Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


November 8

[edit]

04:39, 8 November 2024 review of submission by UmIgu

[edit]

I am editing this article but it has been rejected several times. I would like to get more specific advice on how I can make the article meet the requirement. UmIgu (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UmIgu: this draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') because it does not show that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense. We need to see significant coverage of this company, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). Press releases, routine business reporting, and primary sources do not count. Please study the relevant notability guideline WP:NCORP which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for you advice. I will check it out. UmIgu (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Jharna Choudhury

[edit]

Kindly help regarding proper referencing of living artist. Jharna Choudhury (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jharna Choudhury: you can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. Although looking at the sources in this draft, many of them are pretty useless, so you may also want to look at WP:GNG for advice on what sort of sources we want to see.
Having said all of which, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. At least not until and unless you can produce much stronger sources demonstrating notability, as well as supporting the draft content with appropriate referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:30, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Benjphelps

[edit]

Hello,

I tried to find and link as many sources as possible in the references section. Is the problem that I didn't use the cite tool to link the sources correctly, or are my sources in the references section just insufficient? There's a Chinese-language page for the game, so I could link the sources it has, but the challenge there is that I don't read Chinese, so I would be using imprecise translation tools to read and link those articles.

Thanks, Ben Benjphelps (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjphelps: at least some of your sources (TV Tropes, Fandom, Steam Store) are not reliable or otherwise useful. Also, while it isn't strictly speaking mandatory to use inline citations, it would certainly help the reviewers understand where each bit of the information has come from so that it can be verified. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing using this method. Note also that simply 'linking' sources serves at best limited purpose, if they don't actually support the information in the draft; Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable sources have previously said about a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Aston3421

[edit]

Hello I am working on a draft article and would like to have some help. Could anyone offer me any guidance or help writing it? Aston3421 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston3421: can you be more specific, please; what guidance do you need? This draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NARTIST notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by AkiyamaKana

[edit]

I would like to ask if the sources in the article are sufficient (in quality) enough to continue with it? A user in the Teahouse live chat said its sources were average, but I'd like a second check to make sure it's okay. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to put in the article as well, but I'd like to know whether it would ever pass notability tests before I try that. Thank you in advance. AkiyamaKana (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Bunnypranav

[edit]

I have recently accepted this draft, but it has shot me by tagging the page with a couple of page abbreviation errors. I do not know much about ISO 4 or infoboxes, would like some assistance on fixing it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

New to Wikipedia Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? Your draft has been rejected as not demonstrating sufficient notability to be included in the encyclopaedia.
I also queried your relationship with this subject earlier, but you don't appear to have responded to that. Could you do that now, please. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 8 November 2024 review of submission by BonnieGames 132

[edit]

Please upload my artical. BonnieGames 132 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BonnieGames 132, I am afraid that will not be happening. You are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Kelmo24

[edit]

Hello! Not seeing an Edit tab on the draft when I log in, only Edit Source. Kelmo24 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelmo24 This is not a tech Helpdesk. WP:TEAHOUSE may serve you better. In the meantime save your work and quit and restart your browser, which may help 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 8 November 2024 review of submission by E-Logical Wiki

[edit]

We received a notice that our draft was declined and a link to WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't understand how the draft falls into the category of a blog, file hosting, social page, or a memorial. The page was intended to document and provide people with remaining information on The E-Logical Cinematic Universe. The creator isn't dead, nor is the project. Judging by the "CAMS" video, the creator is beginning the project's "second take". What currently sits on the page is the creator's own words and firsthand sources collected from people who discovered the cinematic universe prior to its presence being removed off the internet, such as screenshots and retellings of events. Once more content as part of the cinematic universe is released, we plan on moving what currently resides on the main part of the page to a section about its history. In the meantime, some help editing the page would be appreciated so that it doesn't get declined again. The team of 5 people behind this account all believe in the preservation of history. Whether it be accurate documentation of important events, cut content from video-games, and everything else in between. The CAMS video showed up on a few of our recommended pages on YouTube and we all freaked out because this project we all fell in love with and feel strongly about is finally coming back! We wanted to share information about it on Wikipedia for everyone to see, since it's kind of a hidden gem on the internet. E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-Logical Wiki Before discussing anything else, it is a requirement here that one user has one account. Five users may not all use the same account. Each of you must register independently. The user name that you have chosen is inappropriate in that it represents The E-Logical Cinematic Universe, and you should apply to change it. You also have a WP:COI, potentially WP:PAID applies. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki I have looked at the draft. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to tell the world about the many terrible misfortunes that have befallen an entity you have a conflict of interest with. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. This was a correct review and rejection.
Your user talk page now contains more information about the username, COI and paid editing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'd like to disclose that I and anyone else who is part of the draft have no relation with the creator, nor was anyone paid to make this. Upon reading the wording in the draft, the soapbox description seems accurate. However, it's a little hard not to sound like I'm lamenting the unfortunate events tied to the project when the limited history available is kind of rocky. As for the user name, how do I apply to have it changed? Thanks in advance! E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki, there's instructions on your talk page about how to have the name changed - and for clarity, if each of you wants to edit Wikipedia that's fine, you can each have an account. You don't need to use your real names, as you can see from the responses here, but you do need to avoid sharing an account.
If you want to have an article on this project, your first step is going to be finding sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). It's possible that the project hasn't yet gotten enough attention to have these sources - this happens a lot! We have a whole essay on it, WP:TOOSOON. If you believe that in time the project will become noticed by other people, and written about by them, you can keep your draft active by making an edit every five months. It doesn't need to be a big edit; you could add a space, for example. Keep an eye out for reliable sources, and bide your time. There's no rush, and no deadline here; we're pretty confident Wikipedia will be around for a while. When the sources appear, you can update your draft and hopefully have an article. I hope that helps you all, and wish you happy editing in the meantime! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

