Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MJSC123 (talk | contribs)
57 edits
No edit summary
Line 477: Line 477:


:@[[User:Kingsqw|Kingsqw]]: you don't (go about it). Having had this twice rejected (and soon twice deleted) means the topic isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and you should drop it and find something else to write about. By and large drafts on "upcoming" anything are unlikely to be accepted, because Wikipedia is never the first source to publish content on someone or something; significant coverage must already exist in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources elsewhere. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Kingsqw|Kingsqw]]: you don't (go about it). Having had this twice rejected (and soon twice deleted) means the topic isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and you should drop it and find something else to write about. By and large drafts on "upcoming" anything are unlikely to be accepted, because Wikipedia is never the first source to publish content on someone or something; significant coverage must already exist in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources elsewhere. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

== Request on 12:01:38, 1 August 2023 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by MJSC123 ==
{{anchor|12:01:38, 1 August 2023 review of submission by MJSC123}}
{{Lafc|username=MJSC123|ts=12:01:38, 1 August 2023|declinedtalk=User_talk:MJSC123}}

<!-- Start of message -->
Hi, my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elcka was deleted completely unnecessarily , the copyright notice has been added to the page which they say the content was copied from. Alot of time & effort went into creating this page & it was totally unnecessary to delete it so quickly. Why didn't they com back with comments. Please kindly reinstate the recently deleted version of this page. The notice has been added to allow the content to be reused & it can be reworded to it's not copied & pasted content:

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.elcka.net/biography.asp. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MJSC123

<!-- End of message -->[[User:MJSC123|MJSC123]] ([[User talk:MJSC123|talk]]) 12:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:01, 1 August 2023

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

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


July 26

06:57, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Southpaw70

Does this qualify as a stub article? The album is in pre-order and I have time to add some more existing information. There will be more additional information to add once the album is released. Southpaw70 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Southpaw70: the verifiability and notability requirements are the same for a stub as for any other article. The sources currently cited in this draft are insufficient to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

According to an authentic source, I have written an article about it. However, it was rejected by another user. I would appreciate guidance from someone on how to improve this article. Incognitopublisher (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased films generally do not merit articles. The discussions about salaries don't override that. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Davsonbob57

I made some small corrections in the draft originally submitted. Assistance needed. Davsonbob57 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davsonbob57: this draft has been rejected, and looks likely to be deleted shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 26 July 2023 review of submission by EuroDigi

Hi! Why was my article declined and how I can rectify? EuroDigi (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EuroDigi: do you mean Draft:Rupa Euro? This draft has been not just declined, but rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Midnightkidnaper

requesting help for writing aritcle Midnightkidnaper (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Midnightkidnaper. Your draft was deleted due to unambiguous advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a topic. It is not social media like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn and is not a business directory.
Do you have any specific questions about creating an article draft that meets our strict requirements? Please read Help:Your first article. Qcne (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:58, 26 July 2023 review of draft by Mouse1948


I need help understanding what are reliable sources and inline citations. Once understanding them how to physically add them to my draft Mouse1948 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For referencing assistance, please see Referencing for beginners. Please read about reliable sources, but in short reliable sources have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.(they don't make stuff up or print stuff without checking it for accuracy) 331dot (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Alexxxxx125

My article keep on deleting over and over i dont why Alexxxxx125 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexxxxx125. Your sandbox articles are wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, as they serve only to promote a subject. This is not permitted. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Let us know if you have any more questions. Qcne (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 103.15.255.71

Where is the issue and what is the solution please guide this article belongs to film production many artist workers associated with this and get work..They also edit many information for this page time to time which is beneficial for others.. Please guide and publish this article on one of the greatest encyclopedia ie wikipedia. Thanks 103.15.255.71 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
You do not link an draft article, and your contribution history shows no articles that have been created in draft. Could you link us to the draft article in question please? Qcne (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with if the presence of an article benefits anyone(such as getting people a job). 331dot (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 166.48.119.67

Y 166.48.119.67 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:44, 26 July 2023 review of draft by BarnardLog


Is there a way to add tags to a submitted draft?

BarnardLog (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BarnardLog: you can add project tags either before or after submitting, if that's what you're asking. More generally, you can edit submitted drafts in exactly the same way as before submission. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 26 July 2023 review of submission by Arumu

My article in regards to the Biography of a person, keeps getting rejected with feedback from reviewer as references not enough. Please advise. Here is the submitted article. Cynthia Lourde is an American Movie Producer [1] [2] [3] [4], Actor[5] [6] [7] [8], Singer [9] [10] [11] & Philanthropist [12] [13]. She Produced a Movie 'Varnashramam' [14] [15] [16] [17] under her company 'Cynthia ProductionHouse' [18], Movie was released theatrically on February 10, 2023 [19] [20] [21] [22]. She was a debut as female lead in 'Varnashramam’, Media & Press were describing her acting skills were great & amazing that she lived the role though she is a debut actor [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. She was inspired to make movies after her involvement through Non-profit charity HFCIC [28] that she founded to help the special needs children community [29]. References 1. https://views7media.blogspot.com/2023/02/blog-post_9 2. https://www.tamilstar.com/varnashraman-movie-audio-launch-stills/ 3. https://mobiritz.com/entertainment/top-5-most-powerful-film-producers/ 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQfOSQrRDAU 5. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/cynthia-lourde 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM&t=7s 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4KEOxxj8O8 8. https://epaper.deccanchronicle.com/epaper_main.aspx#2626373 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4cLW0Jt33E 10. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/tamil/varnashramam-song-kolai-vizhum-lyrical/videoshow/97732136.cms 11. https://open.spotify.com/artist/3iQeH5gSYOQgcqXoDliNVK 12. https://hfcic.org/ 13. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-10-05/hfcic-launches-new-services-regarding-chronically-ill-children 14. https://www.tamilstar.com/varnashraman-movie-audio-launch-stills/ 15. https://views7media.blogspot.com/2023/02/blog-post_9.html 16. http://flickstatus.com/tamil/66780.html 17. https://behindframes.in/varnasramam-movie-trailer-screening-in-varisu-and-thunivu-release-theaters/ 18. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpm45sOHHb9jWeFMbbmbvWg 19. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-details/varnashramam/movieshow/97775770.cms 20. https://in.bookmyshow.com/movies/varnashramam/ET00352047 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM 22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzQcdpUTlM&t=7s 23. http://flickstatus.com/tamil/67095.html 24. https://www.startcutaction.in/varnashramam-movie-review/ 25. https://gtamilnews.com/varnasramam-movie-review/ 26. https://bakkiyamcinematv.com/12747-2/ 27. http://epaper.deccanchronicle.com/epaper_main.aspx 28. https://hfcic.org 29. https://publicistpaper.com/how-can-hfcic-help-chronically-ill-children/ 

