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
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
232,044 edits
edited by robot: archiving March 15
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:EBC_Financial_Group
Line 505: Line 505:


= March 21 =
= March 21 =

== 03:46, 21 March 2024 review of submission by Mitsubishi2 ==
{{Lafc|username=Mitsubishi2|ts=03:46, 21 March 2024|draft=Draft:EBC_Financial_Group}}
Please assist on EBC Financial Group Draft page, I have added some sources into the article [[User:Mitsubishi2|Mitsubishi2]] ([[User talk:Mitsubishi2|talk]]) 03:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:46, 21 March 2024

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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


March 15

01:00, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 136.36.47.34

I HAVE A COMPLAINT The reason it was rejected was "Wikipedia articles are not for stuff made up in one day." I DID NOT INVENT WIZ MUD SOMEBODY ELSE DID AND IT WAS NOT MADE UP IN ONE DAY IT WAS CREATED IN 2017 BRUH WHY ARE THE EDITORS ALWAYS CAPPING BRUH!!!!! 136.36.47.34 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any longer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft violates Wikipedia's core content policies and is simply not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Discuss this game on social media if you want to, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:12, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Srinivaschinka90

I have established myself in my field and Wikipedia helps me in stating that I'm genuine person for those who don't me personally and Wikipedia will help me to grow my name in longer wide online rather I struggling in off-line Srinivaschinka90 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srinivaschinka90: try LinkedIn or something similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Rajaranics37

Why Rajaranics37 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...is this your other account? ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Kaiumkhan321

Why this page is not getting published, working hard for more than 2 years and provided with sufficient links to proof including government links, kindly look into it. Kaiumkhan321 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiumkhan321: you're pointing to your user talk page, we don't publish those as articles, obviously (and you shouldn't use it to develop article content, either). If instead you mean Draft:Abdul Kashim Khan, then that draft was deleted months ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 203.123.39.86

what are the reasons for rejection 203.123.39.86 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is one sentence. ltbdl (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 15 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull

Hi, we are trying to create our university's wikipedia, however, can you help us with this, will it be accepted if we put external links or our university's own page as a reference? Cem Barut 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not for organizations to tell the world about themselves Articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you are an employee of the university, that must be disclosed according to the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID for instructions. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
İstbull, your draft is much more like a promotional essay than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Puck Osborne

I have made the revisions as requested but want to make sure I have resolved all the issues adequately before resubmitting. Thanks! Puck Osborne (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we don't really do pre-review reviews here- the best way to get feedback is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Friendbelittler

Hi there! My page was declined and I figured I would ask point blank what things I would need to add to demonstrate that the artist meets the notability guidelines. Would the inclusion of additional coverage from reputable sources independent of the artist (like her Splice interview) be sufficient? Friendbelittler (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbelittler I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.
Interviews do not contribute to notability as interviews are not independent sources, being the person speaking about themselves. You need to show how she meets the definition of a notable musician with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that chose on their own to give the coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! I'll give the guidelines a more thorough read and resubmit in the future when I think she's met the criteria. Friendbelittler (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friendbelittler: you would need to cite sources that meet the WP:GNG notability guideline, or else provide evidence that the subject satisfies the WP:MUSICBIO one. The sources currently provided fall far short of either.
And just resubmitting the article without any improvement after it has been declined is not going to get you anywhere, other than eventually resulting in a rejected draft with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the possibility of rejection on resubmission, thanks! Friendbelittler (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 15 March 2024 review of submission by PratikPatel0795

Please let me know about modifications in this article. PratikPatel0795 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PratikPatel0795: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please note that you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 15 March 2024 review of submission by LRW123

Article for creation rejected because sources are not considered notable. When I have used all the secondary sources that I could find on the subject, what else can be done to get the article published? ` LRW123 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LRW123: this was declined, not rejected; rejection would mean that you cannot resubmit, whereas declined drafts can be submitted again once you've addressed the decline reasons. That said, if you cannot find better sources, then the subject may be not notable enough to justify an article. There isn't anything else that can be done, as notability cannot be magically conjured out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick action and clarification on the matter! LRW123 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, why is there a note that says my article has paid contributions, when I go to edit the article? LRW123 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LRW123: you've declared general COI in this subject, but should you have declared the more specific COI of paid editing? Which is another way of asking, what is your relationship with this organisation?
The paid contributions template is just flagging up that the text may require editing for neutral POV etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024

Why my page has declined? What is missing in my page? Peanutlover2024 (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutlover2024 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft has no sources to support its content. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Mazula258

Hello I am trying to add an information panel using Wikidata? Any help appreciated. Mazula258 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

04:21, 16 March 2024 review of submission by ScriptKKiddie

I need help finding reliable sources and ensuring the accuracy of my article on Fraud Risk Management. Can I get feedback from other Wikipedians? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@scriptkkiddie: stop using chatgpt to write an article. ltbdl (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 16 March 2024 review of submission by LetsGetBotanical

Hi! I've just embarked on an a quest to create pages for overlooked female botanists. I've hit a hurdle with my first attempt.

