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
Adamu ab (talk | contribs)
69 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Dela_Yawo_Seade
Line 707: Line 707:
::He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The [[Minetta Lane Theatre|Minetta Lane Theater]]. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).
::He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The [[Minetta Lane Theatre|Minetta Lane Theater]]. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).
::Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? [[User:NMDP|NMDP]] ([[User talk:NMDP|talk]]) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? [[User:NMDP|NMDP]] ([[User talk:NMDP|talk]]) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|NMDP}} Remember when I said above that it may be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat? Two sources out of '''51''' being good (discounting the two walled NYT sources) is a problem for ''any'' draft, since it means that reviewers aren't going to bother approving the article as the sourcing is still very noticeably subpar. All the extraneous sources other than the ''Berkshire Eagle'', ''American Songwriter'', and (potentially) the two walled ''New York Times'' sources need to be removed, and the draft rewritten based on the sources that remain. Bear in mind [[WP:BLP]] applies here as well, which makes the useless sources even more of a liability. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]</small></sup> 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


== 17:26, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C ==
== 17:26, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C ==

Revision as of 21:24, 22 April 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


April 16

04:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 180.150.113.7

Hi, I've just seen my draft has been declined. It is in fact the truth. Please see Timothy John Windsor (York) on Facebook and contact the royal family for further proof if necessary.

Thankyou 180.150.113.7 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Lucygirl03

I have checked his entire profile. He was selected as an IPS officer in the 2013 batch. He has served as an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Ramanathapuram district and acted as a Superintendent of Police (SP) in Ambatur city. He is currently serving as an Undersecretary in Delhi. He has successfully resolved numerous sensitive issues in Ramanathapuram district. Therefore, I believe he is eligible to have a Wikipedia page. Here is the reference

IPS Profile reference: https://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/go/home_e_17_2015_pn.pdf https://elcot.in/sites/default/file/List%20of%20eligible%20Officers%20under%20AIS%20Scheme_0.pdf https://ips.gov.in/Empanelment/Inter_seSeniority_20012023.pdf

Ambattur case: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/140218/chennai-rowdy-binu-pleads-for-mercy.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/how-chennai-police-captured-6-dozen-wanted-men-in-1-raid/articleshow/62829064.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/letter-solves-15-murder-for-cops/articleshow/63162837.cms

Ramanathapuram District caste issues: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/promote-communal-harmony/article8634708.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/Sub-Collector-ASP-honoured-for-commendable-services/article17098729.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/shifting-focus-treading-the-path-of-peace-and-growth/article18511170.ece https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=174723380&highlights=RAJ%20MUDHALVAN https://colombogazette.com/2016/08/22/brown-sugar-to-be-smuggled-to-sri-lanka-seized-in-tamil-nadu/ https://www.dtnext.in/city/2017/07/03/city-police-officers-shifted-out-within-a-month-in-reshuffle 

Lucygirl03 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons this has been rejected. First, it's one tiny paragraph that doesn't explain how he meets notability. Second, it's written in a promotional manner. Please address these problems in your draft. Deb (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucygirl03: I would be incredibly cautious if you decide to continue with this. See WP:Contentious topics for more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Millat Ahmad

I am a maiden user in wiki. My very first article is Aanthai. Please give your suggestions to help to edit my draft for suitable in wiki. Thanks Millat Ahmad (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user, you would be well advised to learn the ropes before trying to create a draft. Have you read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? Deb (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jazakhallah123

Hey, I'm writing an article about a very influential political dynasty family and am wondering why it has been rejected. Jazakhallah123 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazakhallah123: the draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comment – did you read any of that? Anyway, you've since edited the draft and resubmitted it, so you will sooner or later be getting further feedback from the next reviewer. In the meantime, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 1.158.49.44

Is it still possible to make articles about the UTTP? They’re significantly more relevant now. I’d like to make an article about them. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to make an article about various other UTTP subjects such as “thy greatest battle of the internet” and “UTTP emperor anime sucks”. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't do that. Qcne (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your sources are usable (unknown provenance). YouTube is unusable as a source in most circumstances; the only time we could use it is if (1) the video is produced by an outlet that we'd consider reliable and (2) said video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. For obvious reasons we wouldn't be able to cite anything the UTTP or its members put out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Funn With The Finn

Sorry, pretty much a first-timer here. I would be happy to rewrite the article to be just about the book (as mentioned in the comments) and I made the edits already but I can't seem to be able to change the actual name of the article. Can it be changed from "Beatrice Salvioni" to "The Cursed Friend (a novel)"? or do I need to create a new article altogether? I added some more quotes/references. Funn With The Finn (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant; when accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title by whomever accepts it. You may leave a note on the draft talk page as to what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Funn With The Finn: if it were me, I'd leave this draft as it is, even if it means abandoning it, and creating a new draft on the book. That's probably easier than reworking this, and it means that should sources come to light which make Salvioni notable, you might be able to get this accepted also, plus it could save some potential confusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! I made a new draft now just about the book and left a short subchapter on the author with added refrences (removed the HarperCollins too as the details were available elsewhere). Funn With The Finn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Catchphurba

it would be nice if you help me to publish this articles Catchphurba (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catchphurba the draft has been rejected now, and so will not be published at this time. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3

I understood that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" but if there is nothing else, but this person I'm sure is notable How to proceed with this? 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced. Where did that information come from? Cite those sources.
And saying you're "sure" the subject is notable is one thing; providing evidence thereof is another. It's the latter we're after. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is written with much promotional language("entreprenurial journey"); this leads me to think that you may be associated with this person- are you? The draft should be written very matter-of-factly, in a dry manner that does not talk up the subject, but just summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in Wikipedia parlance, doesn't mean famous, or popular, or influential, or significant, or any of those things. It means that people have already taken note of the subject, in published material. It basically means "There is enough independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an encyclopaedia article on" - remembering also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:04, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Joel V Alex

Hi can you help to reframe the sentences so that it complies the rules and regulations of WIKIPEDIA? Joel V Alex (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel V Alex: this draft was deleted as promotional. So no.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mohd Ibraheem 9718

i am trying to write an article but it is being rejected every time Mohd Ibraheem 9718 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined(not rejected) twice, and then finally rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for publishing how to manuals. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Pilotnance

Help me, I want to write an article 

Pilotnance (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilotnance: you'll need to be a bit more specific – what would you like help with? Or if you're after general article-creation guidance, then you should find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks Pilotnance (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rockparker

What mistake am I making in Kaushik Das's Wikipedia article, can you please assist and help to me Rockparker (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockparker: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced with no inline citations (which are required), and I don't think there is any real evidence of notability either. Please see the decline notices, including all the advice linked to from there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do can I able to do Kaushik Das article in future or not , please help me , what should I do now Rockparker (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: You need to show he is notable per Wikipedia's definition. None of your sources do that - Two are Transfermarkt (which we don't accept as a source), one is statlines from one of the leagues he played in, one is a match summary, and the last is a match report that doesn't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There 2 more articles about him , but I thought that firstly I mistake a lot that's why I remove that linke if you agree then I will put again , and he is a Football player and many his friends have there Wikipedia article, why for kaushik das is complicated Rockparker (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of Article X to argue for Article Y. It's likely his friends have articles due to being made before WP:NATHLETE was ripped to shreds in 2022 and nobody's bothered to go in and clean house yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my last submission for last time sir please , this is my first time sorry for that , but tried my best sir Rockparker (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't use vocal.media (unknown provenance). Vocal.media especially appears to be a very badly disguised press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: okay, I've reviewed it one last time. Not one of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12

Could you please advise on why is she not notable enough? There are so many other whale researchers, who have made even smaller contributions to whale research and they have been included on Wikipedia? Is there a criteria? Dishakabra12 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dishakabra12: the draft is entirely unreferenced, which means it fails on verifiability and notability, both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. You would need to produce reliable sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Delpolocovy

Please help me to modify my article so that it is accepted before publishing it. 