Arumu (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not copy and paste draft articles here. The draft exists; we can see it.
Please confirm that you have read and understood the reviews. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 26 July 2023 review of submission by 81.151.20.32

unsure how to redraft the article to read less like an essay as stated in the rejection. 81.151.20.32 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing like an essay usually happens when you make the mistake of writing from your own knowledge and thoughts. But Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). It is only interested in what the reliable sources say. A Wikipedia article should never advance an argument or a hypothesis, or reach a conclusion. It may, of course, summarise an argument or a conclusion presented in a single cited source.
You start off with a definition; but is that term ("ideological fascism") actually in use? It might be in the single source that you cite, but it is not in the title or abstract (I'm ignoring the dictionary citation, which is generally irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article). Indeed, you have given us no reason to believe that the specific phrase "ideological fascism" even exists as a concept that has been written about, and so is a possible topic for a Wikipedia article.
Your job is to find the reliable sources (probably academic papers) that discuss specifically the term "ideological fascism", and summarize what they say about it - nothing more. If you cannot find several such sources (and they will need not to be all from the same author(s)) then no article is possible at present. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 26 July 2023 review of submission by MandaQoP

Hi,

I put together a page for Mixkit Draft:Mixkit as it was missing from the library of stock footage Stock_footage. The stock footage page has a note at the top saying that it does not represent a worldwide view, so I added Mixkit as it is an Australian stock footage site and I use Mixkit for creating videos on TikTok/Instagram etc... plus it appears in a lot of articles about stock footage sites. The editor for the stock footage page said that Mixkit needed it's own Wikipedia article before it could be added to the list, so I've spent the past week gathering resources that met the criteria after reading through the notable references page, so found sources from universities, educational sites etc..., I then spent three days working on the article to ensure it didn't sound like an advert and was just factual information about the Mixkit library. I based my initial outline on the Shutterstock article as this is an approved article.

The reviewer for the draft Mixkit article declined it very quickly, literally within a few hours of submitting it, so I'm wondering if the references were read? Perhaps the first few were read and these were not good enough so others further down were missed, in which case is it possible to know which ones so they can be removed? All references were checked with the notable references tool WP:RSP. The reviewer's comment says that the references should mention the object of the article in detail and not in passing, for most of the references, the entire reference is either about the Mixkit library or contains detailed information and is not a comment in passing.

The reviewer also said it is worded like an advertisement. I was extremely careful to not word it like this but maybe my idea of factual is different than theirs. I also reviewed other stock library articles that have been approved to see examples of how to best word the article. If any sections are worded like an advertisement, please advise which parts and I will remove or change them.

Any help or guidance for further improvements to the page would be appreciated.

Thanks, Amanda

Update Edit: I've re-read my draft and the first paragraph I agree that the sources aren't great, so will work on those. I've rechecked some of the other stock footage library articles that are approved, most have similar sources, and some of have fewer sources, including some with sources that no longer work (404s). But I'll spend the weekend trying to find some better sources and hopefully will improve that side of things. Still need to know which bits sound like an advert though as this was something I tried extremely hard to avoid. 