I have written about Louisa Grace Fortescue, Lady Clermont, who discovered a fern known as Lady Clermont's Spleenwort. It took me *days* of research to find out who Lady Clermont was and so I decided that no-one else should have to struggle like I did.

I created a page, linked her to her husband and father, who both have pages, and added in her discovery - a fern that was thought to be a new species, and subsequently was one of the first ferns to be suspected (and then confirmed) as a hybrid. It has a hybrid binomial in her honour, Asplenium x clermontiae.

Unfortunately my article has been rejected on notability grounds, but this feels a bit subjective. Her husband has a wikipedia page after all, and - if I was being facetious - I'd say that all he ever did was 'be born an artistocrat'. Lady Clermont actually *did* something!

Checking notability guidelines, I see that one criteria is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" - like discovering a fern named after you.

Thanks, LetsGetBotanical LetsGetBotanical (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm rather surprised that this was rejected rather than declined, by an admin as well. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see why he did- she discovered the fern, but the botany advances were made by others long after her death. In looking at the sources, they don't seem to extensively describe her influence on this. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Any idea what I can do? LetsGetBotanical (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there exists an article on her husband is certainly no reason to create one on her. Especially as that article possibly shouldn't exist either, as notability isn't demonstrated by the cited sources (two cites of a book written by himself, one cite of a deprecated source, and one with only the briefest of passing mentions). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we get that deleted then? And on that point, how is an article like this: 2021 Rugby World Cup squads notable, but the discoverer of a fern isn't? I *am* being facetious but it feels there is a lot of personal preference involved in this process. LetsGetBotanical (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Articles for Deletion to learn about the process. National rugby teams are usually extensively covered in independent reliable sources. The main issue here is that sources do not give Lady Clermont extensive coverage. She could likely be mentioned in an article about the fern, she just doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Coco Adnan

If I add more info on this budding actor with relevant sources, will I be able to continue editing? Coco Adnan (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coco Adnan: technically speaking you can continue editing, but you cannot resubmit it for another review. If you can demonstrate notability clearly and unequivocally, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected this, but that's only worth doing if notability is obviously there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. So, would it be better to just restart again? rather than editing this draft (which has already been rejected) Coco Adnan (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coco Adnan: no, that could be interpreted as an attempt to game the system. Make your edits to this draft, and take your case (assuming notability is demonstrated) to the last reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Budding actor" almost certainly means they do not yet meet the definition of a notable actor. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so how does this work? If I re-edit the article and cannot resubmit it for another review, how will I get it reviewed then? Coco Adnan (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coco Adnan: for the third time, you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. That's how this works.
But as 331dot points out, "budding", as well as "actor who recently made his acting debut", etc. imply pretty much the polar opposite of notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will circle back once the actor has more body of work. can this page pls be deleted till then? thanks. Coco Adnan (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, but it can also remain so that there is a starting point for later; other than by request, drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Kchoose2

Brand new to contributing. I believe this person is worthy of an entry, because I came here looking for information on her and, finding none, tried to start a page that others could contribute to. Two tries came up short and I am wondering what I can do next. Thanks! Kchoose2 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kchoose2 You have only two sources; to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to be summarized. And as noted, one of the two sources is an interview, which does not contribute to notability, and the other just mentions her video. These are not significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Mr Francesco Miranda

I sent the article for review two times, but I think that I did not really understand what is wrong. So could anyone tell me how to fix it? Thanks! Mr Francesco Miranda (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that your citations are not next to the information they are citing. See referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Matttimings

Hi there,

Hoping for some pointers on what more would be required here, the individual is what I believe qualifies as "notable" as he's a multiple world record holder in powerlifting and I provided references to rankings, however, this is my first Wiki creation so I appreciate that I could have done something wrong. Any pointers would be much appreciated.

Many thanks, Matt T Matttimings (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matttimings I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. He may be notable, but most if not all of the sources you have do not have significant coverage of him. Some sources are just his businesses, which are not independent sources.
If you work for him, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. You did declare a COI, but the paid editing declaration is stricter. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the suggestions, I do not work for him although I have used his mentorship service previously. I've added some more references in, hoping that'll be enough Matttimings (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

05:57, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Jaclyn.v108

My article was declined for lacking enough references but I have quite a few, 41 total, most of which are not published by the subject. Can you please elaborate or give me any tips on how to add enough references? What else do you see that I can reference? I’ve seen other wiki pages with way fewer references than mine. Please assist. Jaclyn.v108 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaclyn.v108: the sources you're citing are user-generated or otherwise of poor quality, failing both the core requirements of verifiability and notability. Meanwhile, almost the entire body text is unreferenced: the referencing only appears in the 'Filmography' and later sections. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; what happens on other articles(that themselves could be problematic, and you wouldn't be aware of this) is not that relevant. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Vis-Techeditor

Could you please clarify exactly what you tagged for deletion on this article? The last feedback and review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone. There is no promotion in this article. it is solely the biography of the artist. Vis-Techeditor (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@vis-techeditor: oh come on.