Delpolocovy (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Delpolocovy. Have you read WP:NOTESSAY? Your draft is not an encyclopaedic article, but an essay, so needs a total re-write.
You could try improving the existing microplastics article instead? Qcne (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by GabrielBarkin

I would like help looking at the draft I wrote for The Croner Company and making it acceptable for submission. I suspect I need to pare it down considerably (too much of the material is unsubstantiated by independent sources, I suppose), but perhaps there is someone who can help me make it acceptable? GabrielBarkin (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielBarkin: yes, paring it down is probably a good idea. However, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, therefore your main task is to provide sources that satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline.
You should also change the disclosure on your user page from the generic COI one to the more specific paid-editing one, see {{Paid}}. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rustymirror

I've added justification for notability to the Talk page. Can you please advise if anything else is needed to resubmit this article for creation? Rustymirror (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the last review, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. Note that notability shouldn't be indicated on the talk page- the draft should be written to summarize the sources that show notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Apart from appealing to the last reviewer (no reply from them yet) - is it possible to submit a new draft that is fundamentally different? Rustymirror (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustymirror: Google Scholar gives this person an h-index of 7. Without being in any way an expert in this domain, that doesn't sound to me like evidence of meeting NACADEMIC #1. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Could you please advise what h-index score would be likely to meet NACADEMIC#1? The criteria notes state that "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
If you look at Dimensions research data on this person's book, "Compared to other publications in the same field, this publication is extremely highly cited and has received approximately 12 times more citations than average." - please see talk page for sources Rustymirror (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 207.242.53.34

Hello Team, 

  i want to contribute or publish an article about NeilMed Pharmaceuticals Inc which is the manufacturer of the nasal saline irrigation devices and is the world leader in it's category. I want to create an article/post similar to how other companies have i.e. Apple, Amazon, BD, one trust llc, etc. Please help me out and guide through the process.

Thanks Sapan 

207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is certainly not the way to go about it. Your draft is pure advertising, with zero evidence of notability, and is consequently awaiting speedy deletion.
Please read and understand:
If you think you can comply with all that, then you will find everything you need to get you started at WP:YFA.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC):I assume that you are writing about your company; if so, this must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose.[reply]
I am ready to disclose and yes, i am writing about my company. Please help me out how and where to disclose.
Thanks
sapan 207.242.53.34 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your text was a blatant advertisement and has been deleted. You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Companies like Apple and Amazon do not own and maintain articles here. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on about the activities of your business; if it truly meets the notability guidelines, someone will eventually write about it. Be advised that an article about your business is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request you to guide on how to publish an article on NeilMed as a company.
Thanks 207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to you as an employee is to not do so, see my previous comment above. If you've been asked to do so by your superiors, please read WP:BOSS and have them read it too.
If you nevertheless wish to proceed, disregarding my advice, you will need to carefully review the definition of a notable company. If you truly feel that your company meets that definition(most companies do not), then gather at least three independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about your company. These cannot be interviews, press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. Then you may use the Article Wizard to summarize those and only those sources in a draft. This will not be easy. You should also disclose your paid status on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the details and guidance.
By the way, would you like to be the one who can start this. This is a request and solicitation 207.242.53.34 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not writers for hire, and assuming we are is genuinely offensive to the vast majority of us volunteers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 51.77.137.219

‎ 51.77.137.219 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
  • We can't use Reference 1 (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is usable only if (1) the video is created by an outlet we consider to be reliable and (2) is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
  • We can't use Reference 2 (no editorial oversight). Forum board.
  • We can't use Reference 3 (no editorial oversight).
  • We can't use Reference 4 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jvaldry

I'm confused about the notability requirements. One reviewer said the person meets the standard, and another disagreed. I thought I had provided enough documentation of her work and cleaned up the language to be more encyclopedic. Jvaldry (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvaldry: no, per WP:NACADEMIC #6.c, deanship does not normally make one inherently notable. (Doesn't mean an exception couldn't be made, and also doesn't mean that this person couldn't be otherwise notable, of course.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:02, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mandiace

my page got declined because the sources were not reliable but I am not sure what is wrong with the sources. Mandiace (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandiace: it's not necessarily that the sources are not reliable, but that the draft isn't sufficiently supported; most of the content is unreferenced, which is not acceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 16 April 2024 review of submission by TruthIsLikeGravity

The issue of the last paragraph being "inscrutable" is a fair point that I can address. Thank you.

It was, however, claimed that there were "no secondary sources at all", which is patently untrue. There are multiple secondary sources. It is hard to satisfy reviewers that make such mischaracterizations in declining drafts.

The suggestion of making this draft a subsection of another article is odd. Numerous sport teams have Wikipedia articles distinct from the Leagues that they play in. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be problematic.
Leaving aside the last paragraph, the article says nothing other than that the team exists and that its members might play for other teams. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the point about "other stuff exists" may seem valid on the surface, consistency should be considered critical. Without consistency, it's just the Wild West. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency for consistency's sake is not a policy here. If you are aware of other articles about women's rugby teams that exist that you believe are similar to yours, please point those out so action can be taken. The best articles to use as a model or example are those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divide the number of articles (6.8 million) by the number of administrators we have (686) and you'll realise you're asking us to do the impossible. We try to be consistent as much as possible, but when you've got such a deficit of manpower there's only so much you can do. Thus we have to rely on more proactive means like this to try and cut the firehose of new articles that would otherwise overwhelm us. To that end, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of the sources you provide that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, have a look at the following examples and tell us what you think. I'm not going after articles out of spite, and these are only examples at the same institution, but I don't see any reliable secondary references in those articles by the standards you described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes_women%27s_basketball
If we start applying those standards universally, almost all University Varsity sport program articles would come crashing down. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And neither were drafted. Victoria Vikes predates the drafting process altogether (first edit 2005/Jan/23); the article on the woman's basketball team was made directly in mainspace by an auto-confirmed editor who should in all honesty know better. I'm more than happy to send both articles to WP:Articles for Deletion for you, since you seem more interested in using them as camel's noses in tents rather than improving them so that they meet Wikipedia policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made an unfounded assertion about my interests (re: camel's noses).
Nevertheless, would you say then that there is likely a large number of varsity sport articles that would not be in compliance with current standards if they were reviewed? TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're only interested in using these articles to argue for your own, then by all means WP:Village pump (policy) and WT:Notability are that way. But this page is not the place to try to sneak in an argument to change our policies in that regard by using articles that are tangential to your draft, and every argument you make on that front is time that could be better spent looking for better sources for your articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

00:41, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Sycco Mehara

Recovery Gmail password Sycco Mehara (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sycco Mehara: We don't accept blank submissions. (We also cannot help with any sort of password recovery.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:12, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Cdsweezy

I'm writing up a page for a World War 1 army officer who served in France and later was a member of the city council in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Problem is there is very little online about the person of interest since he died in 1980. The wiki submission was denied for lack of sources.