MandaQoP (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MandaQoP! Sorry for the wall of text, don't feel pressure to read it all at once. 😁
I'm the reviewer who declined the article. First of all, the reason I reviewed it so quickly is that I usually review submissions that were submitted within the last day, because that's usually when the editors are more likely to fix the issues and resubmit, hopefully to be approved eventually. So even though it says there's a four-month backlog, sometimes they get reviewed much sooner, because it isn't a queue and different reviewers have different habits for that kind of thing.
Anyway, I'm happy to answer your questions and thanks for being so willing to learn! The main thrust of advertising/promotional tone comes down to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Not only do claims in articles have to be supported by reliable sources, but we also have to avoid making positive or negative claims that don't exhibit due weight for inclusion. The first thing that stands out is that the first sentence says the assets are "high-quality". That may well be true, but it's subjective, and the first sentence of an article is subject to even stricter rules than the rest of it. The cited source also calls the stock clips "amazing" and you might find it easier to see why that wouldn't be appropriate to include in the article.
Continuing through the article I see a few more instances of promotional tone, but to be honest it's not egregious. Sentences like However, its potential to extend its offerings to a broader audience was soon recognized seem to serve only to puff up the subject and aren't written in an encyclopedic tone. Calling the assets "exclusive" also stands out to me as something that sounds good but doesn't really mean anything, like the notorious "solutions", which crops up endlessly on drafts about startup businesses. The "Features" section is mostly fine, but a licensing model that is easy to understand and use is not verifiable (unless there are multiple sources establishing this licensing model as particularly easy to use, which doesn't seem to be the case) and is solely promotional, as is a whole subsection about how accessible their user interface is.
The main issue, however, would be the sources. Wikipedia's policies on sources can be a lot to take in, so let me go through the ones that were present at time of review and explain why they are or aren't appropriate. Note that if a source is reliable, it may still not be sufficient to establish notability—I'll point out where this applies. Non-reliable sources should not be used at all.
1. de.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is user-generated and cannot be a reliable source.
2, 6. Australian Financial Review's Rich List. AFR is a reliable source, but the Ta'eed's entry on the list does not even mention Mixkit. Be careful here: you wrote in the article that Envato's founders, the Ta'eeds, founded Mixkit, and cited two sources—one that says Mixkit is an Envato product, and one that says the Ta'eeds founded Envato. This is a sneaky issue, but what you've done is called synthesis and it's a form of original research that Wikipedia editors and articles must avoid. There could be any number of reasons why the Ta'eeds weren't at all involved in the creation of Mixkit. We have to stick to exactly what the sources say.
3. AFR article on Envato. Again, this source is reliable, but only mentions Mixkit in passing as a way Envato might counter their economic downturn. It can be used to cite stated facts, but lacks the significant coverage necessary to establish notability.
4. Mixkit reviews, Slashdot. I'm surprised to see Slashdot doesn't have an entry on the list of perennial sources, but this review page at least doesn't appear to me to be reliable. The description reads like an ad and I would guess there wasn't any editorial oversight here. I'd avoid using it.
5. Envato Facts and Figures. This is a primary source and should be avoided except to support entirely uncontroversial statements—basically, statements that a subject has no reason to lie about. I would say that does apply here, as it's only supporting that Mixkit is an Envato product, but in any case cannot establish notability. After all, if primary sources could establish notability, then anyone could write a few articles about themselves and get their own page.
7. Startup Galaxy. This source cannot be considered independent since it is a platform for investors. Therefore they are going to be biased when describing the companies they deal with.
8. Mixkit.co. Primary source, the above issues apply here also.
9-10. producthunt.com. Content on this website is user-generated and not reliable.
11. 12 best stock music sites of 2022 for creatives, creativeboom.com. Listicles like these are often paid for by the products they promote, and sometimes even provide affiliate links that benefit the publication directly. I'm sure there are some that are reliable, but I'd err on the side of not using them.
12. 12 bancos de videos gratuitos para usar en tus redes sociales, hootsuite.com. Same issues as above, plus this is a blog post and doesn't have editorial oversight. Not reliable.
13. Legally sourcing images, music and videos, RMIT University. This is a funny one: the title and source sound official, but following the link we see that it's just a designer at the university posting about her favorite sources. Not significant coverage and probably not reliable.
14. Mixkit, educatorstechnology.com. There isn't a single word in this article that doesn't aggressively promote Mixkit, and right on the sidebar it says "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases". While the Amazon thing doesn't apply to this article, those two facts make me confident in calling this source unreliable.
15. CEU Podcast Library. Similarly to the RMIT source, it's just a post about where they like to get resources.
16. Mixkit Review, Kripesh Adwani. This article contains affiliate links and is therefore not an independent source.
17. 20 Truly Best Stock Video Websites and Libraries, freeforvideo.com. Same issues as similar articles above.
18. Video Assets, Xavier University. This link is dead, but it seems like it was similar to the RMIT and CEU sources discussed above.
19. Mixkit License, mixkit.co. It's fine to use this as a source for the terms of the license itself, but as discussed, cannot establish notability due to its status as a primary source.
20. mixkit.co, trustpilot.com. Trustpilot reviews are user-generated and therefore not reliable.
21. Honorable Mention - Mixkit, awwwards.com. The content of this page is one short sentence. I'd avoid using it as a reliable source, but even if it were, it's not significant coverage.
22. How to Find and Use Media Assets Legally, Berkeley. Same issues as RMIT and CEU sources above, though this source does seem better overall. Still doesn't cover Mixkit significantly, however.
23. Mixkit, freetech4teachers.com. This is a personal blog and would generally be considered unreliable unless proven reliable through its own notability.
Well, I hope that all helps. As a general rule, stick to news articles about the subject. If you can't find any, then it probably doesn't meet the guidelines for its own Wikipedia page. Also note that just because other articles exist, that doesn't mean this one should be similar—it's entirely possible that those articles are poorly sourced and need improvement or deletion. WPscatter t/c 23:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of amazing information, thank you. I'll go and do some rewrites. MandaQoP (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

01:17, 27 July 2023 review of submission by NoelineKyle

How do I delete the redirect notice on my sandbox page re Catherine Tully, I have already accepted that it has been rejected and am fine with that. However, I cannot submit any new names/etc until the redirect is deleted from my page and I just cannot find how to do that? Thank you NoelineKyle (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoelineKyle: if you mean your sandbox draft Draft:NoelineKyle/sandbox, then you were always able to edit that page. All the same, I've deleted the redir which was there.
Secondly, just to clarify, the Draft:Catherine Tully draft was only declined, not rejected, so once you've addressed the decline reason(s), you're welcome to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to begin a new submission but I can't because the draft thingo on my sandbox will not let me do anything and I don't know what the redirect means? I can't send it anywhere, I can't delete it and I can't use my sandbox to start a new submission?????
I won't be pursuing Catherine Tully again as looking at the notables list I don't think she fits as a person suitable for Wikipedia on her own... and I am not interested in researching the 19 others who received the 1914 Star (mons ribbon) so that I could maybe do that...
All I want is to understand what the redirect message means and how I can just rid of it as it is blocking me from doing anything?
Sorry to be so befuddled but I have tried everything
Noeline NoelineKyle (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoelineKyle: sorry, I earlier blanked your sandbox in the draft name space, whereas you probably meant User:NoelineKyle/sandbox? I've now blanked that as well, so you should be able to use it normally now. Does that help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Toddkatz

In discussing why this article was rejected one of your editors going by the name Dragonfly-6-7 essentially compared my submission and other Wikipedia articles out these as an unflushed public toilet. I don't think this was a personal comment and I don't believe the editor had actually reviewed my submission. And I did get the point. I mention this because it seems unlikely that this course appoarch to discourse will encourage folks to submit articles to Wikipedia or donate to your worthwhile organization (as I have done for many years).