Beklik embarked on his artistic journey with a focus on photography at MTF Tehran. He further honed his skills at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. Seeking a more comprehensive artistic foundation, he pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg.

ltbdl (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ltbdl, for the feedback! But I'm still confused about how this is written in a promotional tone. Do you have any suggestions for improving this paragraph? Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You declared a conflict of interest with regards to this individual, what is the general nature of the conflict? I'm just wondering if you have a marketing background and perhaps are unable to see how you are being promotional.
Language like "journey" and "honed his skills" is just promotional fluff. Articles should be written as dry and matter-of-fact as possible 331dot (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 331dot for the feedback. is it now better now?
Beklik studied photography at MTF Tehran before continuing his education at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. He then pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg. Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? I see that you took a picture of this individual, how do you know him?
There are still many promotional areas of the text; the last reviewer has rejected the draft and nominated it for speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing as the artist's assistant, and I want to confirm that I have this photo directly from the artist. Yes i see and that makes me confused because on the last review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone, as i did but today another reviewer has rejected the draft. is there any way to fix it? Vis-Techeditor (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; if by being his assistant you mean he employs you, the Terms of Use require you to make the paid editing disclosure, which is stricter that the COI disclosure.
You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer that rejected it, that's the first step. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vis-Techeditor (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 17 March 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

I'm a first time Wikipedia page creator / editor and need assistance creating a page. Any advice on how to improve my current draft would be much appreciated. MasterOfNone67 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 17 March 2024 review of submission by KülTegin.Alp

We want to publish this page, please review the page and help if there are any errors. KülTegin.Alp (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the article for review. Please be patient.
But while you are waiting, you should do what the comment says, and remove all external links from the text.
You should also review all your cited sources against the criteria in the golden rule, and remove most of those which are not indepedent of the WAF (such as anything based on interview and press releases). Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 17 March 2024 review of submission by 1Mamalujo

I'm a bit confused why this article was denied based on sourcing. The type of sourcing used is typical for articles on production sailboats: owners association pages, manufacturer data, and sailboat data guides like https://sailboatdata.com, https://sailboat.guide, and https://sailboatlab.com. See this article as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_34. Same sources.Now, I understand that the formatting for the citations was a bit screwy, but that can easily be fixed by an editor proficient in such things. There may be boats which sold in the thousands like the Catalina 30 which have broad press coverage, but that is not the case with most boats and most of such articles on Wikipedia. The sources cited are reliable. Most of the facts are boat spec and dimensions, matters about which owners associations, sailboat data sites, and manufacturer sites give reliable info. This isn't some controversial political subject where reported facts are controversial and varying and super rigorous sourcing is needed. It seems a shame to deny the readers an article on a boat made by a highly notable manufacturer. Also, the article was denied puportedly based on sourcing, not notability. 1Mamalujo (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every individual model of boat merits an article. It depends on the coverage. Please see other stuff exists as to why the existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Please point out these other articles so action can be taken. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The boat was reviewed, upon its debut, in the New York Times, and noted for its "'years ahead' innovations in yacht design", citing three specific such "design breakthrough(s)". Sounds a bit more notable than just "other stuff". Thousands of production yacht models have been made. Few of them are even reviewed, much less given accolades for multiple "design breakthroughs" in one of the Anglophone world's papers of record such as the New York times. I've now cited the NYT article in the draft. 1Mamalujo (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article reads to me as "these are the wonderful things that Tripp says he has done", not as an independent review. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Itsarnovnm

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Cris Cawley Game Changer Publishing Itsarnovnm (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, only a single person should be operating your account.
Your draft was wholly promotional and has no place on Wikipedia. If you were specifically paid to edit Wikipedia, I suggest you return his money. You have much to learn before you can write in the area of your conflict of interest. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:BIO, and Your first article. Wikipedia is not a form of recognition or means to honor someone. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


