Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trafalgar54 (talk | contribs) at 10:38, 13 April 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Roberto_Giovanni_Carbone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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 7

04:19, 7 April 2024 review of submission by ItsDaRetailGuy1025

Fixed References & External Links with FM Station data Template & <ref> ItsDaRetailGuy1025 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsDaRetailGuy1025: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:40, 7 April 2024 review of submission by RDJ07

I am not even related to MVSR GROUPS LLC or Siva Raghavan M V. I am asking you why a page of Microsoft exists though it promotes or advertises the company. Similarly, Why can't a page for MVSR GROUPS LLC can't exist? I really wanted this page to be created since I like this company's products. What I should do to make this page exist? The lines that I have taken are from a page, where it is clearly mentioned, that the source of that page is from Wikipedia. So that page should also exist in Wikipedia, right? So, I wanted to create it. RDJ07 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RDJ07: your draft was not only entirely promotional, it was a blatant copyright violation. It may be possible to write an acceptable draft on this subject, but this wasn't it.
Well done for reviving a long-dead account, though, I rather enjoyed that. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks. Can you tell about the copyright violation. RDJ07 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 7 April 2024 review of submission by TaiXuan91

The reasons for rejection are ridiculous. GNU Moe is a software. I quoted GNU Moe's official website in reference. There are detailed software documents and source code download addresses on its official website. I don't know what is more reliable source than the official website for a software. TaiXuan91 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaiXuan91: this draft has not been rejected, only declined, and the reasons are not at all ridiculous. The software no doubt exists, but that is not enough for it to be included in a global encyclopaedia: we also need to see that it is notable. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply. Now I know the problem is there. So what I need to add is about "notable", not just "reliable sources". But in the original review reply, "reliable" is mentioned multiple times without "notable".
This page should be declined does not imply that the original review opinion was correct. Moreover, the original review reply was unconstructive.
The original reviewer's main area of expertise was history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pbritti#A_personal_note). I don't think the reviewer would like his history paper to be sent to a physicist for review. Not to mention the opinion of physicists is to add more mathematical formulas. TaiXuan91 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TaiXuan91: The original review mentions notability. You can see it in the second grey box at the top of the draft. Your history paper analogy is nonsensical and unproductive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, wikipeida is turning into yet another bureaucracy anyway. Now that you have the power to define “nonsensical and unproductive” enjoy it. TaiXuan91 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 7 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

reference source like? Google or website? Editobd (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editobd: could you kindly write in complete sentences using standard English grammar; I can't understand what you're asking. In any case, I've rejected this draft, so that's the end of the road for it.
Also, you've already been warned against spamming us with this Al Amin stuff. I suggest you stop now, before you get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 7 April 2024 review of submission by Tbound1

First time creating Wikipedia article Tbound1 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbound1: okay... do you have a question you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need help creating an article for an Australian Rules Football Player Tbound1 (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbound1: you need to show that the subject is notable; per WP:GNG, this requires significant coverage of him, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. You also need to give us some reason as to why this person warrants inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Merely existing isn't enough, nor is playing a bit of footy (and that's all we know, based on the single short sentence currently making up this draft). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the links to websites which have photos and information on Jim Thiel
https://www.redlegsmuseum.com.au/ON_FIELD/PLAYERS/THIELJames.aspx
https://australianfootball.com/players/player/jim%2Bthiel/17784 Tbound1 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbound1: primary sources don't establish notability. If that's all there is, then the subject probably isn't notable enough.
Note, though, that sources don't need to be online, so if there are old (pre-digital) newspapers etc., those can be accepted as long as they otherwise meet the reliability and other requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:38:31, 7 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by IceStorm 54


I rewrote my draft for the lynching of george witherell but it got rejected again

IceStorm 54 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Lynching of George Witherell
@IceStorm 54: your draft has been deleted as a copyright violation. You must write in your own words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good enough? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk?markasread=310813886&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-DoubleGrazing-20240407124400-IceStorm_54-20240407123800 IceStorm 54 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong link. This one: Draft:Lynching of George Witherell# IceStorm 54 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 7 April 2024 review of submission by Gents orge

I've cited plenty of secondary, independent sources as well as interviews conducted with the subject, not just his interviews. I'm not certain why the many publications cited don't warrant this being published. If the personal interviews were removed, would this be approved? Gents orge (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources so cannot be used to establish any notability likewise Facebook and assorted profile pages. You need to show how they pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 7 April 2024 review of submission by Jpaulsav1

hi What else needs sources? Jpaulsav1 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpaulsav1: this draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, you will get feedback once a reviewer assesses it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