[edit]

00:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Kitty Catania

[edit]

Preciso que minha página seja aceita, mas não consigo achar fontes que agradem aos adms. Kitty Catania (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All translations below are Google; I only speak English.
Please write in English so we can understand you. Por favor, escreva em inglês para que possamos entendê-lo.
Google says the question is 'I need my page to be accepted, but I can't find sources that the admins like'. Admins are not the ones reviewing your draft; we are all just volunteer editors here. You need to find sources that fit the criteria of WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). At the moment you only have one source, and it is not reliable. It only talks about Eco Goth as it relates to Scooby-Doo. Most of your draft is not supported by references. Since the draft has been rejected, this means it is time to give up unless you want to delete everything and start again.
If you are more comfortable writing in what Google says is Portuguese, maybe you would find it easier to contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia? You are welcome to stay here on the English Wikipedia if you prefer it here, but please write in English here so we can all understand what you are saying. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitty Catania: Your only sources are a work of fiction and Researchgate, which we do not consider to be reliable sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Zyahiaoui

[edit]

this is my son i can submit all proof for it how i can submit again Zyahiaoui (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyahiaoui it is strongly discouraged to write about someone you personally know, such as your son. The draft is unsourced and promotional. Please read Help:Your first article before proceeding. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyahiaoui, 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) 11:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 9 November 2024 review of submission by 112.134.170.36

[edit]

I have not been able to find any information on Surgeons in Sri Lanka with their email address 112.134.170.36 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for AfC submissions only. Please use the reference desk or Google search for non Wikipedia-related questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Bhtriv

[edit]

why Bhtriv (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhtriv to quote a fellow reviewer, no sources, no article, no debate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhtriv: Not only that, but a one-sentence "article" is practically useless to your average reader. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 9 November 2024 review of submission by TheDataDiver

[edit]

my topic was different and not covered TheDataDiver (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheDataDiver I'm not really seeing how it is different. Even if it is, I suggest that you improve that article first, then make an argument on its talk page for it to be split. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDataDiver: how is it different? Your draft lists three types, which are covered (it seems to me) in the three articles Hormone replacement therapy, Androgen replacement therapy, and Gender-affirming hormone therapy, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i can understand but wikipedia allow me to write on this topic thats why I am consufed nothing eles and am newcomer to this platform anyway thank you for your reply TheDataDiver (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheDataDiver Before writing a new article, you should check to see that one does not already exist. You are welcome to contribute any missing information to an existing article. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Peter Kelford

[edit]

Rejection for lack of reliable sources - I'm looking for any ideas/suggestions for the kinds of sources that might be appropriate? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Kelford: We don't cite ResearchGate (no editorial oversight), any sort of social media (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject), anything the subject themselves writes (connexion to subject), or court cases (gov't document) for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr Netolitzky meets the academics' notability criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#General notes
  1. He has a KC (King's Counsel), which is a selective and prestigious professional award;
  2. He is widely cited, as demonstrated (I can add some more academic citations if wanted but in the legal sector citation by courts is often viewed as more prestigious than academic citation)
Would I be correct in surmising that providing more examples of him being cited in academia would suffice to demonstrate notability? Or is there a specific way of doing it? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge practicing lawyers/barristers do not fall under WP:NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but he's more of an academic who got a KC as an honorary recognition for his academic work. The KC is not only for practicing lawyers but also those who work in government or academia and contribute through research and other work to the legal sector. (See the alternative criteria presented here: https://www.alberta.ca/kings-counsel). In Netolitzky's case the main qualifying factor is his unique work in pseudolaw. Peter Kelford (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But his research is related to his legal career, much as if a US Supreme Court justice wrote about legal research they performed. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that he's an academic lawyer, i.e. a person who is a researcher first and foremost - much like how many university academics also teach on top of doing research.
His research isn't an inherent part of his court job, which doesn't require him to produce academic papers about measuring and quantifying court processes - often about courts other than the one in which he works - or about theorising pseudolaw (the two main areas in which his research focuses).
That's different to a practicing lawyer or judge occasionally writing about something purely practical and merely incidental to their work. Peter Kelford (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Vincars2

[edit]

This Real look on Fandom this find is "The Webcyclopedia Wiki" and Search This, Okay? 