He was my great grandfather so I have quite a bit of material about him. Lots of newspaper clippings from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, whom he wrote letters to during the War to keep the locals informed. I tried searching their archives for the clippings circa 1918, but no luck.

Any suggestions for how/where to find the original source, or how to properly cite the newspaper clippings? Cdsweezy (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdsweezy: use {{cite news}} (you will need to use the source editor; Visual Editor screws templates up) and fill in the last1, first1, date, work, title, and page (or pages) parameters. This will provide the credited author, date the story was run, the paper it was run in, the article title/headline, and the pages it was on - the bare minimum required for an offline newspaper citation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36

how to resubmit 

Mani G 36 (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mani G 36: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I will also take the liberty of assessing your sources:
Hope this helps. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mani G 36 Do not remove the rejection notices. I have re-added them. Qcne (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 17 April 2024 review of submission by أزهري١٢٣

Not notable enough أزهري١٢٣ (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@أزهري١٢٣: that's correct; hence why it has been rejected. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Aigbefoh justice

Guide me on how my Wikipedia creation for article can be accepted Aigbefoh justice (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aigbefoh justice I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Your draft is poorly sourced. Three of the sources you provided are to Wikipedia; Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. The only other source you provide is a school website which just documents this person went to school there. Any article about this person needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what is being looked for in article content. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Protoj

Hello wikipedians I am hoping to get some help on what I may be able to do better or add to my submission. I recently sent it now for review and was denied. protoj (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Protoj: we need to see evidence that the subject is notable. This requires multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) that provide significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of it, and that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should probably add that the vast majority of schools are not notable, so don't be too disappointed if you can't find the necessary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Amiridiwan.qa

I'm trying to create this article for the son of Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalifa Al Thani please help me in this manner Amiridiwan.qa (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amiridiwan.qa there is no indication a child of an ex-Prime Minister merits a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also added unsourced text to Abdullah_bin_Khalifa_Al_Thani, which I have now removed. Qcne (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Myzamorra

May I know why my page is rejected ?? Myzamorra (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Qcne (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Jebondz

Need an assistnace on this "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." issue. Jebondz (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebondz if a person does not meet our notability threshold there can be no article. There is no indication that Muhammad Faizal Zainol meets this standard, therefore I have rejected the draft (twice) and it can not be an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, I will assess the sources you cite. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are in any way usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Stephen.akachain.io

We are Utop company. We got reject many times and my article be marked can not resubmit. Could you please help give a chance to allow us resolve the issues Stephen.akachain.io (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obligated to disclose your employment. None of your sources are any good - we don't cite online storefronts, your first source has no byline (and reads like a press release regardless), and your second source has nothing to cite. The rejection seems proper; Wikipedia is not your billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Keppard123

I do not understand why my article was rejected (although I appreciate the fast response). I included footnotes for 5 reviews of the recording, and in the article I gave short excerpts of each one. 5 reviews is pretty good for a recording, and there are actually more that could be included. Keppard123 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keppard123 I fixed your link for proper display. Please see referencing for beginners to learn more about how to format references. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. Does that mean that the article is being accepted or do I have to come up with more references/reviews? Keppard123 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to resubmit it for it to be considered again, but the referencing style needs to be fixed first. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

08:26, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8

Can anyone move this to the AFDs? 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AfC matter, as that 'draft' was never meant to be a draft in the first place. Besides, you've already asked for help at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as that's redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 194.75.93.220

How can I evidence that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Equivalent Special Interest Groups and other local government sector bodies, such as the National Association of Local Councils, District Councils' Network, County Councils Network and Core Cities Group, have an equivalent range of sources to what I have provided, but still have a Wikipedia page. 194.75.93.220 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORG, you need to provide multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Md. Muqtadir Fuad

Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8 And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft to publish in English Wikipedia. Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Md. Muqtadir Fuad: I've already answered on my talk page, please don't post the same request in several places. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Understood Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Deepaknarwal003

Why it deleted? Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepaknarwal003: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion or 'telling the world about yourself'. Try LinkedIn etc. instead. And please read the notices posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a public figure, social media influencer with more than 200k followers, acting done in Sons kf the soil, and indian kabaddi player, so for real and authentic info this page is important for social media verification of real accounts Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, but nothing in what you say negates anything I said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me a international kabaddi player deserves a wikipedia page or not??? You can search on google for real proofs:- Deepak Narwal is a professional kabaddi player, social media influencer and well known person on internet who has more than 200k pkus followers, please don't delete page its important for social media verification. Deepak narwal have a imdb page also who worked in Sons of the soil & Pro Kabaddi league. Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepaknarwal003: you seem to be misunderstanding what is required for an article to be accepted. Your content is first of all completely unreferenced (and no, a Twitter link doesn't count), which is totally unacceptable in articles on living people. Secondly, there is zero evidence of notability, which is demonstrated through sources, not by being "a [sic] international kabaddi player" or having X number of social media followers. And finally, as I've already explained, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, no matter what; see WP:AUTOBIO for explanation of why this is. And to make matters worse, you keep spamming us with this content incessantly. My advice is to stop now, before you find yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:41, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Hannah Zacharias

}}


Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannah Zacharias: I assume you're here regarding  Courtesy link: Draft:Clara Biermasz – what would you like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am sorry but since I am a pianist, this is hard for me. I created this account under an alias. My name is Clara, my website is https://www.clarabiermasz.com/. I am a pianist and i am trying to create my own wikipedia page. I used the information i created for my website. As you can imagine, i am not a copywriter therefore i only created once a text that i plan on using everywhere. Please let me know how to proceed with the draft publishing as it is now rejected due to copyright. Thank you! Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannah Zacharias Wikipedia is not perosnal web space. It is an encyclopaedia of notable topics. One does not have "one's own Wikipedia page", articles are written on notable entities. Do you pass WP:NMUSICIAN? If you do it is acceptable to draft an article in Draft: space, submitting it for review. It needs to be neutral prose.
Further, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannah Zacharias Now, if, and only if, you qualify under WP:NMUSICIAN it is possible to re-use your copyright text if it is freely licenced for onward use. You can handle that on your web page by using a licence like the one Wikipedia uses. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Ad1959

-DoubleGrazing has been deliberately rejecting the drafts can someone help me get this article published as i have been in contact with some people linked with the personality and has been asked to publish this article, thank you in advance. Ad1959 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info: this matter is now at ANI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User is now blocked, as is their alternate account, User:Abhirup2441139. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Drmies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 18 April 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu

Hello! What other resources should I include in my draft? What it is missing particularly? FlorinCornianu (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorinCornianu: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have only one usable source ( https://www.websiteplanet.com/form-builders/123formbuilder/#overview ) and even then I'm not fully convinced this is usable, but it is your best source by a mile. One source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

This is the first time that I'm creating a Wikipedia page for something and I need some tips to make sure that it would get declined again. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: You have only one source, and it's the awards' own website. Even if it were a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-Fido-Awards news/scholarly source that discusses the awards at length, is written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial and fact-checking processes, one source by itself is not enough to support any Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more references. Is there any else that I need to do? Rincemermaid (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where they've been added. Even purging my cache doesn't show new sources. Stand by while I assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous promotional marketing... "These prestigious awards recognize standout canine talents from all UK cinema releases throughout the year."? Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rincemermaid: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode. I will skip over your first source.
One thing I will note is that the lot of these are about the '24 awards. If the award has been around since 2007 as the article claims it shouldn't be too difficult to find news reports for earlier awards cycles, and doing that would help with notability. With that said, as TRiL notes, the article would need to be heavily rewritten based on the good sources you have (the KISS principle applies to Wikipedia writing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/, https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/. I did find two The Guardians about the Fido Awards from 2009, here are the links: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/nov/23/fido-awards-dogs-cinema , https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/nov/16/fido-award-canine-oscarsRincemermaid (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those Grauniad sources look good. I'd say you might have enough to show notability with those; the question now turns to rewriting the article based off of the information in the three Grauniad and one Deadline Hollywood source you have at present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Kswuid

I dont understand why my submission was rejected as i feel like it perfectly aligned with the purpose of wikipedia and was sufficiently informative Kswuid (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely unsourced, you have much to learn about Wikipedia; please use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nelsenbrockfan

Hello, what can I do to get my article allowed? Nelsenbrockfan (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nyjja

We added a new section and a new source to the article. Would it be possible to submit it again, please? Nyjja (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyjja. Rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft, but you can reach out to the last reviewer @MaxnaCarta if you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection. Qcne (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, @Qcne.
@MaxnaCarta: We added a new section (Honorary Membership) which links to personal Wikipedia pages of honorary members. Would you consider it a significant enough change to re-submit the draft? We wouldn't want it to be rejected for good, since we hope to reach the required notability in time and be accepted eventually. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Nyjja (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by DeclanMiner2005

I tried to write this draft better, and I will try again to write it better so it can be accepted. I am sorry, Wikipedia. I wish you a great day! :) DeclanMiner2005 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @DeclanMiner2005, the draft has been rejected so cannot be re-submitted. It is not a viable encyclopaedic article in it's current state. Maybe try writing a Blog? Qcne (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

00:22, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Keppard123

Why was my entry rejected again? The reviewer did not leave an explanation. The previous reviewers wanted more references. I included quite a few. Please tell me what I am doing wrong so this can be accepted. The guitarist in question is a world class player and this is an important release. Thanks! Keppard123 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why would you call this a test edit? This is a serious entry. Please respond when you can. Keppard123 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keppard123: The issue is that the draft is almost entirely critical reception, a tracklist, and credits; it should be a summary of what the album is, how it was produced, and the critical reception of it. Compare 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) or Odyssey Number Five, which are featured-class articles on albums. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 19 April 2024 review of submission by TALARI ARUN KUMAR

I edited my article named "Traits of a successful salesperson". Please refer and approve it TALARI ARUN KUMAR (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TALARI ARUN KUMAR: We do not host op-eds. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Prathiksha1996

Hi, this is the third time I am writing this article can you please help me which point sounds like an advertisement here so that I can edit it accordingly Prathiksha1996 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prathiksha1996: Before we continue, what is your connexion to FloCareer? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked as sock.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Eeeenah0209

Hi There,

My recent submission has been declined for the following reason:

Resubmitted with no meaningful improvement, previous decline(s) still apply. Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at KWV South Africa instead.

The following article is on KWV Brandy, a label under the KWV umbrella, and therefore needs its own page. The existing KWV page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWV_South_Africa) simply states the history and origin of the brand. The purpose of my article is to give more information about KWV Brandy and its varieties, along with all of its awards. Is there a there perhaps a way forward? 

Eeeenah0209 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eeeenah0209: if you can show that KWV House of Brandy is independently notable, then it may be possible to have a separate article on it. (I'm not saying even then we necessarily should have a separate article, but it would be at least possible.)
Could you please respond to the conflict-of-interest query on your talk page? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Zeeyas

According to my article reviewer, the article was declined due to insufficient published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. However, I believe that the references provided meet these criteria. I kindly need assistance in updating the article in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. Zeeyas (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeeyas: so that we don't have to plough through nearly 50 (!) citations, could you please list here the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG / WP:ORG guideline, namely: secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of the subject, and that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Note that passing mentions, routine business reporting, anything where a representative of the organisation is commenting or being interviewed, and anything that is based on press releases, sponsored content or other material originating with the organisation do not count. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Kindly see below a list of our three strongest citations based on the criteria:
  1. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-39438/
  2. https://luminategroup.com/investee/yaradua
  3. https://statehouse.gov.sl/sierra-leones-president-julius-maada-bio-seeks-partnership-towards-promoting-purposeful-leadership-with-a-symbolic-visit-to-the-shehu-musa-yaradua-centre-nigeria/
Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeeyas: DoubleGrazing may not be willing to take the time to assess 50 sources, but I am. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of the sources you have that I could assess are usable in any way. Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability (companies and organizations) and look for better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thank you for the very detailed feedback. I will work on the sources as advised. Zeeyas (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeeyas You said "our" above. Are you associated with this Foundation? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Yes, I am. Zeeyas (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeeyas Then please read conflict of interest; you will need to make a formal disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you. I believe I did that before submitting the draft. Zeeyas (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeeyas I don't see in your edit history where you disclosed. If you checked a box when you used the article wizard, that is not a disclosure, it's just a way of guiding you. No one knows you checked that box other than you. You need to disclose as WP:COI describes. If you find the coding too challenging, you may just write a statement on your user page to the effect of "I wish to disclose a conflict of interest with regards to the Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation". 331dot (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Shark4124

I cannot submit it,because it says "ratelimited" what i gotta do? Shark4124 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shark4124 I fixed your post to provide the correct link to your draft. I'm not sure about your issue, but your draft would not be accepted if you submitted it, as it has no independent reliable sources summarized. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source are hard to find,sorry. Because it really rare. Shark4124 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shark4124 Sources are a must; you should have them in hand before starting to write a draft. Sources do not need to be online, a book in a library is fine.
If sources are hard to find, how do you know about this man? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got in from the youtube actually (sorry if i say "youtube") ill change it bro. Because it a bit confusing,sorry! Shark4124 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bro,appreciate that for the suggestions, i able to submit it Shark4124 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Revbunmi