05:38, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Merged account

Hello, please allow me to get some clarification regarding the review of my first article. My article was not published because the "draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject. Since the article provides for nearly all statements a reference, is my conclusion correct that only the references are not seen as independent enough? With other words, if I just find more references to replace existing references, it is sufficient. Or is there anything else in the text that needs to be fixed and/or is not yet referenced but needs a reference? I am asking this to avoid running into the wrong direction, because searching for additional evidences may take a lot of efforts. In example, I have listed in the draft the former presidents of Correns Corporation based on the information from the companies website. I understood that this source is not independent. If I can get copies from the trade register records, I just add them and then this list is sufficiently backed up with an independent reference and can remain. Additional question: I have also the Sales volume taken from the companies website. From my point of view, this information is never independent. It may be verified by an external auditor (which report may be anyway covered by an NDA), but the source of the Sales figure is still the company. Do you have any recommendations what kind of reference for this figure can be independent? Looking forward to your advice. Merged account (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Merged account: we need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. I don't believe any of the ones cited in this draft do that (with the possible exception of #1, which is cited in a way that makes it difficult to verify).
It could be that "find[ing] more references to replace existing references" would do the trick, but you would need to ensure that the new sources not only establish notability but also actually support the information against which you will be citing them. Possible, but far from guaranteed.
You're largely going about this WP:BACKWARDS. You shouldn't first write what you want, and then try to find sources that support that. You should start by finding a few (3-5) sources that clearly meet the GNG standard, summarise what they've said, and cite those sources against the information each of them has provided. This will give you both the necessary referencing and the appropriate content in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You can use primary sources, including ones close to the subject (eg. the company's own website) to support purely factual, and entirely non-contentious, information such as names of past and current presidents etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 8 April 2024 review of submission by 1.64.143.147

Hello,

It appears the above article has been rejected erroneously.

each of the references provided are from external third parties, from respected industry news sources (Electrive, New Atlas) which are not just regurgitations from a press release. Another, the Edison Awards, is a highly respected technology awards organisation. Thus, on this basis, do the sources not count as in-depth (detailed analysis on DESTEN tech), Reliable, Secondary and strictly independent (third party industry-focused news publications)?

It would be helpful to know how I may improve the page to secure publication.

Thanks. 

1.64.143.147 (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been declined, not rejected, and that has been done entirely correctly as there is zero evidence of notability per WP:NCORP.
If you are DESTEN Alasdair, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 8 April 2024 review of submission by IT-TueSE

Hello.

My Article about Prof. Dr. Thorsten Bohl got rejected because it 'doesn't meet one of the eight academic-specific criteria'. But thats not true in my opinion.

Two of these criterias are: 'The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).'

As Thorsten Bohl got elected as the chairman of the German School Award jury. The school award is sponsored by various institutions, including ARD, a state broadcaster institution. The award is presented alternately by the german President or the german Chancellor. This alone shows the importance Thorsten Bohl has on the academic field of educational sciences. This is mentioned in my article and also a (german) reference is given. So I'd like to ask how I can get my submission accepted. Thanks in advance! IT-TueSE (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IT-TueSE: do I understand you correctly, are you saying that membership or chairmanship of the German School Award jury meets criteria 2 and/or 3 of WP:NACADEMIC? Quite simply, I don't believe it meets either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing, you understand right. Why shouldn't it meet those criteria? It's the most important award for schools based on educational science criteria that allow a statement to be made about school quality. To be called for chairmanship proves his standing in educational sciences in germany and is a huge honour. I don't want to argue with you I just want to understand why this should not be relevant enough. If this is not the case, then I wonder what is? Kind Regards IT-TueSE (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IT-TueSE: because criterion #2 of NACADEMIC requires the subject to be the recipient of a major award, not to be handing out awards to others. And criterion #3 talks about scholarly societies and similar, which the School Award body is not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Okay, I understand. I brought those two criterias up because I thought it was more important and met the given criteria. But I think he also meets criteria 5 and/or 6 as he also is the founder and elected chairman of the Tübingen School of Education. It is a central academic institution for teacher training at the University of Tübingen. In this role he was also involved as a leading role in numerous projects in the teacher-training-quality-campaign funded by the german State Ministry "Ministry of Education and Research". This is also mentioned in the article with given references. IT-TueSE (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IT-TueSE: regarding criterion #5, where is the evidence that this person has held a named or distinguished chair or equivalent? Note that we are looking for something beyond standard tenured professorship here.
Criterion #6 refers to highest elected position in the entire university, ie. in your case the Rector. It also specifically says that individual department chairs or deans are usually not covered by that criterion.
I can understand why you would like to interpret the guideline 'generously', but so far I remain unconvinced, alas. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Kashi Narain Mishra

If the request for adminship is dropped ,is the concerned man informed Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashi Narain Mishra: I don't understand the question – what does a request for adminship have to do with this rejected draft, or vice versa? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an independent query. Earlier I received a message at regular intervals " A request for adminship is open for discussion." It has stopped now. So, I want to know if it has been dropped. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:42, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Esmb17


Hello, I am just looking for some feedback on my citations for this article. I am worried that despite the accuracy of the information, I might need to cite it from different places. Esmb17 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:32, 8 April 2024 review of submission by Interim22


Hello! When I input the coordinates onto my draft while visual editing, Draft:Al Batinah International School infobox template, it dosent make a map for me. I notices some other school articles always have maps but mine just dosen't do anything. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Interim22 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A map is an extra that can be added once an article is accepted. It will not affect whether the draft is accepted, which depends on whether it cites adequate references to establish notability, and whether it is written in a suitably neutral tone. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

04:33, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Marcello Vałe

my article was rejected. Why? Marcello Vałe (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it says in the rejection notice the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and be aware that hi jacking an article as you did at Rakhmanov is very disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 9 April 2024 review of submission by HistoryofJournalism

Hello,

I need help fixing the links and help linking to sources. I have not published an article for a long time and did not realize that I had forgotten how to do this part until I spent time working on it. Is there someone who can format the links so that they appear properly in the article? I will follow the format and add the rest from there. I follow journalists and their publications. I'd like to make sure the last section is formatted properly for Wikipedia. The rest of the article seems fine, I believe.