Vincars2 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is rather incoherent. Your draft was rejected the topic is clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:51, 9 November 2024 review of submission by 108.52.107.149

[edit]

Need help finding reliable independent resources for the group. The group already has a Japanese Wiki. 108.52.107.149 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN. You need to rely on your own resources, please. While there is a possibility that someone may take the task on the probability is low. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

[edit]

00:55, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Carol Ann Shevrolay

[edit]

THIS IS A CULTURAL ICON Carol Ann Shevrolay (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been rejected, so it will not be reconsidered, and to be perfectly frank, it appears to be unadulterated nonsense. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:28, 10 November 2024 review of submission by BizChrome

[edit]

I had edited this submission as per the guidelines and still it gets declined. This article was once been accepted. Would be grateful if you can assist me here. 

BizChrome (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BizChrome: you don't say what assistance you require, but you've resubmitted the draft and will therefore get feedback when a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But while you are waiting for review, you could spend the time looking for sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42: being reliably published, independent, and containing significant coverage of Munasinghe. Not one of your current sources meets those criteria. We do not cite sales sites like Sarasavi; and a source which does not even mention the subject (like the Sunday Times one) is almost always a complete waste of anybody's time.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. I realise that you have had an account for more than a year, but apart from creating and working on this draft, almost the only thing you have done is added unreferenced information to half a dozen articles; so you are still an editor who has not yet learnt how to edit. ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:57, 10 November 2024 review of submission by SparkyStar10200

[edit]

I Need Help Please. SparkyStar10200 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With what, specifically? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SparkyStar10200 please start with HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:37, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Helloarunsunil007123

[edit]

Can I get an assistance with this article I am working if review and guidelines may help but if you can also hop on too great https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Helloarunsunil007123&direction=next&oldid=1256104527 Helloarunsunil007123 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloarunsunil007123: sorry, can you rephrase that – what assistance are you seeking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Rishabhwiki897059

[edit]

I was trying to create this page but it was declined, can i kknow the reason why ? Rishabhwiki897059 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishabhwiki897059: presumably you mean  Courtesy link: User:Rishabhwiki897059/sandbox? The reason was given in the rejection notice, before you blanked it. Namely, there is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 10 November 2024 review of submission by MD. Sazid Bin Sahid

[edit]

Subject: Request for Review and Clarification Regarding Draft Article

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration of my draft article titled draft:Fulgazi Women's College. I understand that the draft has been declined multiple times, but I would like to clarify a few points regarding its content and purpose.

First, I would like to emphasize that the article I have created is not intended to serve as an advertisement. The subject of the article is a government organization, and as such, it is not in need of any promotional content. The article aims to provide a neutral, informative overview, in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I have ensured that the tone is unbiased, factual, and aligned with the guidelines set out for encyclopedic content.

Furthermore, I have noticed that some articles with fewer original references have been published on the platform. In comparison, my draft includes five or six reliable, verifiable sources that support the information presented. I believe this makes the article meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. Given this, I would appreciate it if you could review the draft once more, as I feel it adheres to the platform’s criteria.

If there are specific areas that need further attention or modification, I am more than willing to make adjustments. I highly value the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any guidance you could provide to help my article meet the necessary standards for publication.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback and hope for a positive resolution.

Warm regards, MD. Sazid Bin Sahid MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid Analysis of this request suggests that it has been created by the use of a Large Language Model. Typically, these models can help themselves.
Resubmission with no improvement is rather pointless, too. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid: the draft is inherently promotional, because it only tells what the institution does. Moreover, the draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable, as none of the sources cited meets the notability guideline for organisations, WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bro for the advice. Bro you can see some other pages which are more promotional than the one I made. Still I have nothing to say. Please advise me how may improve the page, or prove that it is significant and not promotional. Please do not take any action against me, as I am a new user. I'm asking you for help. MD. Sazid Bin Sahid (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bro", if you see other articles that are worse than your draft, please let us know so action can be taken, see other stuff exists. That's not a reason to add more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid: we don't assess drafts by comparison to articles that may exist out there among the nearly 7m in the English Wikipedia alone. We assess them by reference to currently-prevailing guidelines and policies. One of the core requirements for publication is notability, of which this draft provides no evidence whatsoever.
Nobody is taking any action against you (whatever that means), and repeated insinuations of that kind are not appreciated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MD. Sazid Bin Sahid, 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) 12:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Cybernatus01

[edit]

Is it possible to delete this draft? The article is a duplicate of article "Africa Corps (Russia)" Cybernatus01 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybernatus01 Please place {{Db-user}} at the top of the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Mnorouzian

[edit]

I just added a reference for her history of work The One (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnorouzian the draft has been rejected which usually means it will not be considered further. Reach out to @SafariScribe directly if you feel it has fundamentally changed since the last review. qcne (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Tinaaki

[edit]

Please participate in the editing of Mr. Hamidreza Ghorbani's article and add the necessary standards that you know yourself. I made several edits and added completely independent sources. Your reasons for disapproving this article are unclear. If the article needs any kind of editing, I request you, please help the verifiability of this article with your participation. Thanks and respect Tinaaki (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinaaki This is a helpdesk, and not a place to solicit co-authors. Please read WP:BURDEN and speak the mantra "If it's to be it's up to me" aloud. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Edescather

