Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi but it has been declined. May I ask you why even though all the links and refences were true and reliable. Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolisrunner: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely insufficient referencing and lack of evidence of notability. Please study the decline notice, following all the links therein, which expand on the reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Mildm8nnered

I'd like to ask your advice regarding this article, which was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.". I'm trying to understand what I'm missing

The three references I've attached all

1. Dedicate multiple pages or a section to SwiftLint, according to their tables of contents.

2. Are references to published print books, published or distributed through mainstream publishers (Manning, Springer, etc)

3. Are independent of the subject

I'm not sure what I'm missing to meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent criteria.

I'd totally agree that the wording of my link to the references ("It is the most commonly recommended Swift linter") is slightly clumsy, but in terms of the references themselves, can you give me any clue as to what I'm missing? Mildm8nnered (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mildm8nnered You have done a good job documenting the existence of this software and what it does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the topic, more than just telling what it does or other routine information. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

Hello! My draft has been declined a few days ago (for a second time). I don't really understand why according to its edit history. The draft had been reviewed back in March and declined by User:DoubleGrazing who told me: "Possibly notable, but the sources cited are not enough to establish this." Furthermore, User:DoubleGrazing kindly explained to me: "We need to see at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary published sources (books, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and that have of their own volition (not 'sponsored' content, advertorial, based on press releases, etc.) provided significant coverage of the subject." So subsequently, I added four new in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources (University of Innsbruck, Austrian newspaper "Die Furche", Austrian newspaper "Der Standard", Austrian national brodcaster ORF) and submitted my draft for a re-review. Then, a few days ago the draft has been declined again but strangely for the same reason as back in March. I asked the reviewer (User:Youknowwhoistheman) for advice but until now they have not come back to me so I don't know what to do now. I would be very glad, if you could help me out here because I'm of the opinion that I did what was required from me and that the draft now meets the required standard. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Takeru Watanabe! I don't speak German, so please forgive me if I miss anything from the sources, but I'll see whether I can work out what's going on for you.
Source 1 (Hell) seems to be discussing the poetry of the winners of the prize in 2004, rather than anything about the prize itself, so this would not be considered significant coverage.
Source 2 (Zeller) looks like a great source - that's one!
Source 3 (Kinzl) - this one is identified as a blog in the URL, and although you've cited an author and university publisher I'm not actually sure how you got that information. It doesn't look much like a reliable, reputable source as presented. Is that definitely the right URL? And perhaps more importantly, is it a blog? Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, so that might be the problem.
Source 4 (OE1) is also a bit of a puzzler since on the surface it looks good, but I also don't see an author listed and I'm not certain how reliable the site is. The reviewer/s may have seen it as unreliable, or at least not been sure whether it was reliable or not - I tend to agree that this source may not be usable without more information (or possibly a reviewer who's very familiar with German sources).
Source 5 (Salto) suffers from the same problem as 1 (Hell) - it seems to focus on the winning poetry from 2024 rather than on the prize itself.
I hope that's at least a bit useful for you, and I will ping @DoubleGrazing and @Youknowwhoistheman for you to see if they have any feedback. As I'm not a reviewer, please take their advice over mine if we have conflicting ideas on sources! Best wishes and happy editing, StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked the two new sources added since I reviewed this, but for refs #1-3 I concur with StartGrammarTime; also to add that #3 is a primary source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:StartGrammarTime! Thank you very much for your answer which is very helpful for me.
Please let me explain what I - in light of your comments - now think about the different sources.
Source 1 (Hell): I used this source in order to verify that 1993 was the year in that the Merano Poetry Prize was established ("Man kann es dem Lyrikpreis Meran nicht hoch genug anrechnen, dass er seit 1993 nun schon zum siebten Mal die Devise "Lyrik im Gespräch" ausgegeben hat"). So, I think it serves this purpose.
Source 3 (Kinzl): This is no private blog but in fact the "iPoint-Archiv der Universität Innsbruck" (https://www.uibk.ac.at/archive/ipoint/blog/_ottereendex.html). Under www.uibk.ac.at/ you find the homepage of the University of Innsbruck. The "blog" is something like the university's internet log archive. The source therefore in my opinion is reliable and also reputable. As for the name Martina Kinzl: I didn't come up with that, it was added automatically so I'm going to remove this detail manually.
Concerning @User:DoubleGrazing's remark (Hi and thanks also to you!), I don't see how the University of Innsbruck is supposed to be a primary source in this context. The students visiting the event might be but they don't give the relevant statement which is: "Dieser Literaturpreis, der 1992 erstmals ausgeschrieben wurde, wird alle zwei Jahre vergeben und ist neben dem Leonce-und-Lena-Preis und dem Christine-Lavant-Preis einer der bedeutendsten und renommiertesten Lyrikpreise im deutschsprachigem Raum. Das Echo der internationalen Presse auf die Preisvergabe ist sehr groß. In diesem Jahr feierte der Meraner Lyrikpreis seine 10. Ausgabe." This statement is made by the Innsbrucker Germanistik-Institut as an institution: an information of a matter of fact.
Source 4 (OE1): Ö1 is part of the Austrian national broadcaster ORF which is the equivalent to the BBC in Great Britain and is broadly considered as the most reliable media source in Austria. The news delivered by ORF are usually not linked to specific authors. The boradcaster itself serves as the source of information.
Source 5 (Salto): This source has been added deliberately at the position "Winners/2024" to verify the names of the three winners in 2024. That's its only purpose.
Okay, I hope could shed some light on my way of thinking about the matter and the reasons for choosing these specific sources.
Please let me finally say something general: I noted that most of the articles about German-language literature prizes lack the required sources, for example even the famous Büchner Prize. I think the reason for that is that in the first place literature prizes can be considered as prestigious without being the topic of feature articles in major newspapers ever. You know what I mean?
Anyway, the Merano Poetry Prize is without doubt a highly prestigious international prize for German-language and I think many people would profit from it having an article in the English Wikipedia.
So, again thanks a lot for your help!
Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Immigrant laborer