"If you found an unflushed public toilet, would you think a) this needs to be cleaned up or b) I guess I don't need to flush eitehr(sic) ?" Toddkatz (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toddkatz: what is your question / how can we help you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toddkatz You have been trying for 7 years to create the article Draft:Clipperz Password Manager do you have any conflict of interest? Please disclose this on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone apparently has deleted my user page which is quite shocking to me. To answer your question I am a user of the Clipperz Password Manager. I have no other relationship with the company but I do have a long-standing interest in innovative freeware. There are many other password managers on Wikipedia and it seems to me that Clipperz is at least as relevant/notable because of their cryptographic achievements. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand why my user page would be deleted. Did it contain objectionable content? What was that content? Toddkatz (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddkatz: I requested that your user page be deleted, because it contained a copy of the Clipperz draft, which contravenes WP:UPNOT, including but not only the point about WP:FAKEARTICLE. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was wondering about that. I hadn't looked at the page since 2016. I didn't realize it was against the rules which I assume were also in place back in 2016 also. Thank you. Toddkatz (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:13, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Gulfray01

i'm his fan Gulfray01 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulfray01: okay... did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes why he is not in google search? Gulfray01 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've absolutely no idea. Maybe you need to ask Google, or him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok why he is not in wikipedia? Gulfray01 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody has written an article about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so please write an article about him Gulfray01 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works, Gulfray01. It is you who is expected to write the article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 27 July 2023 review of submission by 103.233.141.117

The reason for requesting assistance in writing a Wikipedia article about Paresh Nanda is likely because he is a notable individual who has made significant contributions and achievements in various fields, such as entrepreneurship, digital marketing, app development, and social entrepreneurship. His journey from a BSc-IT graduate to a successful entrepreneur, combined with his innovative thinking and social initiatives, makes him a noteworthy figure in the digital era.

Creating a Wikipedia article for notable individuals like Paresh Nanda is a way to document their life, accomplishments, and impact on society in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Wikipedia aims to provide unbiased and verifiable information, making it a reliable source for readers seeking to learn about notable figures and their contributions. By having a Wikipedia article, Paresh Nanda's story and achievements can reach a broader audience and be preserved for future reference. 103.233.141.117 (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is awaiting deletion. Please don't try to use Wikipedia for promoting anyone or anything. Thank you.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is filled with promotional fluff like exemplifies the power of determination, hard work, and innovative thinking, and vast swathes are entirely unreferenced. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article, which must be well-referenced and written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Davdotfam

This is not a promotional content, this is a first editor trying to get his first article published. Davdotfam (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what's to be done to make the article formed into a wikipedia standard? Davdotfam (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Davdotfam. Unfortunately this article has been Rejected so cannot be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Your draft, despite repeated comments from reviewers, still contains promotional language. Qcne (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional language as how? what's the escape route? to make it fit for wikipedia? Davdotfam (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do, @Davdotfam. At this time Tomike cannot have a Wikipedia article. Here is some example of promotional, non-neutral, language in your draft. I've underlined the problematic language:
- her exceptional creativity and unwavering determination earned her the esteemed recognition as an exemplary role model
- same prestigious prize
- recognition of her outstanding contributions, she achieved the esteemed Pulse Award in 2021, securing the distinguished title
- assumed the prestigious role of serving as an ambassador for the renowned brand Maltina, sharing this esteemed position with the esteemed personalities
- Tomike further solidified her prominence in the realm of brand endorsements by entering into a valuable partnership with Pastel Africa
If you want to start writing Wikipedia articles, you must very closely read the following policies, otherwise your articles will keep being rejected:
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, would read and remodified the article Davdotfam (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much point, @Davdotfam. As I have said the draft was rejected. If an article has been rejected, it cannot be submitted for review again. You can appeal directly to @Greenman.
However, five separate reviewers have looked at this draft over the last 13 months and it has been declined each time. I think you are fighting a loosing battle with this draft and would really recommend writing about something else. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Kwaro1

The articles has a reliable source so how could I improve the article. Kwaro1 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kwaro1. Unfortunately this article has been Rejected so cannot be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (music) which explains why Dauda, at the moment, does not pass the notability threshold. Qcne (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Prernamina

could not find tool bar for adding references Prernamina (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prernamina. If you are using the new Visual Editor to edit Wikipedia, have a look at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 which explains how to use it.
If you are using the Source Editor, read Help:Referencing for beginners instead.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Fullyloaded98

I don't understand why the article has been rejected? What do I need to do in order for the article to be published on Wikipedia? Fullyloaded98 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fullyloaded98: as it says in the decline notice, this draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. You list (without actually citing) only two sources under 'References', one of which (IMDb) is not considered reliable. In any article, but especially so in articles on living people, every material statement and anything potentially contentious must be clearly supported by inline citation to a reliable published source. See WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no problem I add references Kwaro1 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I also should have added that the sources cited must also establish that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Usually this requires sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Jonnycc23

I am creating a creating an Article for the new Windsor & Eton Football club, which was first rejected for not having good enough references. I have now added multiple references. It was then rejected for not being Notable enough, but the previous incarnations of Windsor (& Eton) Football club all have articles therefore surely this is notable enough, otherwise it is inconsistent? Jonnycc23 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonnycc23. Firstly your article was only declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean you wouldn't be able to resubmit for review.
Sports clubs need to pass the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. This criteria has gotten more strict as time has gone on, so previous articles which may have been created might no longer pass this threshold. Wikipedia has millions of articles so it is difficult to check that all of them pass!
Your first source can't count towards notability as it is a press release. Your fourth source is better, but really we'd need to see at least three sources that discuss the club in detail and provide analysis/interpretation.
I wonder if it might be Wikipedia:Too soon for this club to have an article. It may work better as a separate section under Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892)? Not an expert on sports though, so those are just my musings. Qcne (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a number of different sources now, which provide more detail.
I disagree that it would be better as a separate section under Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892) as it is a completely new club, and could be likely to cause confusion. Jonnycc23 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Kikipepper

Need Assistance for Approving a Biographical Article

I am currently creating a biographical article on Todd K. Rosengart, a notable figure in Cardiothoracic Surgery, among his accomplishment is performing the world's first viral-based gene cardiac transfer procedure and medical entrepreneurship, founder of vitals.com. While I have taken care to ensure all facts presented are accurate and appropriately sourced, I'm finding it challenging to meet the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies. I've reviewed the relevant guidelines and tried my best to follow them, but I seem to be missing something. Therefore, I am seeking for assistance from experienced Wikipedians to review my draft and provide feedback on how I might improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards for bios.