[edit]

whut Edescather (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edescather unreferenced and arcane. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


idk Edescather (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edescather If you want anyone to take notice of you then you will need to use real English and sentences. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edescather: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This is a bunch of disjointed sentences with no sources whatsoever other than the subject itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 10 November 2024 review of submission by LuxHaitch

[edit]

Want to link to Nature Journal but it's linking to the definition of 'nature'. How do I fix this please? LuxHaitch (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LuxHaitch. Sounds like you want to use a wikilink - an internal link to another Wikipedia article? You'll need to write: [[Nature_(journal)]]
Alternatively, using the Visual Editor you can insert a link using the toolbar. qcne (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! LuxHaitch (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 10 November 2024 review of submission by Stella Worth

[edit]

I have removed "peacock" terms and think the tone is encyclopedic. Can you please review and point out areas that are problematic? Thank you. Stella Worth (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Stella Worth. We don't do pre-reviews: the way to get a review is to resubmit.
But you can continue to improve it while it is waiting for review. A tip: consider every single piece of information in the draft, and ask, "How can a reader verify this?" If the answer is not "From a reliably published source", remove the information. If the information is not "From a source wholly unconnected with the hospital and its associates", consider whether the information falls within the range of what can come from primary sources, and if it does not, remove it.
If what you have left does no more than describe the routine activities of an organisation, the hospital is probably not notable. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

[edit]

01:00, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

[edit]

i would add drafts of paksitan dramas include gentleman and Pagal Khana Sunuraju (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gentleman (Pakistani TV series) (I think)
Did you have a question, @Sunuraju? StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because i thoughts add paksitani dramas for knowelgede and i was unaware there was sockpuppert created drafts, i had grammar issues Sunuraju (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:50, 11 November 2024 review of submission by MikeRaimundo

[edit]

Hello, I recently started editing and creating Wikipedia articles, but I'm having difficulty getting them approved. Despite my efforts to follow the guidelines, my submissions are often flagged for sounding too promotional, even though I’ve focused on presenting factual, sometimes critical, information. My articles cover sustainable fashion brands, as that is my interest. Could you provide guidance on how I might adjust my approach to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? MikeRaimundo (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MikeRaimundo. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
To answer you specifically, the steps are:
  1. . Find several sources about a subject, each of which meets the triple criteria in WP:42
  2. . If you can't find at least three such, give up and choose a different subject.
  3. . Forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:13, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Vany1953

[edit]

On this date an article on Pach Chhoeun was deleted, maybe Help desk can reply with information. I'm writing to find out why. If it is a G8 reference link that may have been deleted which one? It can be fixed, perhaps a web site changed a link target. ALL information in the article has been carefully verified and referenced.

I'm asking for the the article to be re-posted and un-deleted to improve accuracy of the content. Many hours and months over last year spent to compose this historical document just to have it deleted unexpectedly for an unknown specific reason. Pach Chhoeun's life has historical interest for Cambodian culture and history.

18:38, 9 July 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Pach Chhoeun (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) (thank) Vany1953 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Vany1953 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vany1953: what seems to have happened is that back in March you resubmitted this draft, and it was looked at by a couple of reviewers but not actually reviewed. Then, in July, another user copypasted its contents into a new article in the main article space, and replaced the draft with a redirect pointing to that version. However, soon after that it was discovered that the user who did this was a suspected sockpuppet of a blocked user, and the published article was therefore deleted under WP:G5. At that point, the redirect from the earlier draft was pointing to a non-existent target (since the article had been deleted), and was in turn deleted under WP:G8.
I don't see any reason why we couldn't now return the draft to you so that you can continue working on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vany1953: okay, I have returned the draft to Draft:Pach Chhoeun, and reverted the last few edits, so things should now be back to how they were. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

I have already tone down the message on my articles, but still blocked by JJMaster Chiy828 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiy828, a significant part of your draft is not written in English. That is why it was most recently declined. We can only accept drafts in English here, as it is the English Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 11 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D5:103D:3101:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

I have not submitted this draft/article Anywhere before wikipedia. My Article is being rejected continually for I am not providing the reference of Data. How can i provide reference if I am directly submitting my work on Wikipedia and no where else? 2409:40D5:103D:3101:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to directly submit your work. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about your work, not what you say about it. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not host original research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Anith Kumar Palisetti

[edit]

what are the issues please show me those Anith Kumar Palisetti (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anith Kumar Palisetti: your sandbox draft at User:Anith Kumar Palisetti/sandbox has been deleted as unambigiously promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise anything. --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

I have updated the tone and shouldn't be block , all the language had been changed into English Chiy828 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]
see below asilvering (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have updated Chiy828 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

16:19, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

Updated to change the header Chiy828 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiy828 Please do not make multiple help desk topics. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Canadaguy22

[edit]

My draft for this article has been declined, citing insufficient links. However, the links provided are from reputable and reliable sources (e.g. the archives of the Toronto Star newspaper here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada). There's nothing about this draft that isn't backed up, so I'm not clear what the issue is, or what I can do to fix it. Please help. Many thanks, Jeff Canadaguy22 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadaguy22: most of the sources seem to be just photos, and none of the sources are cited inline, as required in articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In-line citations are mandatory for biographies; please see the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