I know very well of the subject matter; Olubunmi Adeleye Thomas, he is an unpublished personality very few is online about him and the Oyo State Government official website has information about him at www.bunmithomas.org.ng and knowing him to be an human right activist and clergy in Ibadan the most populous city in Nigeria, he ought to be on wikipedia. please i recommend that you call for articles concerning him. thank you. Revbunmi (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revbunmi If there are few sources about this man, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. We do not place phone calls here searching for sources, it's up to you to provide them. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Fanindradev

I’m trying to add a biography page of Fanindra bhardwaj he is music producer and songwriter please help me to add a title for fanindra bhardwaj and please suggest me which reference needed in submission [[ user:fanindradev]] (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find several places where people wholly unconnected with Bhardwaj, and not prompted or fed information by or on behalf of Bhardwaj, have chosen to write at lenght about him, and been published in reliable sources. That is the only kind of source which is relevant at this stage.
If you do not have at least three sources which meet that description (see WP:42 for more detail then you are wasting your time and our time. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 19 April 2024 review of submission by 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD

whywas it rejected 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the reasons for rejecting it, but the reason given for deleting it was that iswasunambiguous advertising or promotion.
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.
Writing an article starts by finding several independent reliable sources about the subject, and then continues by summarising what those sources say. It follows that if there are not enough such sources, and article is not possible, and any attempt to write one is a complete waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

03:55, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Arismauve

I posted News that y'all want, and in news they said "single" as I Forgive You. But Why declined? I really can't understand Arismauve (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arismauve: One source by itself, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Biospeleologist

Please Suggest how to modify for publishing my article Mandhip Khol in wikipedia. Biospeleologist (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Цымбалов Данил

В чем проблема? Цымбалов Данил (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Цымбалов Данил: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content that is not in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Automated translation - ru] Это англоязычная Википедия. Мы не можем использовать контент, написанный не на английском языке. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Jamesmfinnegan

Why is this not acceptable? Jamesmfinnegan (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted as a test page, as it had no content. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the deleted drafts, but judging from the messages on your user talk page, you need to read what Wikipedia is not carefully. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Caeid

Hello, I hope this message finds you well. We have submitted our request some times and it just got rejected. As you know, we have a product with a long history but the last release date was 2 weeks ago. There are lots of pages in this field that have the same content and the same sources and they got approved but it's strange about our page that just rejected. We used as many sources and references as we can and we expect to get approved. Please help us in this regard Caeid (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeid: "We"? This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and odds are the other articles you're looking at were never drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about your company or your products: that is called promotion and is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.
If several people wholly unconnected with you and your associates, and not fed information by or on behalf of you (eg interviews, press releases) have chosen to write about your company at length, and been published in reliable sources, then there could be an article about your company. It would be based almost 100% on what those sources had said about you - good and bad - and not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
You are strongly discouraged from trying to write such an article, because it will be even harder for you because of your conflict of interest than it otherwise would. If you choose to do so anyway, then having found your indepedent sources, you would have to do the difficult step of forgetting everything you know about the company, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources said - even if you disagreed with some of what they said. Do you see why this is discouraged?
As for those other articles: please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Sadikul Masduq

I have updated my article you can check now. Sadikul Masduq (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadikul Masduq: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 20 April 2024 review of submission by Beatrix leo

Why my article is showing me that this submission is declined? Beatrix leo (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was thoroughly promotional and has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

16:13, 21 April 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

My submission was declined due to so called "lack of sources". However, there are many sources on the article. Furthermore, Meckenzie is a leading shareholder in a huge company, with significant coverage in all main financial websites Both in Israel and The US עומר תשבי (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking at this draft: Subject falls into a community-authorised contentious topic (Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Alexbarg

My submission was declined because of not providing reliable sources for the information, however the sources of information were from the official British Shooting website and from a BBC news article solely about the person who the Wikipedia page was about. The initial reason for the Wikipedia page to be created was because there was a separate page which referenced the individual in question with a hyperlink which said there was no existing page for the individual. Please can you advise? Alexbarg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NATH for the criteria they need to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 21 April 2024 review of submission by 37.252.90.42

Hello There, I have just translated Wikipedia article written in Sinhala, Sri Lanka language. Unfortunately Wikipedia rejected it , I am new to Wikipedia and trying to do something better to social, specially as a translator I am trying to translate a Wikipedia articles which is written in Sinhala to English for free, Please kindly help me to improve the knowledge and find what is the wrong with my translating's. Here is the link to original article > https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A_%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%81%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9A 37.252.90.42 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't seem to mention Muthumudalige Nissanka? Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Varshu018

The article is not being accepted since a long time Varshu018 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done anything about the reviewers comment "The Times of India cannot be used to source entertainment articles - please find more reliable sources" Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 21 April 2024 review of submission by MartinJeremy78

Why my article was declined. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinJeremy78: it was declined for lack of evidence of notability, as explained in the decline notice. We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with you about it. I have provided you several sources that confirm my articcle and data about Mrs. Diana Elizabeth Martinovich. It seems to me you have something personal against Diana Elizabeth Martinovichm,because there are persons with much less accomplishments and with much less notability that are published on Wikipedia. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Topg1985

An Editor, HouseBlaster, is repeatedly commenting on and editing my draft. It feels like disruptive editing and a personal issue. There seems to be a query about notability, but I am sure the topic is notable.

All my Love,

Topg1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: I have nothing against you or Bishop. However, I have significant doubts about whether Bishop is notable. I have created a source assessment table of the sources currently in the article, and I previously assessed four others in response to a question at my talk page. An article on this subject has been deleted after a deletion discussion, and has been deleted at various titles over the years (including William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer); this list is from the deletion discussion). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HouseBlaster and 331dot,
Thank you for your comments. The subjects notability has nothing to do with previous attempts to create the article. I understand your concern but I am convinced he is notable.
All my Love,
TooG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: with respect, it doesn't matter whether you're convinced he's notable; it only matters whether you can objectively demonstrate his notability through sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
I hope you are well and thank you for your message. That is affirmative, I can objectively demonstrate notability through sources.
All my Love, TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: I have deleted your latest additions to this page. Please do not start a new thread, just add to this existing one. And certainly don't add two new threads that are identical. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
Which of my additions are you referring to?
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know your own edits?! A moment ago you opened two new threads on the bottom of this page, saying:
"The editor HouseBlaster, has stated he has a personal issue with me and my editing. He keeps commenting on and trying interfere with my draft."
Quite apart from everything else, that's not even a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
My apologies, I did not notice that it had been deleted. My page had not updated. I feel it is worth noting that the editor in question has commented that if I re-submit the draft he will force a deletion discussion.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: nothing wrong with that. You should not resubmit a draft that has been rejected; that's what rejection means. And if you do (resubmit), that is just saying that a deletion process will consequently be instigated.
BTW, do you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Your user page says you're a paid editor, but it's not clear whether and how that relates to the subject of this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
The editor in question has stated that he does not think I am taking him seriousely. This is a personal issue and nothing to do with me or my draft or Wikipedia. I have been editing the Encyclopedia for a while now and never had a problem like this. It makes me feel bad. The subject of the draft is a musician, and I have been requested by an artist management to write a draft about him. So there is no COI.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: could you please be a little less vague – what is this "artist management" you speak of? What is their relationship to Bishop? And what is their relationship to you, and how come they made such a request? So far it's sounding very much like there probably is a COI, we just need to establish its precise nature.
As for any personal issues between two editors, this isn't something I'm prepared to get involved in, and it also isn't something we can assist with here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
Hi I have already declared COI on my user page. I work for his management team. I do not know the artist, or why they made the request.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: yes, I know you had disclosed some paid editing on your user page; my question was whether it relates to Bishop. (I say "had", because for some mysterious reason you've now removed that disclosure.)
And as if that's not enough, you say on one hand that "there is no COI", and on the other that you work for Bishop's (?) management team.
What's going on here? If we can't straighten out this matter ourselves, I'll need to ask an admin to intervene. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topg1985 certainly has a COI.