Thank you DJ 

HistoryofJournalism (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofJournalism: you've largely done it right, just place the citations inline after the information they support rather than piling everything at the bottom. See WP:REFB for further advice. And you may find the WP:RefToolbar useful in generating citations. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not sure how these separate lines appeared. Place the citations inline where? Do I copy and paste them into the article or do I place them at the bottom of the article under References or External Links? HistoryofJournalism (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to myself because this is an open question for everyone. As part of my investigation and research I queried this company anonymously using a non de plume to gain first-hand knowledge of their operations. Most of what I found online was straightforward but not objective enough. Through my research I was able to gather information that was not readily available online and shared it in my article. I've already started researching my next article, which is for American Zoetrope. I noticed the article currently on Wikipedia doesn't mention or acknowledge that American Zoetrope has an active social media community and was one of the first social media platforms dating back to 1998. I visited and did my research there as well. I plan to add this information to the American Zoetrope page. Is this type of research appropriate for updating or creating Wikipedia pages? HistoryofJournalism (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HistoryofJournalism No that is what we call original research and cannot be used here, we require that sources be published, you cannot use any personal knowledge. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know for future references. Thank you HistoryofJournalism (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, How do I find the reply to my question? Is there a method to receive notification that someone replied? Where do I click. Sorry about the dumb questions. HistoryofJournalism (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofJournalism Please just edit this existing section when responding, don't create a new section for every post.
You may watchlist this page so it appears in your watchlist, but there is no way to do that with this particular section- you should just monitor this page for replies. If you have your account preferences set to email you whenever your user talk page is edited, you can request that people post there when they reply to you. Also, when people use your username as I and DoubleGrazing did, you will receive what is called a ping, a notification, usually found at the top of the screen(it should be a red box with a number in it)- make sure you have pings turned on in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can 'subscribe' to a specific section, though, or is that not available in all user interfaces? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are correct; I forgot. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 9 April 2024 review of submission by KERALAMAN

Please help me with this article. Highlight the mistakes. KERALAMAN (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer- this tells the mistakes. Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 9 April 2024 review of submission by KERALAMAN

I used the content which is already published. need help regarding this subject. KERALAMAN (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not used content which was independently published. 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) 15:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Bekilicious

What more can be done? he was presented as an entrepreneur, it was rejected. we presented him as a philantropist, it was still rejected. pls advise. Bekilicious (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined the first time, rejected the second time. Rejection means that there is nothing further that can be done at this time. Who is "we"? Do you represent this man? 331dot (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not represent him. I only volunteered to write on him seeing the impact he has made and his NGO is already published on Wikipedia. If his NGO wiki can fly, why cant the biography of the person behind the NGO be published? Bekilicious (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible for an organization to merit an article but not its founder. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You "volunteered"; whom did you volunteer to? 331dot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bekilicious: it doesn't matter what you "present" him as, the requirements for notability are the same regardless of what the person does (with some exceptions like scientists and legislators).
Who is "we" in your question?
Nothing more can be done, as the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bekilicious You do seem to be associated with him, as you took the very professional looking image of him and he posed for you. This relationship must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no proof to this allegation. How do you ascertain that I took the picture? check Google for his photos. there is nothing special about that photo. Bekilicious (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Bekilicious you are fraudulently claiming to hold the copyright of somebody else's photograph. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bekilicious If you did not personally take the image of this man with your camera, you must immediately(right now, after you are done reading this) go to Commons and request deletion of the image. You have put this entire project in jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth noting that the user has been issued final warning on Commons for repeated copyright violations, so this shouldn't be news to them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, you need to tell us who "we" is("we presented him", you said) 331dot (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Robbakk