This is totall unacceptable i have done everything to try to meet your requirment Chiy828 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is unacceptable is you flooding this page with threads, instead of you keeping your comments to a single thread. Please stop. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:43, 11 November 2024 review of submission by TheSkipperToo

[edit]

Hello. How can I find out why my draft submission was rejected so that I can improve it? TheSkipperToo (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you see the message left by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Nojyeloot

[edit]

Hi guys, honestly a bit stumped why this wasn't approved. Can someone, in layman's terms, point me to where I need to edit this page I created earlier today? All this information is 100% accurate. Nojyeloot (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nojyeloot. metal-archives is generally regarded as an unreliable source. Do you have alternatives for those two sources? qcne (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 11 November 2024 review of submission by 49.191.173.234

[edit]

Hi guys, Paul W recently reviewed and declined my draft submission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Judd

I wanted to say thanks so much for reviewing the article and for all the helpful guidance. I thought I had fulfilled much of what was needed, but appreciate I'm inexperienced and so your feedback is great.

I think I need a little more help with inserting new citations for some of the assertions made, as I guess I didn't really think the points raised needed citations. For example, with the first '[citation needed] comment - is this referring to where Michael was born? I wasn't sure what sort of citation would be appropriate here?

Thank you again, Angus 

49.191.173.234 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that 'citation needed' tag is asking what source gives this person's place of birth, or more widely, the information where he was born and raised.
Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Pretty much every material statement must be supported (and if it's not a material statement, then arguably it shouldn't even be there), and especially anything potentially contentious, any private personal or family detail, as well as direct quotations. What is 'potentially contentious' is debatable, but I would recommend erring on the side of caution and assuming more or less everything is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

[edit]

03:49, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Elliot Duff

[edit]

Hi. I would like some help on creating this Biography.

Whilst I believe that I have addressed the issue of unsourced sections (I have added over a dozen new inline citations) I am not sure what I can do about the formatted to follow the manual of style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

The Manual of Style is a rather long document. Can anyone provide an examples of where I could make an improvement.

Thanks. 

Elliot Duff (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot Duff: I find only a few minor formatting etc. issues which wouldn't be a reason to decline this, but since you ask, here they are:
  • Section headings should be in Sentence case, not Initial Caps.
  • The first use of the title term should be bolded, ie. the person's name at the start of the lead section.
  • Infobox: while 'Professor' may be an honorary title, this is unlikely, in which case please remove it from the prefix param.
  • Infobox: per WP:INFONAT, nationality should not be used; citizenship can be shown, but only if it is reliably sourced and when it would be otherwise unclear.
  • Wikilinks are used normally only once for each term; now eg. University of Cambridge is linked several times.
Perhaps others spot something I've missed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have made the corrections. Elliot Duff (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Ptfestlover

[edit]

Hello, my recent biography draft page was rejected and the reason is cited as lacking enough references. Most of the references I cited were in non-english language news articles, in the local language of the biography's subject. Natsagdorj "George" Tserendorj is a Mongolian person and most of his supporting articles are in Mongolian and I am wondering whether the person who reviewed my page tried to even google translate the articles I cited, because they are clearly addressing the subject. The scarcity of english news articles and references shouldn't be a reason for rejection correct? Ptfestlover (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptfestlover: presumably you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Natsagdorj "George" Tserendorj? This draft was only declined, meaning it can be resubmitted once the decline reasons have been addressed. That reason being, lack of evidence that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.
Reviewers routinely assess non-English sources using the various translation tools available, and there is no reason to assume this wasn't done here. And no, citing non-English sources is not a reason to decline; they are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our requirements for reliability, independence, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Hello124Hell0

[edit]

I would like to create this page and someone else has already created a draft for it. This draft looks good to me but it shows that it was declined. The reason for being declined listed says that the sources need to be: in- depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. However, upon checking all the sources, it seems to me that they do meet these qualifications. Could you let me know what I can do to make this draft publishable? Hello124Hell0 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hello124Hell0: taking each of the sources in the order they appear:
  1. Primary source, does not contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP
  2. No mention of Hawkeye
  3. No mention of Hawkeye; also, press release = not independent
  4. No mention of Hawkeye
  5. No mention of Hawkeye
  6. No mention of Hawkeye; also, primary source
  7. No mention of Hawkeye
  8. Only passing mention of Hawkeye
In other words, not one of the sources meets the NCORP standard. Or am I missing something here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And of the next seven sources, only the Yahoo one isn't simply a brief mention, and even that isn't really about Hawkeye Pictures, but routine business reporting. The other six are definitely just brief mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Wikimostcar

[edit]

Indian Youtuber Wikimostcar (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikimostcar, I have rejected the draft as there is no indication the person is WP:NOTABLE. qcne (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have not edited the draft sir Wikimostcar (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did, so not sure why you are saying you didn't. qcne (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 12 November 2024 review of submission by LIUCstefano03

[edit]

I tried to add some parameters in the infobox but are not displayed probably because are unknown. How can I make them known? 