Topg1985, you are not taking me seriously. I have told you that the answer is no. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my advice.

You have not provided any reliable sources which contain significant coverage and are independent of Bishop. Do you have any? That is the whole ballgame. If you have multiple, Bishop is notable. If not, he is not. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,
I hope HouseBlaster that you are feeling a little less bad about yourself and have a better feeling of self-worth. I am not sticking my fingers anywhere or ignoring anyone. I have taken onboard what HouseBlaster has said. I have certainly provided such sources, and I can find more if necessary. In HouseBlaster’s analysis he rejects reference 1, but it is listed as reliable on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources for music, and is independant and significant.
There is enough information on Bishop to write an article, and the sources are reliable and independant. When I started writing the page I placed the correct COI template on my userpage, and this was noted. The template stated that I worked for Bishop’s management. I thought it could be removed at anytime. There is no problem there. What exactly is the issue?
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: this feels like trying to nail jelly to a wall...
The paid-editing COI disclosure on your user page read as follows:
{{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=Sentric Music|client=Sentric Music}}
Where in that does it say anything about Bishop? And/or where in the Bishop draft does it say anything about Sentric Music? The connection may be perfectly obvious to you, given that you work for them, but it isn't to me, hence my question.
And no, you emphatically may not remove disclosures.
Therefore, the "issue" is that you appear to be a paid editor, without a valid and unambiguous paid-editing disclosure in place. That, and your ongoing badgering of this matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing and HouseBlaster,
I will re-add the template immediately. My concern is that now is that if I edit the draft and re-submit it, then it will automatically be in a deletion discussion, which should not be the case if the subject is notable.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Topg1985: your disclosure still makes no reference to Bishop.
And you can keep saying as many times as you like that Bishop is notable; that does not make him so, we need actual evidence.
I think I'll have to give up as this is clearly going nowhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly notable, the deletion discussion will end with consensus that the subject is notable and it would not be deleted.

Source 1 is the closest we have to a significant coverage in a reliable source, but I am very skeptical that it is truly independent of Bishop. It is almost a verbatim copy from source 2, which according that website's its "about us" section is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent. Therefore, source 1 is either committing plagiarism (which puts its reliability in doubt) or it is copying with permission, in which case the source is not independent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,
I will mention Bishop specifically in the disclosure.
HouseBlaster, source 1 is listed as reliable by Wikipedia. It is independant of Bishop because it does not follow that just because two text share the same information that the same people are involved in their creation. Your skepticism is bordering on bad faith, but I am glad to see you are feeling less insecure!
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HouseBlaster,
In addition source 4 contains significant coverage under the ‘more about’ section. You’ve said the source is reliable and independant already.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 2 don't only share the same information, they share the same wording of the information. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two sources (source 1 is in yellow; source 2 is in blue). Paragraph 1 of source 1:

−
Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.
+
Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature to Will Bishop, despite being a reserved individual, he has gone against the odds performing regularly at music venues writing music, a far cry from his upbringing. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.

Paragraph 2 of source 1 appears identically in source 2 (Now signed to Sony Music's The Orchard, William was born in London, attending the Haberdashers Askes' School for Boys where he learned cello and double bass, performing predominantly orchestral works. In London he learned to play guitar wanting to write his own songs and music.). Here is paragraph 3 of source 1 compared to source 2:

−
William moved to Brighton, where his academic text The Love Looks Not With The Eyes But With The Mind was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.
+
William moved to Brighton, where his academic text 'The love looks not wit the eyes but with the mind' was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.

Either source 1 is committing plagiarism and thus is unreliable (because any editorial standards would forbid plagiarism), or source 1 is copying with permission from source 2 and thus is not independent. (And source 2 was not copying from source 1; source 2 has existed since 2021 and source 1 is dated from 2024.)

I missed the "more about" section; thank you for drawing my attention to it. When I first reviewed the source, I evidently missed a few things. Doing a more thorough review of the source, I have doubts about its reliability (it is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or the list of perennial sources, and I cannot find any discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard). Even if we assume the source is reliable, that is a single source: we need multiple for notability. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
I still think that if Wikipedia states the source is reliable then it must be reliable, but great analysis.
I have added two further sources which should have enough independant, reliable information for you and I will add more when I find them.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia say source 4 is a reliable source?

I have reviewed the two additional sources you added. qrates contains the same biography from sources 1 and 2, and thus is not independent. ReverbNation might be a reliable source; I don't know. However, it does not appear to be independent: It contains a line talking about Bishop in the first person (I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
I meant to say that Wikipedia lists source 1 as reliable. The sentence you refer to from Reverbnation looks like a typo.
I still have a few more I can add.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I buy that it is a typo; I can't say I have ever heard of someone writing from the first person by mistake. However, I know of plenty of times people are told to write about themselves in the third person (to name just two, biographies for company websites and theater playbill blurbs). The source also sounds like something written by (or at least in collaboration with) Bishop; an independent writer would not know details like [Bishop] didn’t think anything of it at the time.

When Wikipedia says a source is "reliable", we mean "usually reliable". In all cases, the context matters. In fact, a direct quote from the guideline is The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Even though the source might be generally reliable, we can't blindly say it is reliable in all circumstance. If it is copying from a different source, it would inherit the reliability and independence of the original source. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
With regards to your first paragraph, independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.
With regards to the second paragraph, thank you for the information. In this case I assume the original source is reliable and independant as I can find no direct links to Bishop.
All my Love,
Top G1985 Topg1985 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is taking creative liberties and not reporting factually, it is reporting speculation as fact, which makes it unreliable. Either way, the article does not contribute to notability.