March 18

00:06, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Shadokp

I have worked very hard compiling so much information about this under appreciated actress and model but with IMDB not a reliable source there is really no way to prove that this actress was in any movie even ones she is credited it. In Dracula AD 1972 multiple sources have her and another model named Flannagan uncredited in the movie but there is a Flannagan article in Wikipedia that lists her uncredited for the movie. how is it possible for any uncredited listing in Wikipedia if there is no evidence. Also much of the proof is available in photos and movie posters but none of that is available because of copyright. There are people who have less credits who have pages. It is most frustrating. Thank you for you time in helping me. Shadokp (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadokp I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. "Under appreciated actress" is a strong indicator that she does not yet meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress. Credits are sufficient to establish participation in a film, but Wikipedia articles need more, they need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her that are summarized in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to pubilcize someone or otherwise ensure that they are appreciated- they must first be noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, not the other way around. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows the coverage.
Please see other stuff exists; there are likely many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia(especially about actors) and volunteers don't have time to get around to addressing them all; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you would like to help us, please identify other inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadokp: even if you could find proof that this person had uncredited roles in some films, that would almost certainly not be enough to make her notable. Your task is to demonstrate notability by either the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR guidelines, and that does require much more than simply proving that she existed and did a bit of acting or modelling work. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I guess there are other places to archive this type of information. Wikipedia becomes less accurate due to the lack of information that is not allowed. So much is going to be lost to history because of no proof. I understand the concept and reasons given but I have to imagine most of what is listed on Wikipedia is taken from other sites or common knowledge. Proving someone existed is a bit odd. Shadokp (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking you to prove someone existed? Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has lived, acted or whatever.Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it was worth a try Shadokp (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:57, 18 March 2024 review of submission by RealmUnknown

Looking to improve this article, mainly with focus on sourcing. Several of the sources provided are from old magazines and articles I've come across, such as numbers 5, 9 & 10. Perhaps these physical publications ones need to be scanned and uploaded? I've cut and stripped a few items out of the article due to this very issue, as I realize they had no key sources. RealmUnknown (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RealmUnknown: you do not need to scan and upload offline sources, in fact you shouldn't as they're likely to be in copyright; you just need to cite them with sufficient details to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes (see WP:OFFLINE for advice). If it's not obvious from the title what the source is and what it says about and/or how extensively it covers the subject, you should also consider including a short quotation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, hadn't considered a quotation, that may help out a bit. RealmUnknown (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 194.223.23.148

I'm requesting to find help to see if someone can help improve the article for me. Plus, it's hard for me to find any other sources by myself. I'll need someone to update the draft for me. 194.223.23.148 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopaedia is created by volunteers like you. Why do you think somebody might want to come and work on your pet project? (They might - but why would they?)
The heart and soul of a Wikipedia article is its sources. If you have looked, and can't find enough, that is a very good reason for thinking that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 18 March 2024 review of submission by JulioHo

Hello all, I just submitted a draft about German company ifm Group and it was rejected due to lack of independent references. Could you please specify what I need to do now as the four independent references I cited seem fine to me. I would be happy for help about this article to provide quality on articles on big German companies as I noticed a lack of relevant references in similar articles, such as: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilz_(company) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turck

Would a translation/link to the German article be helpful and are German references (there are plenty) helpful? Thanks for your help! JulioHo (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References can be in German. The main issue is that you have only summarized the activities of the company, and not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that go into detail about what they see as important about the company and how it meets the definition of a notable company.
Note that the German Wikipedia has different policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily so here. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JulioHo: sources 5 & 6 are just routine business reporting, and 7 & 8 are mere passing mentions. Source 3 is debatable, in that it is more about the CEO than the business, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.
If you have found other articles without sufficient evidence of notability, you're very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. Either way, the existence of such articles is no reason to create more similar problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for clarifying! I'll dive into that matter and will search for other more reliable sources! JulioHo (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Nihimba

Why has this been rejected? Nihimba (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihimba: User:Nihimba/sandbox/HEBO Consult wasn't rejected. It was declined (two years ago!) for being promotional, and deleted six months later, either for the same reason or for having been not edited for 6 months (I'm not quite sure which). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 4Bt'tjes

I would really want this to be published, this is a very dum reason but i get bullied and maybe they will find this funny, I hope? Thank you very much for taking this in to consideration. Ps it did not include any false information regarding the subject. 4Bt'tjes (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4Bt'tjes: please understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your mates. Try a social media platform or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I really made a honest page about him? Not as a joke, it would still be information about somthing/someone. I would write about him in a profesional way. No jokes, just a life story about him. Just like there are enough story's about Kanye West and so on. I would really appreciate you taking this into considiration. I see this as a chance to change some things on the internet. Not everybody has to make a video on tiktok or a Reel on instagram. Just a honest story on here. Now that I tought about it u could actually make a different app about my idea. U could call it My Story or somthing like that. Ps my first submission really didn't include any fals information. 4Bt'tjes (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and then Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really didn't help 4Bt'tjes (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article summarises what independent reliable sources have published about a subject. That is all. If there are such sources about your subject, then an article may be possible: if there are not, then no article is possible.
The purposes you have mentioned above have nothing to do with Wikipedia, as explained in various sections of the first page linked above. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Viveliot

hello, i need more information about reliable sources. Viveliot (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viveliot: click on the 'reliable sources' link in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Sadikul Masduq