I'm not sure why this was declined for lack of reliable sources. The article references dedicated pieces from the BBC, New York Times and Variety. Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has little information about what makes the show notable in the special way Wikipedia uses the word. The sources do little more than document the existence of the show. Some professional reviews of the show would probably help a lot.331dot (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lie; I'm worried that we're heading into Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock territory right now.

From the Variety source: 

Beginning in November, the show was an immediate hit, topping the ratings throughout its 12-week run. The final episode was watched by 1.5 million viewers, which equals 25% of the population.

- Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case part of the problem was a paywalled source (NYT), I've added an archive link for that one and also removed the external link in the text (since current policy is not to put them in the body of the article, and that's another small change that may help). To my not-super-experienced eyes you have good sources; I wonder whether adding information about why the show was created in the first place and perhaps a section on how it was received would improve the draft further? I know you do have a little bit about the reception of the show in the lede, but it's only a sentence and I'm positive there must be more.
I can see you've been around here for a lot longer than I have, @Immigrant laborer, but have you been hanging around in the article creation feedback/info pages? New articles are expected to be pretty darn good right off the bat, and I get the sense that much more is being asked of new articles now than it was even a few years ago. The problem with three sources is that if even one is inaccessible or unsuitable in some way, there's no backup.
If you'd like a volunteer, I'm now very interested in this show so I'd be happy to go digging for more sources if that would help you. Right now I'm not super coherent thanks to chronic pain nonsense, but I might even try my hand at a paragraph or two when my thoughts line up properly if you don't mind. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Egov.Press

Constant spam/promotion target by a blocked user/users. And no, these sources don't demonstrate notability. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good afternoon. I ask you to consider restoring the article about the petition site Egov.Press, since authoritative sources have appeared that prove the importance of the resource.

https://kaztag.kz/en/news/problems-with-access-to-the-popular-petition-site-alash-online-began-in-kazakhstan

https://press.kz/novosti/vkazahstane-zablokirovali-nezavisimiy-sayt-dlya-petitsiy-alash-online-iz-za-petitsii

https://newtimes.kz/obshchestvo/188824-kazakhstantsy-ispytyvaiut-trudnosti-s-dostupom-na-sait-petitsii-alash-online

https://zonakz.net/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-peticij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazaxstane/

https://time.kz/news/society/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-petitsij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazahstane 176.64.31.9 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you'll need to speak to the rejecting editor directly, @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the submit template so it can be re-submitted, I don't read Russian so can't assess the new sources and will recuse myself from reviewing again. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:42, 21 July 2024 review of submission by DFP32301