I honestly don't understand why this article has been denied. Every developer is known because of their games. Why are any of them profiled? What about this guy, who is ALWAYS confused with the person in the article I am creating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bell_(programmer) What qualifies this? He made a game and works at autodesk? What have I missed about the entire video game developer profile category on Wikipedia? Robbakk (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbakk: game reviews etc. may make the games notable, but notability is not inherited or transferred by association. We need to see significant coverage, directly of him, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
As for any other articles that may be out there, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you have come across ones that don't meet our notability etc. requirements, you're more than welcome to improve them, or tag them with appropriate maintenance tags, or initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
I honestly don't see that, basically ever, on any video game developer profiles... It's about the games and, in his case as CEO, the business moves - which I covered. If it has to be personal, then obviously that's a major area of information missing from almost every other article in this category.
Regardless, I know he has donated to charities, been covered for that, but I'm not really sure what else to say on that. He's a qualified psychologist? Would academics help? I think this subject is as worthy as many others, but I'm a bit lost because there's so few examples actually doing what I'm being asked to do.
If I held other video game developer profiles to the same standard this is, there won't be very many left. And I feel Wikipedia would be worse off for it. Without a profile for Ian Bell (the guy I linked above, not the guy I am trying to make a profile for) then the only other reliable source of info about him is MobyGames, which is now owned by a corporation and could be placed behind a paywall or shut down entirely whenever it doesn't make sense to someone at the top. Robbakk (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robbakk: I'm not sure what you're asking, if anything, but just to explain that Wikipedia articles are mainly written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If such sources don't exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them, and isn't therefore possible to write an article. This is pretty much the definition of our concept of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Not every person is notable, not even every person who has done 'important' or 'worthy' things. Wikipedia may well be worse off for it, but them's the rules, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robbakk We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles; those articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on theor own say about the topic, showing how it is notable. Game reviews make games notable, but not necessarily the creator of the game, at least in terms of meriting a standalone article and not just a mention in the article about the game. For the creator/developer to merit an article, there must be something beyond "they made games". There must be significant coverage of the person that details their life and what makes them important/significant/influential as a game developer. Something like Shigeru Miyamoto. Wikipedia isn't a place to just document the existence of someone and tell what they do. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I used the wrong word.
I fully understand that in a lot of cases there are things past association on game developer articles. I just felt like I had that, and far more than the example I gave. That's all.
I'd personally argue that the example you gave wouldn't be approved without association to Nintendo or the games listed for the reasons mine was. I think the WIlliam Ian Bell article would be expanded on. I guess I'm just a bit sad it's not being given a chance to.
I do appreciate the response, I'm just bummed about it. Robbakk (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robbakk If the sources aren't there about Mr. Bell, then they aren't there. I would suggest concentrating on writing about his games, perhaps if there are enough articles about his games, independent sources who see those articles might choose to study Bell and write about his life, then those sources might merit him a standalone article.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I own and run a sim racing site that indexes racing games cross referenced with the cars and tracks that feature within them, has scanned box art, manuals, allows some to be played in browser, etc. I probably could really easily start to properly index racing games on Wikipedia as well. I just don't know if I could cope with the disappointment on rejection hahah
I work in the industry and have since 2005 at multiple different studios, including one with Ian. I figured it was best to say so. Robbakk (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the answer. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, would the disambiguation issue not be enough? This is the first result I found on Google. There's plenty of others, more recent, etc.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/so-where-is-ian-bell-in-all-this.27763/post-582580
In the post above a person is clearly confusing Ian Bell (developer of Elite) with William "Ian" Bell (developer of Project Cars). This post is on the current Elite developers forum. Robbakk (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this would not merit this man an article, unless there is much more extensive coverage in the news about this confusion. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Robbakk (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 9 April 2024 review of submission by RodRodney20

Hi, I was just looking at other wiki articles that would be similar to this one. I feel like Tello Mobile and Ultra Mobile have the same kind of sources as the ones I used, and as for Tello, I included double the amount. However I keep getting denied for my sources. Any help appreciated. thanks. RodRodney20 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RodRodney20 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has little bearing on your draft, as those articles themselves could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to get by us, we can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.
Your draft does little more than document the existence of the company and tell of its activities. That is insufficient for an article. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling what the company does, and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. The vast majority of companies do not merit articles.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Tello Mobile is marked as problematic, so it definitely is not the best to use as an example. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Jona Hauch

Hey, the article provided includes several different sources that mention the company in-depht. Those sources include known Universities, news pages and other companies and institutions. The Forbes article was indeed written by on of our Founders, but there is more than that. What else is needed to add that the article gets accepted? Jona Hauch (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Hauch First, as you seem to work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest.
I'm afraid that you (and your company) have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is that we do here. Wikipedia is not a database of companies, or a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely describing the offerings of the company or telling about its activities, and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the company- not what the company sees as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, but I can't really follow it to be honest. 90% of the citations are external, notable sources that mention us and/or our programs which is our main offering (same with Y Combinator, 500 Global, Techstars, etc.). The sources may not have a standing like Forbes and NYT, but that is all what you look for?
On the contents level, those are very much the same as the pages of Y Combinator and other above mentioned accelerators show, compared to some even more and general informative.
Asking for that we don't start to trigger an article means you ask us to pay another Wikipedia writer to do it? But that alone wouldn't change what you actually mentioned about what Wikipedia is about (what we are very aware of and not what you are trying to imply). Jona Hauch (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want sources that just mention your programs or the company. We want sources that are significant coverage, as I described above. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Can you give an example to understand it better? I tried to check other company Wikipedia pages, especially comparable to us and what I found were always references to their company or their programs (as this is what they do). Jona Hauch (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jona Hauch: 'significant coverage' is as explained above by 331dot. If you want examples, then this BBC Sport story provides significant coverage of Rory McIlroy, who is the main subject of that entire article, whereas this one makes only a passing mention of him as part of a routine tournament update. See the difference? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking your time and sharing those examples. Based on those it is very clear, although I was trying to understand it based on more comparable Wikipedia Sites like the one from Y Combinator, 500 Global, Techstars, and similar accelerator programs. But I will do some more research to get a better understanding. Jona Hauch (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jona Hauch We don't have "company pages" here that are for the benefit of and controlled by the company; we have articles about topics, some of which are about companies that meet our criteria.
Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a page about Y Combinator, Global 500 or Techstars is not a Wikipedia page about a company? Sorry if I doesnt used the perfect terminology, but I wanted to make clear what I am talking about. Jona Hauch (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "page" is any type of page you find on Wikipedia. All articles are pages, but not all pages are articles. Many will use term "article" to emphasize that they have a different purpose and mindset than just a "page". 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not disclosed your paid editing status, you need to make that your next edit or you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 9 April 2024 review of submission by ItsDaRetailGuy1025