The draft can be found here: Draft:Todd K. Rosengart

Thank you, Kikipepper (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are to search results of a patent office, and large portions of the draft are unsourced. Any article about this doctor should not just document their accomplishments, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the doctor. You said "among his accomplishment is performing the world's first viral-based gene cardiac transfer procedure" but that statement in the draft is not sourced.
Are you associated with this doctor in some way? 331dot (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Marigonnahalilaj

I wrote the article based on what I found online for the store. I didn't do it to advertise the company in this case and i am not using wiki for advertising. I would like to know what is triggering it as advertise and how should I proceed? Marigonnahalilaj (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marigonnahalilaj, the language in the draft is overtly promotional, and promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read about the neutral point of view and the notability guideline for businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Language like It has become a beloved destination for candy enthusiasts of all ages and a passionate candy lover who had a dream of creating a haven for sweet-toothed individuals. Sherri, with his extensive knowledge of candies and confectionery, opened the shop with the goal of providing a delightful experience to customers and bringing back the nostalgia of childhood treats is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 27 July 2023 review of submission by MargaretZ26

Hi! Wondering how to better source this, as a lot of information is being pulled from the same source (the curriculum vitae). Any tips in general would be great! MargaretZ26 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, it needs "Draft:". 331dot (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MargaretZ26 What is your association with Mr. Flesher? You claimed the professionally taken image of him as your own work, meaning that you personally took the image and that he posed for you.
Your draft seems to just summarize his official biographies from organizations he is affiliated with. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as defined by Wikipedia. Large portions of the draft are unsourced. For example, you say "Flesher has written extensively on ethical issues in accounting and has contributed to the discussion on ethical behavior and decision-making in the profession" but don't provide a source for that claim or describe what makes this important. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a research assistant for CWRU. My supervisor wants me to upload/update the profiles of accounting scholars. I must have uploaded the photo incorrectly because I didn't take it, so I will take it down. If I figure out who took the photo, I will re-upload it with the correct information. MargaretZ26 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MargaretZ26. You must make the Paid contributions disclosure with your next edit. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Then, read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia, and share that page with your supervisor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 27 July 2023 review of submission by 2C0F:2A80:9:C610:F192:9B7:126F:16FA

Please i need assistance on Draft:Coker Close Series. 2C0F:2A80:9:C610:F192:9B7:126F:16FA (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

03:07:10, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Hameltion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Patricia Goldman. A review is requested for a draft (possible Recent deaths nomination) by an editor with a conflict of interest (me). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Dineshmhatre

Am I doing anything wrong or page for Rajaram Salvi can not be created at all? Dineshmhatre (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineshmhatre: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability (and, I might add, any obvious claim of noteworthiness, meaning even if accepted it would inevitably be deleted on sight). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 28 July 2023 review of submission by JAMB2023

I could not upload images for the articles I wrote, including this one. It says my IP is blocked. But, I can write and edit articles. JAMB2023 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Horace1850

Clarification on article submission rejection.

This article was declined as the reviewer stated the article doesn't meet the criteria for academic notability in its current form. The subject of the article is the current Chair of GuildHE, which is cited in the article from a third party source. GuildHE is a major higher education body in the UK, representing 57 universities. This chair position aligns with point five of the academic notability criteria:

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon

The subject of the article has also been CEO of UCAS, which is a major Higher Education institution, and CEO the higher education Quality Assurance Agencies in the UK (QAA) and Australia (TEQSA) who are/were the academic regulators of both countries. These are also supported by third party sources.

With this context in mind, please can you clarify why this hasn't been accepted so that I can redraft accordingly. Horace1850 (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horace1850: I don't think his positions at GuildHE, UCAS, etc. satisfy NACADEMIC #5, as that criterion explicitly refers to professorial roles only. His VC'ship at St Mary's might meet #6 of the same standard, albeit that it's not immediately clear whether St Mary's can be regarded as a "major academic institution" (in any sense of 'major'). If you could find sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, that would be one way to get around these concerns. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have a further clarification I would appreciate your insight on. Are there alternative criteria for this page to be considered under - the subject's roles at UCAS, TEQSA and QAA are more aligned to civil service and government and are all significant/notable institutions with their own wikipedia pages. Horace1850 (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horace1850: I considered that, but I think the answer is no. In the vast majority of cases, notability is established by the general WP:GNG route. WP:BIO lists a few special exceptions to this, applicable to people, of which the aforementioned WP:NACADEMIC is one. Government and civil service would come under another special guideline, WP:NPOL, but that covers legislators and other high-level political figures (and judges), not those in the civil service per se, or those working for quangos, charities or other public and third sector bodies of that ilk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance! Horace1850 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Yodamaster1

There are multiple references in the article, which are:

  • in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • independent of the subject

which are provided by professors of mathematics, other educational projects referenced and software built in the project as well as examples of the type of resources created by the SMILE organization.