How do I include primary-source images taken on location at the flight-line during the Operation? DFP32301 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DFP32301: You don't. (Or, more specifically, the images will do nothing for the draft. Assuming they were done by an American government or military agent in the course of their duties, they are public-domain.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Party article

why was my draft declined? the sources I used are from university presses, the national library of Israel and teh isdrael democracy forum, all credible! The article for Mizrachi (political party), a party from this same tiem period, literally has ZERO citations and is still up... Rh0809 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Advanced
@Rh0809: please link to your draft, so we don't have to go hunting for it.
A university press isn't a source, it's a publisher; something they publish is a source. But in this case that source is cited with very little detail to indicate what it is, and what information in the draft it supports (giving the page range as "p 38-100" is also too broad to be useful). It's also not clear, to me at least, what the last source is. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification. Non-English sources are also acceptable, but it would be helpful for the benefit of all reviewers, and not just those who happen to read the language in question, if some information on the source was provided in English, possibly even a brief translation of the salient point you're wishing to rely on.
There are any number of problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. I agree that the Mizrachi (political party) article is unreferenced, and I have now tagged it as such; thank you for flagging that up. You're of course more than welcome to improve that article, or to begin deletion proceedings should you so wish.
One last point: please do not simply resubmit a draft without at least attempting to address the decline reasons. If you disagree with the review, you could just publish the article yourself, since you have the sufficient permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

09:10, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

Unclear as to where the sourcing issues are for this declined submission. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: you asked a very similar question here a couple of days ago, are you just repeating that question, or is there something you specifically wish to ask (and if so, what exactly)? Also, please don't start a new thread each time, just add to the existing one while it remains on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last post was addressing notability concerns in the article, which appear now to have been fixed. The new reason the declining the post was improper sourcing not notability. So I am asking what what are the examples of improper sourcing that need to be addressed. I recognise that certain sources used are not completely indpendent in certain cases (galleries in collaboration with VH), but in those cases they are used purely to describe an event occuring, such as an exhibition, not to evaulate its success or notability. This was deemed okay in a livechat with an editor. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Courtesy ping: SafariScribe – anything you can share? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia, there are many unsourced claims in your draft, and they are significant to meet WP:NCORP. Also remove the excessive peacock/advertorial/promotional terms. Let's take a look at "Venetian Heritage has funded over 70 restoration projects [1], 30 publications and organized over 35 exhibitions." The "35 exhibitions" isn't sourced. Same as "Venetian Heritage is a non-profit organization based in Venice and New York focused on the promotion and preservation of the art and architecture of Venice and the nations of the former Republic of Venice. It organizes and financially supports restoration and conservation projects in Venice, curates exhibitions worldwide and funds publications and research projects." I will strike like the above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Sienitoe

Requesting assistance editing the submitted draft for Tini Lam Yuen. The reason provided: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I'm new to Wiki and appreciate any helpful feedback or guidance on how to best address the review decision. Thank you. Sienitoe (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tini Inu Lam Yuen
@Sienitoe: at least half of the content is unreferenced. While someone who died nearly 30 years ago isn't subject to our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP), we still need to know where the information is coming from. You need to cite the sources, so that reviewers (and later, readers) can verify them if needed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Grantuk1996

I submitted an article with the above title on June 20th using the AFC submitting wizard. It said that the article is waiting to review and can take up to 4 months. Is this correct? As I've heard some articles are getting reviewed a lot quicker than that. Am I able to re-submit a different way to get it reviewed quicker? Grantuk1996 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantuk1996: yes, it is true, we have c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take anything up to three months or so. And yes, some drafts are reviewed much quicker than that, as the system isn't a queue, it's a pool. And no, there isn't another way to submit for a faster review.
What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.
Also, have you previously edited this or other drafts under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One way you could perhaps help the reviewers would be to cut down on the WP:REFBOMBING: we don't need to see 45 sources, most of which don't contribute towards notability; we need to see max. 4-5 sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard as required by WP:NCORP. One way to get rid of a large number of useless sources would be to remove the entire 'Prizes and awards' section, which is promotional and provides no encyclopaedic value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wabbit98

Why am I being picked on? Wabbit98 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wabbit98, no one is picking on you. You simply haven't proven notability under WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this school seems to be defunct, I would look at it instead as a historical landmark included in the NRHP, which should make it notable per WP:GEOFEAT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I agree, so have accepted. FYI @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, @Qcne, and @Wabbit98, I know the school, even as a defunct one is notable by appearing in the list, but i was a bit confused that the link doesn't point anywhere. It seems to be fixed now, and I love the acceptance; that I wanted to fix before accepting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

My submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Sources I have included are all reliable as far as I can tell - how can I get around this issue? MasterOfNone67 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterOfNone67: which set of sources are we talking about? You've referenced five sources via inline citations, which creates the customery footnotes at the bottom. You've then listed a number of external links under the heading 'References', without citing them anywhere, so it's difficult to know what information, if any, they are there to support. Perhaps you could clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wasif Raza1

I would like to inuqire, why arent we discussing it, as this company has over 1000 visitors daily across its website as well as retail store. 