LIUCstefano03 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LIUCstefano03: you're using the plain infobox template, which isn't actually a template, it's a base for creating more specific infobox templates from. You should instead use one of those specific ones, such as {{Infobox company}}. Also, note that not all params are available in all infobox templates, you need to check the guidance on the template page.
That said, an infobox isn't going to make any difference to whether this draft will be accepted; it's what you might call a 'nice-to-have', an optional extra. Focus rather on demonstrating notability per WP:NCORP, and writing in a purely neutral and factual, non-promotional manner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 12 November 2024 review of submission by 365scarlet

[edit]

I am very surprised that it was flagged for not worthy of a Wikipedia article when it's a very high profile case in Australia. My links prove that it was covered extensively in the Melbourne News. So I'm very surprised that was flagged. And considering I just reported on the murder of a teenage girl 30 years ago, I am surprised that it could be flagged as not neutral. A website that has long articles about silly memes for this to be flagged as not credible enough seems very surprising and hurtful. And I think I deserve a second chance before I change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prue_Bird_Disappearance 365scarlet (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @365scarlet.
Sorry you feel hurt by the decline - it's not a rejection which means it can still be submitted after improving. Do not take it personally.
The biggest issue I have with the draft is that it is written in an unencyclopedic way- in fact I wonder if you used AI to generate parts of the text? It has the hallmarks of being AI-written, with overly flowerly prose. I think it would need re-writing from scratch in order to be written in an acceptable way. Please carefully study Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
As for the notability: the criteria is at Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts. I think there is probably enough sources to make this notable, just about, so your only real issue is the tone.
Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have edited the article to make it sound as neutral as possible. 365scarlet (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, check the draft for more info. qcne (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Morekiranwiki

[edit]

I'm a beginner in creating Wikipedia pages, and I’m finding it challenging to navigate the many guidelines. I’m currently working on a draft and have been struggling to get it approved. Despite my best efforts, I’ve resubmitted the article multiple times, but it still hasn’t passed due to the following issues:

1. Reliable sources 2. Secondary sources that are independent of the subject

I’m having difficulty identifying which references specifically don’t meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Would anyone be able to help by reviewing my references and pointing out the ones that are problematic? Direct feedback or examples of which links to remove would be incredibly helpful so I can fix these issues before my next submission.

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support!

Best regards, Morekiranwiki (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morekiranwiki Let me give you some generic help. There are no media outlets that are of themselves red flags. What you need to look for, and this takes a bit if a nice to sniff the out are words, even in relabel media, "Announces" or "Invests" and the present tense. This is good indication of PR and Press releases. Also, the same of a similar article in different outlets is likely to be churnalism.
Examine each of your current reference es and delete the questinable ones. If you can't replace them delete the facts they purport to verify.
Read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB. They are a direct help in this area.
That's a lot to do. So remember, if you can't find useful references you won't get the draft accepted. Don;t justresubit and hope. You need to work hard first. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Surya9634

[edit]

I want to know why this article declined? Surya9634 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Surya9634 The answer is on your user talk page. Please read it and come back here to ask, this time politely, if you do not understand what has been said there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if i said something wrong well here's the error
I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted Surya9634 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

Hello,

I received feedback that my Wikipedia draft was declined due to inadequate references. Could you please guide me on how to include in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources? Any specific advice would be appreciated.

Thank you, Mahmoudali123 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmoudali123: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. It cites only one source, a website close to the subject. No subject can establish its own notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123 No-one is that keen on editors using copyright violating pictures, either. But that is being handled elsewhere 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mahmoudali123, we had a long discussion on the Live Chat Help channel about these two drafts - I did tell you not to re-submit for review as I didn't think Luca or his podcast are notable. qcne (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with advice not to resubmit unless and until the subject is verified to be notable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

[edit]

00:29, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Uzbek1992

[edit]

No Uzbek1992 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzbek1992: Stop submitting blank drafts and wasting people's time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Purplewhalethunder

[edit]

It's been quiet long, is there another way to speed the review? Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewhalethunder: it has been three weeks, and as you can see on top of the draft it says we have over 1,000 pending drafts and wait times can be up to six weeks. There is no way to expedite this. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Wikimostcar

[edit]

what is the problem coming up Wikimostcar (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimostcar: no problem. This draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 13 November 2024 review of submission by 139.228.5.8

[edit]

i wanna write about dandys world beacuse it doesnt exist yet :[ 139.228.5.8 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IP editor, Wikipedia only hosts articles about things that exist and are notable. qcne (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

I need help editing this as I cannot do it all myself TobyB (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, the onus is very much on you to produce an acceptable draft. You can ask specific questions here, of course. That said, I don't see much chance for this draft, as there isn't the slightest indication of notability, and it is quite promotional in tone and content. My advice would be to drop this, and come back once the subject has been covered extensively in secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,thanks TobyB (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 13 November 2024 review of submission by LooteraGamer01

[edit]

gamer life LooteraGamer01 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LooteraGamer01: that's not a question, and your draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Marzada

[edit]

I am trying to understand the reason for the rejection since the article is a translation of an already existing article on the Norwegian Wikipedia pages. Therefore I struggle to understand why the article was approved for the Norwegian Wikipedia Pages and rejected here?