Did I do something wrong with the stations references & external links? ItsDaRetailGuy1025 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsDaRetailGuy1025: there are no references; there is one reference, citing a source that does not even contribute towards, let alone establish, notability. Consequently, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:45, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Centaur25555

What else do I need, I can't find other sources or references on this township other than the website in external links section of my draft. 

Centaur25555 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Centaur25555: this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, and because it seems to duplicate an existing article already in the main article space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

03:33, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5

I want edit this artist page and I planned to giving a good references 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in editing this draft, as it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously available, you may make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft title was protected so IP decided to create it under Draft:VigneshSivajayam despite the advice here and numerous rejections.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Vanity013

The topic is a cinematographer Vanity013 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanity013: yes, and? Do you have question you would like to ask? This draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a beginning cinematographer and has reputation via the Emtee music video which has credible sources / articles that mention Kabelo Sebake
I ask that his article be posted on main space or user space and further references will be added as his career grows Vanity013 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Kabelo Sebake has two sources neither of which mention Sebake? Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanity013: nope, doesn't work like that; we don't publish articles on non-notable subjects in anticipation of them possibly becoming notable later. If, as his career progresses, he one day becomes notable, a new case can be made then. But for now, being a 'beginner' almost certainly means that he is not notable enough to be included at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Ckptr3690

I am a first-time joiner of Wikipedia. My article are being rejected many times. The last time it said appears to read more like an advertisement. But I believe it is already written in a natural way. In fact I am not connected with the subject, I just tried to add a missing page. Could anyone please help to tell me in what sentence or words that look like an advertisement? Ckptr3690 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have few sources other than the school website, and those you do have seem to just detail routine activities. This is considered "advertising". There needs to be sources with significant coverage of this school, coverage that details what is considered important/significant/influential about it- how it meets the special definition of a notable school. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 10 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the explanations and directions. It is more clear now. Ckptr3690 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 75.88.67.7

This is a list of forthcoming books similar to the "Marvel Epic Collection" line which has a wikipedia page (that I made). The only information we have right now is directly from the publisher via press release and solicitations. I could source other sites that are getting the same information from the publisher that doesn't seem to solve the problem. How can I get this page published before the books actually get released? Because, by the time the first book releases, several dozen more will have been solicited and need to be complied. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that something not yet released would be notable. Indeed, if, as you say, you cannot find independent sources, then that pretty much proves my point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I could find multiple examples of sites stating the importance of this line of books (here, here, and here, for example). I just didn't do that before as the line is not yet published, so some of the information from each source is coming directly from press releases. This line is notable because its goal is to publish the entire history of some of DC's (and American comics' in general) most significant and noteworthy characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) in their entirety. With the way publishing works, at least in terms of comic book collections, the books have to be solicited approximately six months ahead of their publication date. DC seems to be pushing these books very hard, as they've solicited 10 volumes for publication in November 2024 or later. If you wait until the first book actually hits the shelves for purchase, and DC publishes them at the same rate, there could be a list of almost 40-50 books to compile, which would be significantly more difficult and complicated than keeping track of the books as they are solicited. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 152.23.179.99

Hey there, My draft was rejected with the comment "The current draft contains too much bragging". So, I edited it and submitted the revised version again. I am wondering if it will have another chance to be reviewed. In addition, the picture I uploaded was removed with the reason "No permission since 1 April 2024". I am confused because I own this picture and I am not sure where I should get permission from. 152.23.179.99 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you're Hosein Rostamian, please log into your account whenever editing.
Secondly, your draft was not rejected (which means end of the road), only declined (which means you can improve and resubmit it). So yes, you can have another review, and have indeed already resubmitted the draft.
As for your copyright in the image, you can find details of how to donate your copyright at WP:DCM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Dutchmagazine

I'm not sure I'm going in the right direction - the first time I submitted my draft the feedback was good and related to adding more references, the second time I submitted it, it was rejected because of language. Should I make the draft more concise? I'm sure the subject meets notability requirements. Many thanks Dutchmagazine (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dutchmagazine: I've accepted your draft, thanks for improving the referencing so promptly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Antochkat