Wasif Raza1 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasif Raza1: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence that the subject is notable; furthermore, it is pure advertising, and for that reason I have just requested speedy deletion. Please note that any sort of promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! How long will the review of this proposal take? Kamila Fomin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation process is very backlogged right now. There are almost 3000 submissions awaiting review. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few months. There is no "queue"; submissions are reviewed in no particular order. C F A 💬 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also take out all the peacock language. Who says the films are "acclaimed"? (No article should ever use such evaluative language, unless it is directly quoting a reliable independnet source).
You should look at every one of your sources critically: does it meet all three of the criteria in 42? If it doesn't, what is it doing there? ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: if you want to avoid a quick decline, you should reference the draft appropriately; currently the first three sections are virtually unsupported – where does all that information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Ratbabyjones

I am respectfully requesting a specific example of what is NOT in an encyclopedic tone and/or what in this article constitutes a peacock term. All information is factual and cited. I would also appreciate some clarification about why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on a lack of "independent, reliable, published sources," as there are multiple references to LA Times coverage specific to Bermudez and spanning multiple decades. Thank you for any help you are able to provide. Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratbabyjones: The draft is mostly a curriculum vitae. A little more prose will go a very long way here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned more prose will be considered non-neutral or peacocking. Any advice? Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratbabyjones: Keep It Simple. Stick strictly to summarising what the sources explicitly say, do not extrapolate or editorialise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Coolelvin2

Don't edit Wikipedia regularly so I need help developing this article. I like Sydney Parrish and think she deserves a page. Coolelvin2 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolelvin2: you need to cite your sources (where you got all this information), and you also need to show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

Hello WikiProject Help,

I need to make a small edit to my submitted draft and want to know if it'll change my position on the waiting list so far. Also, is there a limit on how many times I should resubmit a draft for review?

Best, Wynee Wyneep (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wyneep:
You're welcome to continue editing your draft while you wait for a review. The draft has no 'position', as the system is not a queue, but rather a pool.
In theory at least, you can keep submitting as many times as you like, as long as you're making meaningful improvements in response to reviewer comments. It's normaly only when it looks like the draft isn't developing any further, or there's no realistic prospect of acceptance, that it will be rejected outright.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Why did you disclose a conflict of interest (COI) on your user page, and then delete that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Melodata

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional basketball players wiki pages. I don’t understand. This is a well known professional athlete Melodata (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melodata: whether or not the sources are reliable, they in any case don't establish notability per the general WP:GNG guideline. Personally, I would have declined for that reason, rather. And I don't see anything there that would obviously satisfy either WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Melodata: As of February 2023 top-level play no longer guarantees notability; there are still a lot of basketball articles that were written under the old guideline that have yet to be re-examined yet. You need to have non-routine sources that discuss the player. Statlines and profiles will not cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Shinaimm

Hi, this page waits for a long time. Emily is a famous journalist in Israel and also appear in media around the world. Can you please review her page again? It waits for a lot of months... Shinaimm (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 71.224.206.35

Hello - I submitted a biography article and it was declined for not having adequate sources. I included scholarly articles and would love more guidance to ensure I include the necessary materials to get this approved. Please advise. Thank you! 71.224.206.35 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Elekesabel

I'm wondering why the submission was declined. What is missing and how could I improve the page?

Clayton R. Paul is a highly esteemed scientist, highly notable in his scientific field, author of numerous publications and books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Here it says that for an academic "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".

For context: I'm a researcher at the Northeastern University, Network Science Institute. We are working on a project, which aims to understand the differences between Human-curated encyclopedias and Machine-created knowledge. As part of this project we plan to upload 100 articles of notable scientist to Wikipedia in the following weeks. Our goal is to understand how can we influence the visibility of marginalized groups, both on human-curated and machine-created knowledge bases.

We would love to receive feedback on the feasibility of our plans and how would you recommend approaching the articles.

Ábel Elekes, PhD Elekesabel (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elekesabel: WP:NACADEMIC is actually the criteria you need to meet, not the stricter NPERSON. Read over NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Thank you! I'm wondering how the person in the draft is not meeting the criteria? He has clearly made huge contribution to his scientific field. Elekesabel (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does not make this clear. You write "Clayton R. Paul was a globally recognized expert in electromagnetic compatibility", but don't say who gives this recognition or what specifically led to it. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Achehawaii

I want to make sure this is published as a scholarly article Achehawaii (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1236090595"