I do need help with the formatting of references though. Yodamaster1 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yodamaster1.
There are only two references in this draft - the vast majority of your content is unreferenced. Every statement in your draft should have an appropriate reference, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia:Original research. Readers need to be able to verify all the content in an article. Your two existing references do look appropriate, but either your draft should be a lot shorter and just paraphrase these two references in your own words, or you need a bunch more reliable, independent, secondary references that discusses SMILE in detail. Qcne (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C

I need help understanding which references are allowed. Thank you! 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Courtesy link: Draft:Lynn Sorensen. I am afraid that your draft has been rejected and therefore Lynn can not have an article on Wikipedia at this time, there is nothing you can do. For future reference, a reference cannot be a Wikipedia article (because Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, as it is Wikipedia:User-generated content), and a reference cannot be a random Google Search for "Bad Company Live at Wembley" for hopefully obvious reasons. I would have a read of Wikipedia:Referencing which explains why all articles must have robust references. Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sarahafifi

Article should be reviewed Sarahafifi (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kayed Afifi OutsideNormality (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sarahafifi. Could you let us know how Kayed passes the criteria set out in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold? Qcne (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne
Talking about a real person ( poet ), I have added supporting references, I did my part as a wiki user but I need support from others. Sarahafifi (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sarahafifi I am sure nobody is doubting that they are a real person, but what you need to do is explain how they pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 109.76.88.29

My son is doing a project on this author and there is no Wikipedia entry for him. There should be one! 109.76.88.29 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your son should not be using Wikipedia as a source for any scholarly work, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 28 July 2023 review of draft by Nawaazpoi


I am requesting help as this is my first submission and it was rejected for using peacock terms, not enough references to sources and not using a neutral tone. I have modified the original submission and use more of a neutral tone and encyclopaedic writing style I have also added references. I now need help for any other reasons why my submission may be rejected again. I would welcome any improvements or suggestions.

Nawaazpoi (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nawaazpoi. Your article has only been declined - if it was "rejected" you'd not be able to resubmit for review. A few issues with the language jump out at me:
- Today, it stands as a natural space, reflecting the area's transformation... this sentence is not written in an encyclopaedic way.
- equivalent to the height of five "Angels of the North" sculptures stacked on top of each other... let's not have random measurements, stick to the facts.
- Addison Village, a close-knit community, flourished around the pit... not very encyclopaedic.
- diligently working... peacock wording.
- the reserve offers an opportunity to experience the reserve while respecting the delicate environment. this is marketing speech.
Quite a lot of the History section is closely paraphrased from [1]https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/4454/The-history-of-Addison-and-Hedgefield-Woods. Sometimes a little too closely, though. I would cut down a lot of the fluff from this, and if you can find some secondary sources so you're not just relying on Gateshead Council's website.
And then there's a few issues with sourcing, which again I'll point out below:
- evidence suggesting that mining activities were carried out here during the Roman era. What evidence? This needs to be sourced.
- mining rights were granted to Queen Elizabeth I by the Bishop of Durham How can I check this is fact? It need a source.
- this event marked a significant technological advancement. Why did it make a significant technological advancement? Who said it did?
- In June 2014, the management of Addison and Hedgefield Reserve... Source?
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey QCNE, thanks for your help you have valid points I have made changes to the next revision of my submission and hopefully I can correct the errors you have pointed out I have also included more sources and references like you said.
Thanks again Nawaazpoi (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sebrandon

Hi, I'm having trouble getting this Wikipedia page up and running. I thought I sufficiently addressed Greenman's edits but the second reviewer said I didn't. What should I do next? Sebrandon (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the nature of it?
You still have an external link in the text(at the beginning). Such a link should go in a section at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90

Hello, please i need help in reviewing this article this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya

It has as been declined a couple of times and i also follow recommendations of the reviewers. but yet they keep declining for different reasons each time I resubmit

I also requested for help through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_help_disclaimer. Some people there were kind enough to make some corrections and other suggestions.

The following changes have been made to the article to improve its neutrality: The promotional tone of the article has been removed. The article now presents a more balanced view of Oresanya's career, including both his successes and his challenges. The article now uses more neutral language, avoiding subjective statements and opinions. 

Semilore90 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 162.33.234.234

Hello Help Desk, I am writing as my article submission was denied. The reason states that the material must be neutral and refer to independent, reliable, published sources.

I want to confirm that the content is neutral and all the references are reliable and published sources. The sources include Forbes, Barron's, The Economist, The New York Times, BBC, CNET, HuffPost, Wired, TechCrunch, and local media such as Seattle Times and Puget Sound Business Journal. Rferences are no pulled from the MicroVision website.

Can you please review my entry again? You will see that all sources are reputable and valid. Thank you so very much! 162.33.234.234 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may submit it for another review, but you will need to make changes in order for it to be accepted. Most of your sources are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability(see WP:ORG). There needs to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company summarized in the article. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond documenting the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company.
If you are associated with this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor.
Firstly, can I just confirm you don't have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with MicroVision Inc? i.e. are you employed by the company? If so you need to make a conflict of interest declaration immediately, see that link for information on how.
Your draft article has some problems which I will address below:
- MicroVision has been in the lidar industry for 30 years... this paragraph doesn't read very encyclopaedic, and is not sourced (though the founding date is sourced in the section below). Check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for guidance on how to write in a neutral tone.
-Automotive lidar technology helps with... this paragraph is not suitable for this article. Your draft should just focus on the company, not explanations of the science behind the product, which should go into the existing LIDAR articles. This background content (which crops up a lot) is much more suitable for the company's website, not an encyclopaedia.
- The automotive ADAS... this sentence is just marketing, so should be removed.
- Tiny, ultra-low-power lasers painted... again, focus on the company not the background behind the products.
- 1996 Going Public. this section heading isn't written in an encyclopaedic way, and really you don't need an entire section just for five words.
- The monocle was worn in front of the eye... unneeded background, see above.
- The projectors beamed bright, high-resolution video...unneeded background, see above. I'm going to stop pointing these out now because they're throughout the article.
- Corporate Affairs. Remove this section, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
- Offices. You don't need an entire section for office locations, a single sentence somewhere in the article is more suitable.
There's also some issues where you have lots of paragraph splits, it seems you've split into a new paragraph after every source. This isn't needed. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for more information. You can cut out a lot of the fluff: probably half the article content isn't needed.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:15, 28 July 2023 review of draft by SmallTownBook


Hi there!