Here is the link to the Norwegian entry: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankert_Thuland

Also, the rejection states that I should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Well, the article does list a total of 14 published sources.

Finally the rejection states that peacock terms that promote the subject should be avoided. Can someone please tell me where such terms were used in the article? Marzada (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marzada: I haven't looked at the sources yet, but just to say that each language version of Wikipedia is a totally separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is acceptable on the Norwegian version may not be acceptable here, and v.v. The English-language version has the strictest requirements for referencing and notability, that I'm aware of at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft is unreferenced, and we don't therefore know where this information comes from. So when it says "he had good German skills", or that he "was central to the mapping of national traitors", whose opinions are those?
Also, some of the sources don't support the information: ref #1 just points to the home page of the archives; #3 is a grave database; and #6 doesn't seem to mention Thuland at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Ok that explains at least this part why there might be different standards. Can someone please be more specific about what exactly needs to be changed?

Well, Marzada, for example, most of the first paragraph, about his earlier life, and the next ("Espionage activities") appears to be unreferenced. Why should a reader believe it? --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Holala13

[edit]

we want phigros to have visibility ;-; Holala13 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should use social media, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Request for Page Publication Dear Wikipedia Editors, I have created a draft article on Mizanur Rahman Azhari, a prominent Islamic scholar and speaker from Bangladesh. The article provides a comprehensive overview of his life, contributions, and public recognition based on reliable and independent sources. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including verifiable information from credible references. The language used is neutral, and I have ensured that the content follows Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and reliability standards. I kindly request your review of this draft and consideration for its publication on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, [Foysal Fahid] ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ফয়সাল ফাহিদ: you don't ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

can you please guide me what all materials I can use to make it notable ? the person has been on multiple media channels and print media and has a google panel also when we him on search on google Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: given how many times it has been tried, and failed, to create an article on this subject, under various titles, my advice would be to drop the stick and find another subject to edit about.
I posted earlier a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, but I noticed that you haven't responded to it. Could you do that now, please? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Everything is fine here, and this person also has a Bengali page ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. If this person meets the requirements of the Bengali Wikipedia, you should focus your efforts there. I'm not entirely clear on why the draft was rejected as I don't speak Bengali, but please ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Bwagner1230

[edit]

What sources should I add to get this approved? I'm creating this article as a request from my internship director and I'm confused on what else I need to add. I cited the only direct quote used in it, please let me know. Thanks. Bwagner1230 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just primary sourced advertising NOT an encyclopaedia article? WE need significant coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bwagner1230 You will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure if you are editing as part of an internship(even if you do not receive money; the work experience is the "compensation"). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have your director read it too. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwagner1230: 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) 18:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ServeAduke

[edit]

I'm hoping to get more feedback about my draft, which was declined a few minutes after I posted it. The explanation provided was that the "submission appears to read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Having reviewed editorial guidelines before I started drafting, I was careful to write in what I felt was neutral, encyclopedic style and to only cite reputable sources (e.g., TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Bloomberg, The Verge, and Quartz) that cover the subject in detail. The fast rejection took me by surprise and I want to make sure I'm fixing the right things before trying again.

I'm hoping an editor here can help me understand (a) whether Serve is notable and (b) whether the draft could be updated in some way to make it acceptable. I don't want to keep hitting a brick wall and wasting editors' time. As I'm an employee of Serve, I get that editors have to be careful that the draft isn't promotional or biased, and I'm open to feedback just struggling with how to apply the initial notes I've received.

Thank you for your time! I hope I don't come across as defensive here. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in the past few weeks and I'm genuinely curious about how editorial decisions like this are made. ServeAduke (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ServeAduke I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. You have made a very common mistake that paid editors make, in that you have summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company; that does not establish that the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company is met. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic(a company, in this case). We aren't interested in what the company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the topic say about it. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Please see WP:BOSS, and if you were asked to be here, have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this draft process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, 331dot. The linked notability page states that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources I cite throughout the draft check those boxes. Articles like this one in VentureBeat, this one in Bloomberg, and this one in Quartz all provide detailed profiles of Serve and explain exactly why the company is notable. VentureBeat and Bloomberg are included on Wikipedia's list of Reliable and Perennial sources and are specifically identified as being reliable. Quartz is widely cited across Wikipedia and was also identified as being reliable here. I tried to do my Wikipedia homework before putting this draft together. Again, this is significant reporting by staff writers at multiple prominent outlets, not just passing mentions or routine coverage and I aimed to write up my draft based on what was in those pieces. Is there an example you can point me to that would help me see what a great new page looks like? Or can you provide more specific feedback about how this draft could be improved? I do appreciate the engagement here. ServeAduke (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ServeAduke The best articles to use as examples or models are those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting- unlike any random article which could itself be inappropriate and has just not been dealt with yet.
I've used the term "article" deliberately- it's better to think of the encyclopedia content as articles and not the broader "pages"; an article is a page but not every page is an article. This may affect your mindset somewhat.
The sources you list here are:
  • an announcement of a product, not significant coverage of the company as it is a routine business activity(to release a product)
  • an announcement that the company was spun off of Uber, another routine business activity(acquisitions/sales/spinoffs of companies or parts of companies)
  • a description that the company was taken public, another routine business activity(going on/off the stock market is common)
None of these establish notability. That isn't because of the provenance of the sources themselves, but their content.
I get that you think that what your company does is important- but we need others to say that- and not just for its routine activities. Ford Motor Company doesn't merit an article because it manufactures and sells vehicles, it does because many independent sources have written about the company and what they see as its influence on various sectors(economy, history, manfacturing), not what it sees as its own importance. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGDEPTH may help you. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 13 November 2024 review of submission by SanjanaSinghRajput