My submission was declined. (sorry if my english is bad) I don't understand why at all. This draft is a translation of an article in French that I myself wrote ("Historiographie alternative de l'Empire Mongol"), and which was verified and then accepted by French moderation because it follows the rules of Wikipedia. I am told that it was refused firstly because I did not cite enough sources: THERE ARE 41, almost all books by historians, from different authors, almost all of which you can read on the internet. I can hardly do more. Second, I am told that the point of view is not neutral, yet at no point do I promote these theories. The proof: throughout the article I constantly repeat: "according to the author", "according to his theories", etc. And also I use the conditional. Maybe my English is too bad and I'm wording it wrong? In this case I need help please Antochkat (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antochkat: we don't publish original research or synthesis, which this essay seems to be, or any sort of 'new theories' etc. that aren't well-known and widely-discussed in their field already. If you wish to promulgate an alternative to the current orthodoxy, Wikipedia is almost certainly not the right platform for that.
As for whether the French-language Wikipedia has accepted your article, this has no bearing on us here on the English-language one, as each language project is entirely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 10 April 2024 review of submission by IWasIAm

Hello, I was wondering if the new changes make this acceptable to be an article, and if not I was wondering what more needs to be added to make it official. IWasIAm (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not acceptable, and likely never will be anytime soon, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. "Up and coming" singers almost never merit articles; a singler must have already arrived and been noticed, meeting the definition of a notable singer as shown with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

01:37, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Kellysnitelimit

I would like for my entire account to be deleted or deactivated from Wikipedia. i would like to have my grandfather's photograph deleted as well. I accept your decision to decline my article. However, i have the original articles published in the Florida Times Union in which they interviewed him at the night club in January 2004 for his 50th year of business. Every source is verifiable and related to him. After 20 years the articles have most likely been archived and are only available for a fee. i have the original newspaper for my grandfather's legacy. No sources are mentioned in passing. All sources are related to him. They were listed on the wiki references section/ article as printed on the original source (The Florida Tiimes Union/The Times Union). The Indigenous Biography of Cleo Kelly is live on amazon.com as we speak. It's been 70 years since he business opened but over 380 followers on Facebook follow the page because they know the club was real and many of them knew my grandparents and their children in Lawtey, Bradford County Florida. the manuscript for his bio was accepted for registration at the Library of Congress 10/23/2023. Cleo Kelly is his adopted. He changed his name to Clifford Kelly as an adult after the Great Depression Era. Legacy.com list his obituary and noted his business Kelly's Nite Limit as listed in the Gainesville Sun and can be verified. Again, please delete my account and his photograph. Its a shame i can't honor him with a page here but life goes on and so will I,...........as soon as my account and his picture are deleted. My account is less than 12 hours old so this can't be too difficult to process. Thank you and kind Regards. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellysnitelimit: Wikipedia user accounts cannot be deleted or closed, but you can simply stop using yours. I have requested your draft, which you had blanked already, to be deleted. You may go to the Commons where you had uploaded the photo and request that it be deleted. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for responding but this is pitiful. i should have looked before i leaped. wikipedia is free and all it cost is an account you don't need or want over an unwanted article? live and learn. so sorry i signed up. i'll take your advice and stop using it forever.....after my pic is removed of course. smh. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellysnitelimit: I don't quite understand what the problem is. Your draft was declined, once, and you consequently decide to give up; that is obviously entirely your prerogative. All I've done is point out that user accounts cannot be closed or deleted (for legal reasons). What is so "pitiful"? DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes you pointed it out but i don't have to be happy about anything i decided to do on wikipedia. it was my choice to sign up and i regret it. my article was denied and i accept it. giving up on this is best. i've never had an account that couldn;t be deleted. the juice ain't worth the squeeze on this one so i quit, i give up, and i move on. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kellysnitelimit Accounts cannot be deleted for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you intend to not return to Wikipedia, you can request that your account be vanished, see WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Quantor

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review the article about Alhena (band). I acknowledge the rejection and I would like to improve it taking into account the detailed comments. But I admit that I don't exactly understand them... The reason for rejecting the article is "too many external links". I was convinced that every fact written down should be supported by a source. Previously, some of my articles were rejected due to too few external-source references, so I'm really confused. This was the second attempt to publish this article on English Wikipedia, in which I took into account the comments of the person who previously rejected the article. At that time, there were no any objections to the references. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could point out any links that you think are unnecessary and should be removed. Other specific comments for improvement are also welcome and I will be glad to make proper corrections suggested by more experienced colleagues. Thank You in advance. Quantor (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quantor: probably best disregard that "too many external links" comment, I'm not sure what it refers to either (unless it means the WP:REFBOMBING, which is plentiful). The point is that this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for lack of evident notability, and that seems right to me. Based on a quick scan, the sources, despite their number, don't seem to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and nothing in the draft would seem to satisfy WP:BAND, either, in any obvious way. Therefore your job going forward is to work towards meeting either GNG or BAND, and then resubmitting the draft. And if you want to cut down on the REFBOMBING, you might consider removing the references which only provide reviews of the band's music, as those don't directly contribute to the band's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Rosesociety.co

Why is this request being rejected? Rosesociety.co (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Please disclose your paid editing status too. Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosesociety.co: because it is pure promotion, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing channel for your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 11 April 2024 review of submission by GMako6

I need improvement for an article to be qualified to go live since the person am writing the article about is notable since he serves more than 56 countries as an advisor on Cybersecurity and in his carrier there are only 79 specialist all over the world GMako6 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMako6: we require actua evidence of notability; you saying that the person is notable is not enough, nor does being an 'advisor' make anyone inherently notable. We need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 11 April 2024 review of submission by TRU Alumni

How can I get this submitted? I am doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page. Would I be able to add to these 'subjected' sources by citing ted talks that he is done to these same passages? This information is indeed legit and well sourced and it is disappointing that this page was not accepted. TRU Alumni (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRU Alumni: you can "get this submitted" by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. But first you need to address the reasons for the earlier decline, otherwise this will just be declined again. We need to see evidence of notability, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of your sources are independent of the subject so you are clearly NOT "doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page" articles are based on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, not what the subject says themselves. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Nemesia345

I believe all comments have been addressed to enable publication of this page. That said, I would like to check with experienced editors to see if any changes should be made before resubmitting for publication.