As for source two, as I said above:

according [source 2's about section, it] is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,
Taking creative liberties is, I agree, not a report of a fact. Still, that is exactly what journalists do. I don’t think they are reporting speculation as fact, it’s pretty clear it’s just the journalist speculating.
As for chinamix.com, I can find no link to Bishop directly. I don’t wish to argue but how can you be sure ‘they don’t host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinamix.com’? You can’t really say much about the organisation from just a website.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think an independent, reliable source with significant coverage about Bishop would look like?
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think the time has come to draw a line under this and stop flogging a dead horse. The draft has been rejected, and IMO correctly so. No convincing evidence of notability has been produced, only unsubstantiated claims by a paid editor (whose COI took far too much effort to establish, I might add). The whole thing is becoming tendentious and this thread is looking more and more like bludgeoning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
On the contrary, and with all due respect, I am trying very hard to establish what is meant by a reliable, independant and significant source. So that I may edit Wikipedia in the best way possible. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with paid editing, and I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time without being a paid editor. I can produce a very long list of articles about musicians which use sources which I have been told are unsuitable, but I don’t flirt with controversy or use blunt weaponry.
All my Love,
TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap articles exist for that argument, there is zero evidence that the artist passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Theroadislong,
I hope you are well. Please stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best.
All my Love,
TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 April 2024 review of submission by BretDvr

I am unclear which of the types of sources I am missing, or which you would like more of. I've linked to several outside sources that discuss PolyAI and its products/work, not just internal websites or press releases. I would be happy to provide more information, but I need to know what to provide. BretDvr (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BretDvr Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Once those are left out, the draft just tells of the routine activities of the company, which does not establish notability. We need sources with significant coverage of your company- coverage that goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let me see what I can get. BretDvr (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Monelle

Could you please tell me what "copyrighted information" was included in the article I submitted? I seem to remember being told that the wording was the same as that on Sonia Malkine's website. That website was owned and written by me (Sonia Malkine was my mother). It has since been taken down as a result of having been hacked. Is there any possibility that my article could now be included in Wikipedia? Thank you for your attention. Monelle (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Monelle (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monelle A publication must be CC BY-SA compliant in order for its contents to be copied here and even then the content may not be suitable for use in a Wikipedia article per WP:NOT (more specifically WP:NOTPROMO) and the Neutral point of view policy. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
It follows that writing an article starts by looking for such independent sources, and if they cannot be found, there is no point in going any further. It is unlikely that very much on your mother's website will be relevant to a Wikipedia article ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:39, 21 April 2024 review of submission by Jadooee

I received this message," This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.".

I just edited the draft, but I do not want to resubmit and risk it getting deleted if the issues are still present. Is there a way I can ask for it to be reviewed without penalty? Jadooee (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. As long as you are making progress and there is a chance the issues can be resolved, you shouldn't have an issue. I will say that the draft is loaded with promotional language("stands as a remarkable figure who has astounded many scientists and health professionals"; "she achieved the extraordinary feat", etc). An article should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible, without embellishments. Much of the draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see WP:BLP.
Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

08:12, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Amitunbind

Hello, Can you please suggest me what should i remove from my article? Amitunbind (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitunbind: I've requested for the lot of it to be removed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Ephrem-IRB

Because the article I submitted was not accepted. I would like some one to review the article I submitted. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: your draft (not yet article) has been reviewed, and declined. We're not interested in what the organisation has to say about itself. We want to know what other, entirely unconnected sources have said about it.
Also, you need to disclose your status as a paid editor. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I don't want to be paid anything. I just wanted to give information about a regional organization in the Eastern Africa. Kindly advise. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ephrem-IRB: I'm saying you are being paid, because of your employment at this organisation, and our terms & conditions of use require you to formally disclose this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct I am an employee of the organization that I wanted to give information. Where can I disclose that please. Thank you. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been provided with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get it clearly. Where can I correct those things? Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "did not get it clearly". Can you not find the message on your talk page, or do you not understand it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Write a statement on your user page, User:Ephrem-IRB, in which you say something to the effect of "Per the Terms of Use, I declare that I am an employee of the Independent Regulatory Board of the Eastern Africa Power Pool". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is rejected. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new section for new posts, please use this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ephrem-IRB You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia and what we do here. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. An article about an organization must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the organization or basic informaton(like staff) and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the topic- what makes it notable. Press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, staff interviews, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it's even harder with a conflict of interest. You must set aside everything you know about your organization and all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 136.233.52.242

I was notified that "I can now create articles myself without posting a request". I have created and moved this page Sielmat. Yet I am not sure if it is the same as publishing an article for creation since I cannot find this article in Google Search. Do inform me in this regard. 

136.233.52.242 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New articles won't be indexed by search engines until they have been approved by new page patrol, or until 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any such way to submit a "request for approval" to this new page patrol? Thanks. Puia 98 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Puia 98: new pages get added automatically into the pool for reviewing, there is nothing you need to (or indeed can) do to request this. There is currently a large backlog of over 14,000 articles awaiting review, so this could take a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 22 April 2024 review of submission by A smart kitten

I came across this draft from the talk page of the IP editor that submitted it. It was declined by Dan arndt as failing WP:DISAMBIG; however, it seems to be a valid disambiguation page from what I can see, and the entries seem to meet MOS:DABENTRY. Posting here to request a second set of eyes. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the article doesn’t disambiguate to any other Wikipedia articles, just to a series of unrelated things. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Pep.maps2020

Request your assistance in approval of this profile page. Pep.maps2020 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that has no meaning and literally resembles a fan page. As per @CanonNi:, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional website. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 22 April 2024 review of submission by MarGiann

Hello I am trying to publish the article "Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters . However it does not seem to work. Could you please help me further with that? Thanks a lot in advance. MarGiann (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: this draft was declined for being non-encyclopaedic, both in structure and content. As such, it would require a fairly comprehensive rewrite.
Also worth noting that it was declined nearly six months ago, and is very soon eligible for speedy deletion as an abandoned draft. So if you do plan to continue editing it, you should do so sooner rather than later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the fast response. I have considerably edited the document and I wanted to resubmit. However, I get to receive this message.
"No stashed content found for 1181823001/bad43be9-91aa-11ee-b2d6-4cd98fa9ea25"
I think it is a technincal issue but I am not sure what exactly is the problem. MarGiann (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarGiann: yes, it is a technical issue, and as such outside the scope of this help desk, but AFAIK it has to do with the browser losing the local stash (temporary content store) where the edits you make reside until they are committed by publishing the draft. This happens if the browser is left open for a long time or something goes wrong with your system. Some browsers apparently are better at recovering such data, but you getting that error message suggests it may be lost for good. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Arinc9

This draft that I have submitted is not an attempt to be humorous, nor is it a hoax. We have collectively decided on RIPE NCC's SEE 12 event that creating this page would be helpful in addressing the misinformation for anyone accessing the internet. At least Vesna Manojlovic from RIPE NCC, Daniele Bovio from the European Academic & Research Network (EARN), and François Flückiger from CERN have endorsed this action.