Wondering if I could get any further clarification as to why this page has been declined? Is there a particular area that is the cause of this? The sources listed are incredibly reputable, independent secondary sources (The New York Times, Forbes, Travel + Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, Fodor's Travel, Minnesota Department of State). Is there a specific source that is the issue? Information taken from the Travel Beyond website is strictly factual (founders, founding date, areas of expertise). Any detailed information/thorough feedback you could provide would be great.

Thanks in advance for your help and review! Much appreciated.

SmallTownBook (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmallTownBook it's "in-depth" that you're missing here. Where is the significant coverage about Travel Beyond? -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out the two lists (they're not really encyclopedic content, more like the sort of thing a company would put on their website). See how there's now... basically nothing? That's the issue. There isn't much about the company itself sourced to reliable sources in the draft. Cutting off those two lists makes that really obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

02:16, 29 July 2023 review of submission by BavaroWriter2024

Submitted several times with no luck. can you be more specific of what is missing or any changes. I wrote it without any reference to advertising. It is just facts about the creation of the company BavaroWriter2024 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BavaroWriter2024 Are they the kind of facts you'd find on the company's website? Then it's probably not encyclopedic. -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 29 July 2023 review of submission by கந்தசாமி மாதவன்

What should I add as Secondary Sources for Digital Media? கந்தசாமி மாதவன் (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@கந்தசாமி மாதவன்: this draft is awaiting deletion, there is little point in adding anything to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 29 July 2023 review of submission by EspressoSips

Can I get more details on what's missing on this article? I've listed plenty of sources. Thanks! EspressoSips (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EspressoSips, which of your many independent sources devote significant coverage to Yoshi Suzuka as a person, as opposed to mentioning him in passing? Those are the only sources that clearly establish notability. Quality of sources is vastly more important that quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Mauryamanish123

im writing this to understand the right way of wicki article creation 

Mauryamanish123 (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mauryamanish123.
Your sandbox article was deleted as it was unambiguously promotional in tone. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
You should read the following carefully. It's important to understand that writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks a new editor can do:
- Help:Your first article
- Help:Referencing for beginners
- Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia:Verifiability
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Jonnycc23

I have now added multiple separate sources to the draft of this page to prove its notability, it had been suggested to merge this with a separate article: Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892) but I disagree as it is a completely new and separate club, and could be likely to cause confusion by doing so. Jonnycc23 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 29 July 2023 review of submission by 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F854:99F7:62C1:1C5F

How is it possible that User:Eventhisacronym managed to paste an entirely different article into Draft:Jenny Nicholson using the WP:Article wizard? Did they maybe ignore a warning that the subject already has a draft? 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F854:99F7:62C1:1C5F (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it was my first attempt at creating a page. I did not receive a warning about an existing draft, and had copied over from my sandbox. Apologies. I also realized in writing that the subject had previously stated she did not want a wikipedia page because stalkers were harassing her using information on the page, and a previous version had been deleted, so I had tried to revert my changes anyway and failed. Again, so sorry for any confusion I caused! Eventhisacronym (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90

Hello, my article was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya.

I have followed advice of reviewers and other experts who even edited the article for me.

I need help, what can i do? Semilore90 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Semilore90.
I am afraid that as your draft article was rejected there is nothing you can do now - it will not be considered further. Your draft article was more appropriate for a LinkedIn bio or professional website, not an encyclopaedia.
As stated by the reviewer, Ola does not yet qualify for a Wikipedia article as he does not pass the strict Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 29 July 2023 review of submission by 2806:107E:F:49F:9954:36BD:3001:277E

Already written in English with multiple references and Google Chat Bot support, please advice? 2806:107E:F:49F:9954:36BD:3001:277E (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor.
Please do not use Large Language Models like Google Bard to create articles. They have a reputation for creating inaccurate information, see Hallucination (artificial intelligence). Qcne (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is nonsense, and completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


July 30

00:55:53, 30 July 2023 review of draft by Sharon64gold


Confused as to why this wiki page was rejected when the citations are from notable media/press sites. South Asian publications like The South Asian Times and Lokvani. There have also been full page solo press about Ms. Modha in international papers like Global Times Nigeria that has been cited to (https://globaltimesnigeria.com/women-of-awards-announces-obama-award-recipient-dr-roopa-as-international-brand-ambassador/ )

There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki. Ms Modha's pageant wins are from major pageants like Ms America and Ms Woman of Achievement whose directors have wikipedia pages. The director whose dance production she was a lead in also has a wikipedia page. Also, other individuals on wiki have cited to articles written by Roopa Modha as a journalist.

Can you please advise how to better the wiki page?

Sharon64gold (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sharon64gold.
Firstly, your article has only been 'declined' not 'rejected'. If it was 'rejected' then you would not be able to submit for review.
Did you read the note left by the reviewer? All articles about living people must pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. People usually pass this by their being at least three strong, reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in detail or offer analysis and interpretation. Some of your sources are Wikipedia:Primary sources so cannot be used other than to establish basic facts like a date of birth- and some others are promotional interviews with Roopa so are not Wikipedia:Independent sources of her, which also can't be used to establish notability.
The easiest way to fix your draft article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Roopa in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely helpful! Thank you!!!! Sharon64gold (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon64gold Regarding "There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki", please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been reviewed by the community. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such thorough advice and help!! It is definitely useful in knowing what to cite to and how to write the wiki page to ensure it shows importance of the topic with proper backing in other sites. Sharon64gold (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 30 July 2023 review of submission by Raju bBhai

moj creater Raju bBhai (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raju bBhai: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (twice) and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 30 July 2023 review of submission by TheCelebrinator