How can I solve this? Sadikul Masduq (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadikul Masduq: you cannot 'solve this'; the draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C

Hi! I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it for Aniket Bharti. The draft was declined on March 12, 2024, by Randompersonediting (talk) due to insufficient references that demonstrate the subject's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're welcome to improve this draft, as it hasn't been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Christiana Stanley

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've recreated the draft for Abubakar Sani. I noticed it was deleted for potential advertising - I apologize for that, as I'm new to Wiki. I've made some changes to address this concern by removing questionable material and the citation to the website. Additionally, I've added some extra information that I believe could be helpful. I'd like more specific advice on how to go about successfully getting this article published in the main space. ~Ana (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Christiana Stanley: where have you created it? I can't see anything in your contributions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift response, Please find a link to the draft below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Abubakar_Sani ~Ana (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Ganisario

Could you kindly tell me why article was rejected. Also, please provide some quick advice Ganisario (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is located at User:Ganisario/sandbox. Your draft is in Italian, this is the English Wikipedia, a different project. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganisario: presumably you mean User:Ganisario/sandbox? It was declined because it's not in English, as it says in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got no traction with the Italia wiki, deafening silence, not even a rejection. With you I got prompt replies. Any suggestion? What if I change the page to English? Ganisario (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in English is a must; but the standards here are likely stricter than the Italian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganisario: it looks like you've tried to submit your sandbox draft on the Italian Wikipedia, but haven't done it correctly (I don't know for sure, but I expect they don't use the same subst:submit template as we do here). That might explain why you didn't get any response. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by AlanP93

I was immediately denied after clicking submit for a new page. I believe this was for citation reasons. I'd love any feedback on how to make the page better and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. AlanP93 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlanP93 I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The draft just tells about the business and its offerings. Wikipedia articles should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331Dot. Regarding the conflict of interest declaration, I am currently employed by the company in question. I understand the importance of maintaining neutrality and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content creation. I understand that I was supposed to disclose this beforehand, so I added a tag to my profile. Regarding the draft, I also understand that it needs improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am thankful for your response, I am new at this, and I will work on revising the draft to ensure it summarizes information from only from independent sources. I added the products offered mainly because that's what the company was famous for in particular. I will review the guidelines more thoroughly and make the necessary revisions to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards. Could you please (if able) tell me what else you would have on the page? I sort of just copied the formats of other Wikipages I saw of Gravic's partners Scantron and HPE. I'd take any and all advice. I don't wish to break any rules, nor do I want to publish a subpar page. AlanP93 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As an employee, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the draft, quite frankly it needs to be largely rewritten. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Products shouldn't be discussed that in depth. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also be advised it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See WP:OSE. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all really great feedback! I saved it all. Thank you. Would you mind if I rewrite it and show it to you first? Probably won't be ready for a week or so. AlanP93 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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.
Evaluate every one of your sources against 42: pretty well all of them will fail.
Absolutely the first task in creating an article is to find several sources that do meet those criteria, because if they don't exist (as is the case for most companies), then it does not meet NORG, and no article is possible.
If you can find suitable sources, a good way to proceed (especially if you are connected with the subject) is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject and write a summary of what those independent sources say.
Your draft is highly promotional, in that it says what Gravic wants people to know. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what Gravic wants people to know. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine,
Thanks for your response. I saved it all with the links. I don't want to make a puff piece or anything, just to establish the company a page and show it's notable. It was my first Wiki page and I see I fell short. Thanks so much for helping me reorganize my thoughts. I put the cart before the horse, I wrote an article first then plugged in sources. I should compile all of my sources first, then build off them. You gave me a lot to think about, thank you. AlanP93 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Some random account on this website

Need help improving the article if by any means nessecary to be accepted. ＲＡＮＤＯＭ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be worked on "by any means necessary"?
Prior reviews must remain on the draft. It's going to be difficult for you to overcome WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Toxopid

I am having trouble finding even just one source for this polyhedron. So far, the only mention I've seen of it anywhere on the internet is in the Wikipedia article for cupolae. I would love to get some help finding a good source. Toxopid (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toxopid the Help Desk does not generally assist with deveoping drafts. We are here to mostly to answer questions about the process or if a draft is declined or rejected. If you don't have access to scholarly journals, it will likely be difficult but you can try Google Books or Google Scholar. You can also ask for help at WP:WikiProject Mathematics. S0091 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will make sure to check that out. Toxopid (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Wikiwriterhippo

It was not approved because "This draft is a copyright violation collection." Can someone please help me understand what exactly the violation is? Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwriterhippo pinging @Johannes Maximilian to explain but I think it might be because the images violate copyright unless you are the artist. S0091 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the pictures. Very obvious copyvio. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I own these pictures. There are no copyright violations as I own them. How can this be solved? Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiwriterhippo: it's still a problem even if you own them, because a) we don't know that, and b) by making them available you must release your rights. If you wish to donate your proprietary content, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After I published an article through Article Wizards, how can I know whether it's in review?