I am submitting this while at the Divani Caravel Hotel. You can prove that by running whois on the IP address that I use to submit this. The SEE 12 event is being hosted in this hotel. Arinc9 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of your sources mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting my reply here as well:
No, all of the sources documented here mention this person. You can refer to World Wide Web to confirm that this Sir Sam Walker person does not exist in the context of the creating of the World Wide Web. Arinc9 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arinc9: so you're submitting a draft with four sources each saying Walker is one of the creators of WWW, to prove that isn't the case? So far the evidence only seems to show that is the case!
Besides, four passing mentions (which is what they are) would not make him notable enough to justify an article.
If you want to create an article on (what I think is) your intended topic, you would need to first show that there are numerous sources incorrectly claiming something (which is what you've done, sort of), then cite reliable evidence refuting this, and then show that this misinformation (disinformation?) is being widely enough discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable to warrant an encyclopaedia article on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be trying RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
If you can find several sources discussing whether Walker exists or not, then there may be an article possible. But if you can find only mentions of him then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there cannot be an article about him. (Note that this is quite independent of whether he exists or not: Wikipedia has articles on many notable but non-existent subjects, such as unicorns, N-rays and the luminiferous aether.)
Furthermore, even if he is notable, then your assertion that he does not exist appears to be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

How do I write these sentences in a neutral tone: The For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, or FIDOS, is a UK film awards event created by Toby Rose. It celebrates performances by dogs as well as recognize canine talents in films. It's the sister award to the Palm Dog awards, which was also created by Toby Rose in 2001 and held at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France. Both events were inspired by Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt. Founded by cinema journalist Toby Rose in 2007, the first annual Fidos Awards presentation was held as a part of The Times London Film Festival at the BFI on the South Bank on October 28, 2007. The event is now held in March. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: words like "celebrates", "inspired", and to a slightly lesser extent "talents" are quite peacocky or marketing blurb-y. Replace them with the most boring, dry synonyms you can think of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit for the first sentence: The FIDOS, or For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, is a film awards ceremony in the UK founded by Toby Rose. It honors dogs' performances and acknowledges their skills in movies. The Palm Dog awards, a related event created by Rose in 2001, takes place at the Cannes Film Festival in France and is considered the sister award to the FIDOS. These awards were created in honor of Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt.   Rincemermaid (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 22 April 2024 review of submission by NMDP

Hello--I have made changes that the previous reviewer suggested, but I also want to leave a message for the next prospective reviewer showing how the subject of this article meets the requirements of notability of composers and lyricists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) This subject meets criteria #1 and #2, but I think the reviewers have been missing this. Where would I leave such a comment after I resubmit the article? Thanks! NMDP (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NMDP: you can leave comments on the draft talk page; I will add a note highlighting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks VM. NMDP (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NMDP: Given you have 53 sources it may very well be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have two okay sources, and the rest of the ones I can assess are a combination of name-drops, Discogs, and Allmusic content-free album profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano. Thank you for your time on this and your comments. My thought is that Della Penna seems to qualify as a notable composer/lyricist under Wikipedia's own criteria:
For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
  3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)
He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The Minetta Lane Theater. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).
Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? NMDP (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NMDP: Remember when I said above that it may be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat? Two sources out of 51 being good (discounting the two walled NYT sources) is a problem for any draft, since it means that reviewers aren't going to bother approving the article as the sourcing is still very noticeably subpar. All the extraneous sources other than the Berkshire Eagle, American Songwriter, and (potentially) the two walled New York Times sources need to be removed, and the draft rewritten based on the sources that remain. Bear in mind WP:BLP applies here as well, which makes the useless sources even more of a liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C

I'm wondering if I can get more specifics on how to address the suggestion of making this more "encyclopedic" rather than an "essay" and also specific points where I should revise from having an opinion to being neutral? Thank you for the guidance. 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty finding any of your sources which actually meet the triple criterion in WP:42. All of them I've looked at are either published by the subject, or mention them without saying very much about them. The last couple don't even mention it.
This means, it seems to me, that your draft does not yet establish that the Union meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Furthermore, if there are no independent sources which say anything substantial about the Union, then there is nothing that can go in the article - which is probably why it reads as an essay.
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) 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 22 April 2024 review of submission by 108.6.176.12

The draft was declined for being mostly a copy paste of Hurricane Ian, but a discussion at Talk:Hurricane Ian determined a consensus for a split and trimming down of the main section. The draft should be accepted because it reflects consensus. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article splits are not usually done via this process; see WP:PROSPLIT for the procedure. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the reviewer simply wasn't aware of that split discussion (an easy thing to overlook, if you ask me). Courtesy pinging Shadow311. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Gaw54

PLEASE HELP!!!! I have made multiple edits to this page and published them. Then someone seems to reject my article and now all my edits have disappeared. I am beyond frustrated. Gaw54 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: your draft has only been declined, not rejected, and that does not make edits "disappear" (as you can see yourself from the edit history). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But my edits DID disappear. I made a number of new edits yesterday and today, published them, and then when I went back to look at the document, they were gone. Moreover, one of the objections to the article was that I needed to use footnotes. There are 23 footnotes in this article! I simply don't understand the basis for the article being declined. This was written to respond to the call of the Women Artists Project to fill the gap between the presence of male and female artists on Wikipedia. With this kind of experience, I can understand why. I've spent over a week on this entry and I still don't understand why it is being declined or how I can it before a reviewer who might actually know something about the subject and provide more useful feedback. Gaw54 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaw54: I'm not saying your edits didn't disappear. Maybe your browser crashed. Maybe your computer (or whatever device you're editing on) did. Maybe you didn't publish your edits. All I'm saying is, declining (or rejecting, for that matter) a draft does not cause anything to vanish. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaw54 As explained below, you are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Please only edit one of them to avoid confusion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Explorer Hamza

not able to understand rejection , please guide how to submit Explorer Hamza (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: articles on living people (WP:BLP) need to be referenced with inline citations, so that it's clear where each bit of the content is coming from; see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (I don't think that's the only issue with this draft, but it's the one it was declined for.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Max Elliott1

Mayday friends, could you help me understand why my page was not approved? I have not much experience in creating pages, and maybe I really missed something. Please help. Thanks, gracias, danke, merci, shukran, дякую Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Elliott1: it was declined because it is unreferenced. (A quick glance suggests there are other issues, too, but that's why it was declined this time around.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Max. I'm afraid that that is the usual experience for people who attempt to create an article before they have spent the time learning how Wikipedia works. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and gradually learning about core principles like verifiability, reliale sources, neutral point of view and notability, before ever trying the challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:33, 22 April 2024 review of draft by Gaw54


Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done that. I think the process may have been interrupted by someone reviewing and responding the draft before I publish the changes. I just tried again and hope that this works. On a related note, I tried entering tags but got the message that no page existed by the title of my article. Suggestions? Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I have spent considerable time on my entry on artist and curator Bonnie Rychlak. I am very confused about the basis of it being declined. I was told that my inline citations were not correctly but that I should footnotes. I'm very confused. There are 25 footnotes on the cite. Also, I tried without success to tag the page Women Artists and Women Writers in order that it get to editors in best position to provide valuable feedback. But when I attempted to tag the page, I received the notice that no such page with the title Bonnie Rychlak exists. Please advise. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated these sections. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that makes sense. Can you please clarify why one reviewer believes this individual doesn't meet the notability standard? She has a highly respected career in TWO fields both as artist and curator. She is one of the top experts on the artist Noguchi with over a dozen key publications and multiple international exhibitions. Moreover, she has co-exhibited with another artist who has a Wiki page, and was written about by a top critic/curator who also has a Wiki page. I'm trying to help fill the gap in entries on male and female artists on Wikipedia and am dismayed to find any number of male artists whose accomplishments don't hold a candle to those of this individual. I would very much appreciate any guidance on this matter. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 22 April 2024 review of submission by Adamu ab

Why are requesting assistant Adamu ab (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1220287175"