[edit]

My submission was unreasonably rejected, and the reason given was absolutely false and incorrect, as the sources cited were totally independent and well-known sources. I added a total of 37 references, and they were all genuine and reliable. Additionally, the topic (person) has also been adequately recognised both offline and online, as evident from a simple Google search with the keywords "Shivanshu K. Shivanshu" or "Who is Shivanshu K. Srivastava?" and a plethora of print articles and coverage of the writer. The online sources are so many and also the print records are much more than what is available online. Thus, the decision of Charlie who deleted this must be reviewed. Therefore, I request an appeal to a higher moderator / editor / team of Wikipedia. SanjanaSinghRajput (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "higher moderator". You actually have too many references. Fewer high quality references are preferred to a large number of low quality ones. Most of your sources are things he wrote, which are not independent sources. It's not clear to me how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. We don't just want documentation of his work, we need sources with in depth discussion on why he is important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SanjanaSinghRajput I have left what I hope oyu will find a helpful comment on the draft in order to help you sort out your referencing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Alwasil2021

[edit]

First, thank you for taking my question I am the Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations. I would like to post my wikipedia page about me that was drafted usings the proper sources. Alwasil2021 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is only sourced to the UN website. Any article about you needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. While not absolutely forbidden, I would caution you about writing about yourself at all, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alwasil2021 Forgive me, but "Do you know who I am?" fails on so many levels. The primary failure is that this is the internet and we have therefore no idea who you are. While there is no reason disbelieve you (though why would a Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations be creating their autobiography here?), there is also no reason to believe you. I'm sure you can see the point.
An article about Abdulaziz Alwasil must still pass WP:BIO whoever writes it. Looking at the draft dispassionately, this draft does not verify that. It has to. Otherwise it will not be accepted. So please go to work with a will and create a draft which passes the acceptance criteria. I am sure you would not wish to be treated any differently from any other editor.
We require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources which are about Abdulaziz Alwasil before a draft on the gentleman can be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

November 14

[edit]

01:59, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD

[edit]

Good Day,

I put together everything found about an artist online who I think deserves a wikipedia, but not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Best, Daniel Betancourt 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing wrong is that you're not telling us where this information came from; the draft is entirely unreferenced. Please cite your sources, see WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably also making the common beginner mistake of writing what you know. Wikipedia doesn't care what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Every single piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, or it doesn't go into the article. Moreover, the great majority of information should come from sources wholly unconnected with the subject - not her, not her agents, not her producers, and not based on interviews or press releases. Unless you can find several sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42, give up, and work on a different subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Larkmean

[edit]

How do we cite reputable sources for players appearing on many reputable records and in many reputable tours, when these details are only published in 1) social media posts, 2) the venue's website (but taken down once the date has passed), 3) local news, 4) album credit websites (which can be edited by anyone), and 5) album credits (on streaming services, which don't have webpages to cite)?

I'm finding I want to document players whose careers and contributions are notable. Do I need to find press about them, or is the prolific contributions on records enough if I cite correctly?

Any advice is appreciated! Larkmean (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Larkmean: on what basis are you asserting notability, if there are no reliable and independent sources to support this? Merely appearing on records or tours is unlikely to make someone notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the same happened to me 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise, @Larkmean, is 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. If such sources do not exist, then there is literally nothing which can be put in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 41.173.247.14

[edit]

I'm new at writing articles 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question; did you have one in mind?
Your draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. There is nothing to indicate that the subject is at all notable, and the draft is also not written in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, you may wish to try LinkedIn or similar platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Thaokin98

[edit]

Can you tell me where my article violates so I can edit it? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thaokin98: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you give me the instructions about posting in wiki? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thaokin98: the process you followed was technically correct, but please note that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote anything. See WP:GOLDENRULE for advice on creating appropriate content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Chefofchef

[edit]

hello, I just submitted this for an up-and-coming chef and am unsure why it was rejected thank you. Chefofchef (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is thoroughly promotional and completely unsourced. "Up and coming" people almost never merit articles- a person must have "already arrived" and be noticed in order to merit an article. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia defines the word. See Referencing for beginners for help with writing citations.
Please disclose your connection with him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Bhaskarsah123

[edit]

hey i am a beginner who want to create my first article. i dont know why it is rejected please help me 

Bhaskarsah123 (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhaskarsah123: this is a completely unreferenced draft, which presents no evidence or even suggestion that the subject is notable. Also, it isn't written as a viable encyclopaedia article draft, but rather a CV/resume. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1257360958"