I just published an article through Article Wizards, however I didn't see the yellow box that shows Review waiting, please be patient. Do this mean I didn't submit successfully or it take time to be reviewed. Alicey2121 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to submit Draft:Daniel Seah failed, because you inserted the "subst:submit" formula within <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags, so it was not effective.
You then moved the draft to Daniel Seah, which you are entitled to do, but it is not recommended for inexperienced editors.
I suspect that very soon it will get either deleted, or moved back to draft, for the reasons which another editor has already put at the top. The most obvious problems I see are:
  1. It can't decide whether it is about Seah or about Digital Domain. It needs to be about one or the other
  2. It is highly promotional. 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.
  3. Few of the sources appear to be independent of Digital Domain.
ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

01:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film

Hello I am a new user and dont have coding experience so am using the visual editor field. I made a submission for a film 'Wash My Soul In The River's Flow' and it was rejected because I had external links to IMDB which I didn't realise weren't allowed. I have removed them and tried to resubmit the draft. I am not sure if I have resubmitted it properly. I hit the resubmit button but nothing seemed to happen so i hit the publish button which seemed to do something. I am not sure if other editors can see the new draft and will be alerted to checking it. How can I best check if it is in the wait pile to be reviewed and is it possible to check in on this progress? thanks, kim alice film 

Kim alice film (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim alice film: it looks like the draft wasn't resubmitted, but rather the AfC template was manually edited, resulting in the same ie. the draft now awaiting review.
Please don't tamper with the templates, they need to remain there and intact until the draft is accepted. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ahh I see thanks @DoubleGrazing sorry about that. I will look at that today to try and make sure i dont do that next time. All new to me but picking up lots of tips on the help forum so thanks for sharing. Kim alice film (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665

Why was my article rejected so quickly? The article name is Called 'What is Hidden Parable Theory". Matt46665 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:02, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665

How is this article contrary to wikipedia? It's a new theory based on scientific concepts. Matt46665 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also unsourced nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Pratik Girish Karwade

Hello, Wonder why I can create my wikipedia, I work as an Photographer and have achieved a lot in the field working with giant production house in Bollywood, India. I have seen a lot of cinematographers page on wikipedia and thought of building one of mine. please help me so I could create a page here of me. Thank You Pratik Karwade Pratik Girish Karwade (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing an autobiographical article is highly discouraged. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable person or more narrowly in your case a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Microbeai3.0

Could you help me to publish page. Microbeai3.0 (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or publish their resume. Please use social media for that. 331dot (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Me.Autem.Minui

How do I update the articles title? It should read “Blackfriars, King’s Lynn” rather than Kings Lynn Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me.Autem.Minui: you don't; there is no way of changing page titles, this is achieved by moving the page to a new title. But don't worry about that for now, if/when the draft is accepted it gets moved anyway. I'll put a note on it to mention this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - very helpful and prompt reply. Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted the draft and changed the title for you. Great work. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yay - thank you so so much!!! I’m genuinely a bit moved. Watch this space for lots more monastic and mendicant history from medieval England! Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Talchu

The article (my first) was declined due to number of sources? I'd request to better understand whether my sources are not good, or whether I should just add a few more notable mentions. The artist has a Hebrew page, and I volunteered to add his page in English, and expand it a bit. I also referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals Talchu (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Hebrew Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Could you help me understand what is exactly missing there? Is it the number of reliable sources or their nature? I quoted Haaretz newspaper, the Israel Museum of Art, the New York Times, a gallery brochure, a reference to a documentary on the artist that was broadcasted in international film festivals. Talchu (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Elie Shamir --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 19 March 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu

Hello,

Sorry, I cannot understand why my page gets rejected every time. It doesn't sound like an advertisement, you can check also our competitor pages, they are just the same and they quote their own website resources.

Please explain your point of view.

Thanks! Florin 

 FlorinCornianu (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FlorinCornianu: your draft was declined, not rejected, and the reason is that there isn't any evidence that your business is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term.
Also, please disclose your paid editing, as requested on your talk page twice now. This is a hard requirement under our T&Cs, not just an optional extra. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that more can be added, it only means we haven't gotten around to renoving them, as this is a volunteer project. If you would like to help us, please identify the articles about your competitors so action can be taken. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean your company does too. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Eva Verplaetse