My submission was declined due an alleged lack of reliable sourcing. However, the information on my list is mainly – and really only – based off of one source as the subject matter doesn't really allow for the use of another source. How is the article supposed to comply with Wikipedia standards when it comes to that? TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCelebrinator: I'll be honest, I don't know if there is a policy that covers such a situation, but my first thought was – notability: I get that those games are individually notable, and I agree that Metacritic as a source is notable, but is Metacritic's ranking of those games notable as a concept? I'm not sure. (Although if you can find secondary sources discussing this ranking, then you might be able to show that it is.)
My second thought was – copyright: if you are only reformatting information provided by a source, that could come under derivative work. To be clear,I don't know that it does... but I also don't know that it doesn't.
Finally, on a slightly more philosophical level, I wondered about the usefulness of an article which merely regurgitates information that exists elsewhere. Does this need an article, or does this need an external link pointing to that source, eg. in an article on Metacritic or video games?
Hopefully someone will come along soon who knows better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is. Fans, even game developers use it as a benchmark of the quality of the games, regardless of whether or not it's necessarily 'warranted'. Infamously, the developers of Fallout: New Vegas didn't receive a bonus because their game did not get a score of at least 85 on Metacritic.
Metacritic is a bit like Rotten Tomatoes in that whether you like it or not, it's there and will definitely play a role in sales, general reception to the game and whatnot. As a sidenote, there is already a Wikipedia list for movies with a certain RT score. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: "it absolutely is" what? I'll reiterate: I'm not saying that list doesn't exist (it does), or isn't read by people (I'm sure it is). Neither of those facts make it notable, however.
As for the List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoesarticle, you may have noticed that it cites a number of secondary sources discussing the topic, which goes back to my original first point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable when both people within the industry and fans take notice of the rankings (or Metascore). I think adding and expanding the lede – to mention that as well as adding secondary sources – is what the article needs, but as far as notability is concerned, it meets the criteria. There are documented instances of developers losing out on money due to not meeting a certain score, tons of articles online about which games rank higher, etc.
P.S. Metacritic's ranking often incorporates duplicate versions of the same game or even bundles, so there would be a need to have a list showing only the unique games on the list. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: you may have misunderstood 'notability' in the Wikipedia context. It has nothing to do with whether "the industry and fans take notice" of something. Instead, it means (in the case of a topic such as this) whether or not multiple secondary sources that are both independent (of the subject) and reliable have covered the topic in significant extent. Please see WP:GNG, which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's definition, which I was already using, it would meet the criteria. As I've stated, it's a widely used benchmark for success, and secondary sources have covered just that. Here's a few examples.
Sony demanding a 90+ score from devs:
[2]https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/sony-expects-90-on-metacritic-companys-studios-face-big-challenge/z95875 from Game Pressure
[3]https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ex-god-of-war-developer-reveals-sony-demands-90-metascore-from-first-party-games.1657678/ from NeoGAF
Game Devs denied bonus over Metascore:
[4]https://www.gamespot.com/articles/obsidian-denied-bonus-over-new-vegas-metacritic-score-studio-head/1100-6366337/ from Gamespot TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 30 July 2023 review of submission by 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9

Morales Surename should be important enough to be included, and multiple references plus a google Bard Chatbot also reviewed, please be specific? 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and is nonsense. Google Bard Chatbot is incapable of producing acceptable Wikipedia content. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

07:08, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Naveen Nani weki

why my article declining? Naveen Nani weki (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naveen Nani weki. Your draft fails to provide references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this film. The Times of India is not a reliable, independent source because they accept payments to publish favorable entertaimment-related content. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Antonyjoj

How can I get my article accepted? How to add reliable sources Antonyjoj (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonyjoj: I'm afraid you've got this exactly back-to-front. You don't first write whatever you want to say about the subject (or whatever the subject asks you to write, as the case may be), and then try to find sources that support some of what you've written. Instead, you find reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, and summarise (in your own words) what they've said, citing the sources as you go.
As it stands, this draft is almost entirely unreferenced, and has no evidence of notability; not to mention that it is highly promotional in both tone and content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Wstnharris

I need some help understanding what is missing, be it references or something else. For example, part of the feedback I last received was that almost all of the news was local to Chicago; as a Chicago radio host and broadcaster, it's unclear to me as to why this is a problem. Thank you! Wstnharris (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia for everyone on the planet. It isn't wrong in and of itself to use sources just from Chicago, but one indication of notability is the breadth of coverage across at least a nation about a topic. Related to that, the sources seem to just give routine coverage as noted by a reviewer. If you had three Chicago sources with excellent, in depth coverage of Mr. Baum and what makes him meet the definition of a notable person, that would be a different story, but you don't. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for the clarification! Wstnharris (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Wikitaks

Would like to move draft to mainspace. Wikitaks (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your submission is pending - a reviewer will review it, and if the submission is suitable your request will be fulfilled — Karnataka talk 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a conflict of interest, this process is voluntary. It's highly recommended unless you have experience with getting drafts accepted, but it is voluntary. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 31 July 2023 review of submission by TheLibrarian117

I'm not sure why my article keeps getting denied TheLibrarian117 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ths reviewer left a reason. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

01:16, 1 August 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

Requesting contribution on this article and review. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Kingsqw

I need to write a biography article about an upcoming artist named iv frayo, it has been rejected twice please how do i go about it. Kingsqw (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsqw: you don't (go about it). Having had this twice rejected (and soon twice deleted) means the topic isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and you should drop it and find something else to write about. By and large drafts on "upcoming" anything are unlikely to be accepted, because Wikipedia is never the first source to publish content on someone or something; significant coverage must already exist in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources elsewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:01:38, 1 August 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by MJSC123


Hi, my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elcka was deleted completely unnecessarily , the copyright notice has been added to the page which they say the content was copied from. Alot of time & effort went into creating this page & it was totally unnecessary to delete it so quickly. Why didn't they com back with comments. Please kindly reinstate the recently deleted version of this page. The notice has been added to allow the content to be reused & it can be reworded to it's not copied & pasted content:

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.elcka.net/biography.asp. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MJSC123

MJSC123 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1168205416"