The previous comments on draft that have now been addressed are as follows:

1. Completely unreferenced advantages: New references added to this section and throughout article to address.

2. table with exclusively external links: This was a formatting error due to limited author Wiki experience. Table has been updated to use appropriate references format.

3. Based on how this article currently exists, it does not seem as if its unique existence is warranted, and would be better served on a glossary of terms as suggested by AngusWOOF: Respectfully disagree. Closed-loop geothermal is a large category of research and commercial development highlighted in US Department of Energy and other highly reputable source reports, with associated content extending well beyond level of the geothermal 'glossary of terms' page. Further, the talk pages proposed for further discussion are not active. Comments have not received feedback in over 6 months Nemesia345 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


IMO it meets the criteria for existence as a separate article. I'd be happy to review if you ping me. That's not saying that it doesn't need more development. It needs more specifics on how it's done. Also clarifying terminology with respect to (and possibly linking to) closely related articles which I can see from your history that you are already helping at. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll send your way Nemesia345 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 11 April 2024 review of submission by AlMad81

Quoting the message rejecting a draft:

«This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.»

However, without specifics or an example of a reference that does not meet these criteria, it is difficult to amend a draft and make sure the next re-submission will not be rejected as well. There cannot be a 'learning about mistakes' if these mistakes are not concisely and unambiguously pointed out.

Hence my request to any experienced editor, including the controller himself, to provide detailed information of where something could be clarified, corrected or simply removed.

Thank you in advance. AlMad81 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlMad81 I fixed your link for proper display, we don't need the whole url.
I will ask you, what are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this series of games? Most of your sources seem to just discuss specific games. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for chipping in. One of the sources is in the draft article: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/45203/designer-diary-high-frontier; there is also a small video on the history of the game series by Phasing Player: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUm3rnQRRhw; unable to find a 3rd reference that would cover all the titles mentioned in the article - only partial references or comparative reviews. This is precisely the goal of the entry, to provide a history of the design.
Although that got me thinking. Should it be each title on its own? Or title the article based on the latest edition and use the other titles in a historical context?
This was originally a translation of the Spanish entry, which had already been accepted by Wikipedia and vetted by the designer of the games. I am only a collaborator and as a new editor, a bit confused about the inconsistency of the rules based on reviewer and Wikipedia version. Thank you in any case for your input. This will probably help if I ever decide to contribute with content by my own initiative. AlMad81 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources for English Wikipedia. Your stated goal to provide a history of the design, is very clearly not in line with the purposes of Wikipedia: if an independent reliable source has already done so, then a Wikipedia article could summarise it; but unless you can find several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, the games do not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
I have emphasised "English Wikipedia", because other Wikipedias have different rules and criteria. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a very surprising reply considering the scope of Project board games in Wikipedia, where there are entries to a number of games, many of them not necessarily classical nor 'relevant' from a notoriety point of view (this excludes chess and the like), and an entry like Dungeons and Dragons is one of the most complete as well in terms of the historical development of the game, with many references being the game's own materials - as I have done here.
At this point, there is either (1) an issue with the actual entry name, and I should focus on just one title and its development in the fashion depicted above, (2) a very unclear way to select what contributions are relevant to Project board games, or (3) a set of purely formal issues with the article, like unclear references, irrelevant info etc. that has yet to be precisely pointed out.
Again: since I initially set out to translate, but found out I could learn something about editing here in the process, I would not want to spend time debating, and focus on finalizing a product. If it cannot be in English, so be it. AlMad81 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are acceptable in certain situations, but not to establish notability- which is the main thing that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 11 April 2024 review of submission by LibrariesStillRock

Could I move this into my user draft space? I don't think it will pass through review right now but I don't want it to disappear entirely in case I find some more notable sources to add.

Thanks! LibrariesStillRock (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to move it. It won't disappear as long as it is edited at least once every six months, and even if it wasn't, it could easily be undeleted. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Loganmascarenhas

What if I cannot find any other sources, citations, or references online besides what is already there. Loganmascarenhas (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loganmascarenhas: if you cannot find and cite sufficient sources to establish notability, then it will not be possible to publish an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Cleverdisguise

I'm slowly moving forward as a beginner in the Wikipedia space to write this page of theater history. I've recently gotten permission from the photographer to publish a photo which appeared in Vanity Fair magazine in 1991, which I hope will add some veracity to the page -- once I figure out how to add a photo! I'm working slowly because I'm a beginner, not a coder, and because I can only work on this project occasionally. Thanks, everybody, for your help in getting it right! Cleverdisguise (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleverdisguise: you don't ask a question, but can I just say that your main concern should be to show verifiability and notability, both of which are demonstrated through referencing; not photos, which are not required in any way, and do not add 'veracity' in any meaningful sense.
You also should not upload someone else's copyright content, unless you have show evidence that the copyright owner has agreed to relinquish their rights and release their content into the public domain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