I submitted this article 4 times - it's just a listing of what happened to the company over the years and which solutions we give - I added a lot of independent, reliable sources and still I get declined because it would be more like an advertisement. the article contains 3 blocks: history (just a list of facts), our offer (what is it) and some facts regarding our IPO - everything is checkable by the sources. Can you please show the parts that are "more like an advertisement"? Because I want this article live but I don't know what to change anymore. Eva Verplaetse (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not for companies to tell the world about themselves, what they do, and their offerings. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the source sees it- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
You may be too close to your company to write about it. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva Verplaetse: you're citing only primary sources and some 'capsule profiles' as your sources, these do not establish notability per WP:NCORP, and instead are (and this is where promotionality comes in) essentially just the company telling the world about itself. You need to find a few sources that clearly meet the NCORP standard, and summarise what they have said about the business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 19 March 2024 review of submission by TheGreatestLuvofAll

I actually had did a research of reliable sources on this draft, and however my draft's topic was not just about music.. They also did reality TV and acting, as shown here. A example of a reality TV star and singer is Tammy Rivera and Masika Kalysha, however they are mostly notable through reality TV, like the subject. I am asking help because I want to make sure how can I know that my draft is eligible for an encyclopedia article? TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this chart website which says that they might have had a position on a chart, which may meet the criteria of WP:SINGER. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatestLuvofAll: per WP:BADCHARTS, iTunes does not qualify, and in any case that source doesn't seem too reliable.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but basically you need to show that this person meets either the general WP:GNG or one of the special (WP:SINGER, WP:NACTOR, etc.) notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a redirect to the group she worked with before her solo career. I put it in draftspace to work on it there to make it into an article. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I requested deletion. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Suhit72

How can I make it not able. Suhit72 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more you can do, the draft was rejected. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; this is not social media. Please use actual social media to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Jmarquette

Greetings - looking to ensure that I've hit all the marks for this work. Jmarquette (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarquette: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you need to submit the draft to get a review. That said, I can tell you already now that this would be declined, as the referencing is woefully inadequate, and does not establish notability of any sort.
Also, you will need to remove all the inline external links from the body text. If you can use any of them as references, do so by citing them instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the help I needed. Thank you. Jmarquette (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros

How can I save a page belonging to a former Turkish football club that closed in 1975 from draft status? Unfortunately, there is no reference on behalf of a club that has operated for 8 years. I tried to edit the page here according to its page on tr:wiki. At first, the page was created a long time ago based on incorrect guidance, but since such a club was active in the past but not today, I tried to translate it and added it here with the same order, but it was put in draft status. How to remove this page from draft status? DelbatrosTalk 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Delbatros You can publish it as an article by proving it is notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia only publishes what reliable, secondary sources have said— not what its editors make up. Your draft currently cites no sources. I understand it was translated, but Wikipedia needs coverage in other sources to prove notability — specifically, this subject needs to meet our "General Notability Guideline", which is fancy way of saying multiple quality sources. See WP:42 as well. If you can't find references on this topic, then I'm sorry to say that it's probably not eligible for a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia has pretty strict guidelines on what "merits" an article, so don't be too disappointed. You might try the Football "fandom" wiki, which has 25,000 articles written by football (soccer) fans. (But I'm not aware of what their article inclusion guidelines are like). Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 19 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:8001:2500:9DE8:9DFB:8:9DB:BB00

I was told that my draft page (the first one I've ever attempted to create) was rejected. The reasons were quite generic and don't really help me figure out what to edit. Would someone kindly share some specific changes that need to be made in order to make this page acceptable?

My organization is a 35-year old Endowment Fund that manages in excess of $1,100,000 in assets donated by 15 (and) investing organizations. We have very low visibility and thought a Wikipedia page would be very helpful in raising our awareness and distinguishing what we do from other pages which reference Jon Sims, the individual for whom our nonprofit is named.

Thanks for providing some specific changes that need to be made here. 2603:8001:2500:9DE8:9DFB:8:9DB:BB00 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 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 that it may be resubmitted.
Please read conflict of intereast. If your job is to work with the endowment, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure.
I apologize for being frank, but Wikipedia has no interest in helping your orgnanization raise its awareness. That is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the orgainzation, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Driftybiscuit

I'd love some advice for this page.

Basically, I figured that Star San deserves something on Wikipedia, since it's pretty much the most pervasive sanitizer used in brewing (both professional and homebrewing). It's even mentioned in passing on the Homebrewing page. Every homebrew store has it and it's pretty much the default choice. PBW is another widely used chemical and happens to be made by the same company. Anyways, I felt it was probably the right thing to make a page for the company rather than the product; that way other stuff that they make could be included, too.

The main trouble is that though a million places on the internet mention Star San (and PBW) as something you should use, almost all of it is not reputable... And the few reputable sources that do mention Star San, only mention them in passing. None of them actually go into detail about Star San itself (i.e. what it is made of, its properties, its history, etc). Pretty much the only place I can find this information is from Five Star itself. Or talking to home brew store employees in person... It's especially frustrating because it's probably the most popular product of its type -- quite literally, almost everyone uses it (speaking anecdotally).