04:48, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Qubacubazamniauser

I don’t get it omega nugget I’d not talked about it does not have sources barley if I did I would add it there’s just not many sources is there any sources out there about omega nugget pages theres is not many so I don’t get the reliable and secondary and please point out the in-depth and independent of subject 

Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qubacubazamniauser: please drop this now, the draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Elene Tevzadze

Hello, so my article was reviewed and I've been told that it is not supported by reliable sources while I've cited links from youtube, official webpage of the subject of an article, the newspaper (Washingtopost). Could you please tell me, what is the issue? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elene Tevzadze: the issue is that almost the entire draft is unreferenced, and two of the references cite non-reliable sources. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources.
There is also zero evidence that the subject is notable. The sources are primary, with the exception of the WaPo piece which you've rather misleadingly described as "article about Mzia Nioradze", whereas it's actually about the opera War & Peace, and only mentions Nioradze once in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'll edit the WaPo article. Doesn't the OPERABASE page on the subject qualify as an official source? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elene Tevzadze: I'm not sure what you mean by "official source", but AFAIK Operabase is at least partly user-editable, and may not therefore be entirely reliable. In any case, it doesn't help to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok got it. I'll try once more, I added two more sources, hope they qualify as official resources. Thanks. Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in "official sources" whatever they might be, we require independent reliable sources and please note that Facebook, IMDb. Operabase and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos

I do not know what Is wrong with my article, nor what is left Ugo perritos (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugo perritos: the main thing that's wrong with it is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable, as you're only citing Tesla's own manual as a source. We need to see that this feature has been discussed at some length in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of Tesla. (I'm also not entirely sure that all the information is factually correct, but that's not why I declined this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anthosalba

Hello; I have this message on my draft page

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sofia Pro, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

I don't quite understand why there are two drafts... the correct one is Sofia Pro (typeface). Can you help me?"

Thanks Anthosalba (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthosalba: I think what's happened is that your sandbox draft was moved to Draft:Sofia Pro, leaving a redirect behind. You then overwrote that redirect with another draft on the same subject, and submitted that as well. I declined it earlier today, but you seem to have submitted it again.
Assuming you no longer need the sandbox draft and would like to work on Draft:Sofia Pro going forward, then you can just blank the sandbox page and that will take care of that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Ok I understand but I have all my improvements on the san box and not on the Draft:Sofia Pro (with all references !). Do I need to tranfer all references on the draft : Sofia Pro ? Anthosalba (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have transferred my latest corrections into the Sofia Pro Draft using the edit source tool. I believe it's good now. The draft is okay. Anthosalba (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anil at SharmaCreative

Hello, I'm still not understanding why my article - submitted on behalf of a client - was rejected. The reason stated was that the references do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines; however, all 8 references used are independent news sources. I also disclosed on my user page that I am a paid contributor on behalf of the company. Could someone help me understand why the article keeps getting rejected? Anil at SharmaCreative (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anil at SharmaCreative: they are not independent news sources, they are routine business reporting, which is invariably based on press releases and similar materials. With the possible exception of the FNN article, none of the sources meet the WP:GNG standard required by WP:NCORP notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question you need to ask is, "Where have commentators, wholly unconnected with my client, and unprompted by them or their associates, chosen of their own bat to write at length about my clients, and been published in a reliable source?
If the answer is "nowhere", then your client does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time and your client's money. You might want to show them BOSS.
If the answer is "in these several places", then you can continue. Forget every single thing that your client has told you, and write a summary of what those sources say about it. Don't mention products, or their clients, unless the sources talk about them. Certainly don't mention anything at all about their "mission", or "vision", or history, unless the independent sources discuss those.
If that produces a viable draft, you can then add in a limited amount of uncontroversial, non-promotional factual information (such as dates, locations, names of principals) from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 12 April 2024 review of submission by 71.153.13.144

I just saw this page. This is regarding my husband and it is such a personal attack page. There is a person he fired a long time BECAUSE of scientific misconduct and he is hell bend in ruining his reputation. There is so much personal information and false information in this article I do not even know where to begin. I urge Wikipedia not to publish this article. We will consult with our attorney regarding the defamatory nature of this article. He is also a European citizen and we will seek GDRP protections for this. This is such a huge invasion of privacy and we as a family feel violated if this article is allowed. 71.153.13.144 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the no legal threats policy. We cannot stop you from taking legal action, but you cannot edit if you have made legal threats or have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both.
If the draft at issue is libelous, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of any further action I have declined the draft for now as an attack page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

10:38, 13 April 2024 review of submission by Trafalgar54

I have submitted my draft but there is always some query regarding not adequately supported by reliable sources. I ask your precious help please. Please realize that many documents and informations are original and personal of the subject of the draft and is very difficult to see in the website whereas the information and the letter of commendation are very important to plan the draf page. Thank you very much. All the Best Trafalgar54 (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1218712612"