What should I do? Does it not deserve an article, or are there better sources that I'm not finding? Driftybiscuit (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftybiscuit We can't tell you if there are other sources out there, but your draft is almost exclusively sourced to the company website. An article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic. If you have no such sources about the company, it would not merit an article at this time.
If it's the product that is notable, it would be possible for their to be an article about the product and not its manufacturer. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thanks for the advice. Making an article for the product seems like it may be the way to go, then. Driftybiscuit (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Andrea.sterling.lopez.smith

Because they denied my page request Andrea.sterling.lopez.smith (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your text was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please see the Five Pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about what it is we do here. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Eamonnp12

An article I am trying to help edit had once been rejected for its use of YouTube videos as citations, yet I see on the Wikipedia page for Anthony Fantano that they are used freely. Do these YouTube videos need to be archived or reviewed for approval? Eamonnp12 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonnp12 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion.
YouTube videos are generally only permitted as citations if they come from a reputable news outlet(or similar) on its verified channel. You have not shown how this musician meets the definition of a notable musician, with coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

01:03, 20 March 2024 review of submission by No more chances

What can i remove to make this "neutral"? No more chances (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@no more chances: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the draft for deletion as an attack page. —Wasell(T) 09:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 20 March 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423

Can some one please guide me on how to expand my article with the sources I have already? I have 3 independent sources along with 1 source from the publisher of the magazine (I am writing about a magazine). The sources are huge, but can someone please explain on how should I expand my article, get new 3rd party sources or expand by just reusing the current sources that I have? SouthPole5423 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: we need to see three or more sources that meet the WP:GNG notability guideline. None of the ones currently cited do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Sonu Deka 2010

Please publish his page in Wikipedia I have given the full detail of him. Sonu Deka 2010 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonu Deka 2010: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Underrrated

I am convinced that Connecteam is notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia entry. A number of similar pieces of software with a smaller client base than that of Connecteam are on Wikipedia. I have made a few attempts to add sources that satisfy all four criteria to establish notability but editors still reject notability.

Should I remove the sources that are mere mentions of funding rounds and leave only the other coverage? Underrrated (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Underrrated: with respect, whether you as a new user are "convinced" isn't really the point; it's whether experienced reviewers are convinced that matters. Nor does it matter whether other articles exist on "similar pieces of software"; this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And as for the size of the customer base and similar metrics, these are not part of the notability guidelines. Moving forward, you need to focus on providing the sort of sources that three reviewers have now flagged up as missing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer. If you want to help us work to address other inappropriate articles, you can identify any that you see for possible action, We need the help. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply and the frank comments. I will get better acquainted with what constitutes a proper source and provide them (if they exist).
Regarding my initial question: I realize that the sources I provided are a mix of sources that simply mention funding rounds and proper coverage in Forbes and Investopedia. Would deleting the sources that are about funding rounds (which I now realize are based off of press releases) help my case? Underrrated (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; funding rounds is a routine business activity, which (in addition to being a press release) does not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Underrrated: as a general comment, poor-quality sources do not help, and can in fact harm, a draft. So yes, getting rid of some of those could be a good idea. Note also that Investopedia is not considered reliable, and Crunchbase is actually deprecated. As for Forbes, see WP:FORBESCON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also disclose any conflict of interest, there is clear paid editing involved here. Theroadislong (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@DoubleGrazing
Thank you for your great pointers. I will work to improve the draft based on those.
@Theroadislong There is no conflict of interest to disclose, I have no connection to the software or company. Underrrated (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 20 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:3018:AAA7:CAB:71E6:351D:6AFE

Why The Articles Are Being Speedly Deleted please help me to create the Wikipedia article 2402:8100:3018:AAA7:CAB:71E6:351D:6AFE (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not happening; purely promotional, and a major copyvio to boot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Godonashe

Want to create article about Wengezi Godonashe (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Godonashe: okay, find a few reliable sources that provide information about it, and summarise in your own words what they say, citing the sources in your referencing. See WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket

I was told that this subject is not sufficiently notable for publication. I'd like to make the case for her extreme notability in somewhat niche but nevertheless important fields such as regenerative agriculture and nature-based solutions to climate change. She is a well-respected leader in these spaces and has been an expert interviewed on them by numerous national outlets. How else can I prove her notability to help get this page published? Thank you. Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to her? You took a picture of her and she posed for you.
Rejection typically means resubmission is not possible; you have some unsourced sections and yet have too many sources, most of those seem to not provide the coverage needed. If this fundamentally changes, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" in Wikipedia mostly means "there is enough independent material published about the subject to base an article on. 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) 22:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 20 March 2024 review of submission by 103.179.50.98

Help me to make page for other person 

103.179.50.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous draft was deleted as being unambiguous advertising or promotion: this is prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

03:46, 21 March 2024 review of submission by Mitsubishi2

Please assist on EBC Financial Group Draft page, I have added some sources into the article Mitsubishi2 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1214784139"