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


October 6

[edit]

06:18, 6 October 2024 review of submission by 130.76.25.234

[edit]

The author of this article about me (Nels Andrew Olson) is a colleague here in Seattle (Jon Crump). He, with the help of several other people extracted information from my long career as a chemist and put together this Wikipedia Article. It is factually correct and supported by my employment records, publications, seminars and talks I have given, the programs I have managed in academia, industry and the government. The authors have tried to suffice the requirements for the Wikipedia Article, following all of the guidance given. And yet, they have not been successful. Can you please give specific instructions on what exactly they have done wrong? The canned responses from reviewers are not helpful. Repeating guidance items that do not apply to the article's content are not helpful. Please be specific as to what the issues are so that my colleagues can finish their work authoring this account of my work and add to it as I move into by next appointment. 130.76.25.234 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your colleagues should be disclosing their conflict of interest. You also say "colleagues" but the draft has been largely edited by a single editor. Accounts are strictly single person use only.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of someone and their work and activities. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikiepdia definition off a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just mentioning the person or their activities and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the person- not what they or their associates see as important about them. 331dot (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Thanosb94

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to make clear how to proceed in a number of issues where I find myself kind of stuck.

1) To prove that the CV of dr. Armaos is legitimate I reference to big advertising magazines of Greece, where moves of his are being referenced. Is that a mistake?

2) I had trouble in confirming many things of dr. Armaos' CV that I knew them to be true. The reason was, that it was not easy to find links online from his early career, because that was in the 2000s and Greece was kind of behind schedule on its digital process. To compensate for that I did the following:

a. I referenced a basic text describing his history from iarmaos.gr and the greek version of huffpost. I get that iarmaos cannot be considered a reliable source but isn't huffpost a reliable one? Should I do something additional? b. I referenced to PDF files of interviews of dr. Armaos in greek magazines or newspapers to showcase that his CV is legitimate. Since I found it difficult to upload PDF files, I requested them to be uploaded in iarmaos.gr. I had already proceeded to note that there would be a conflict in my article. What can I do to prove those facts in a way that is reliable? Should I stop using iarmaos or any dr. Armaos’ media entirely? Should I upload them as PDF files? Do you have some propositions as to what should I do to prove things that I know are legitimate but cannot find anything online, because it was during time where not everything was digitized and some companies may have changed since then?

3) To showcase that he has also made several appearances as a Political Analyst and Communication Consultant on TV and Radio, I referenced links of youtube channels of major Greek media with videos of his. I also referenced again to iarmaos.gr, where one may find all these videos in one place. Should I remove iarmaos completely, even though the videos of his appearances on these media are legitimate? Should I use another way to showcase his appearance on social media that is not a youtube channel?

4) To prove that KEPRONIPO is legitimate, referenced his own CV on iarmaos and a pdf of an article of his uploaded through iarmaos.gr. Since there are not active digital links of the activity of the organization, what could I do to prove its activity?

Thank you in advance for your time. 

Thanosb94 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thanosb94 Wikipedia is not for posting CVs. If you want the draft to get accepted, find multiple independent reliable sources (i.e. not YouTube or companies he's worked in) and rewrite the draft in a neutral tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Macrobreed2

[edit]

I have very recently submitted this draft for AFC review and am currently awaiting review. I am a little confused on the citation part for this specific Discography section. Do I need to cite each song or album individually? Or some would work. Additionally, there are 1-2 sources which I believe aren't much reliable as per WP:RS, still can I use them as primary sources to keep information? Best, Macrobreed2 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Fomoriii

[edit]

heeey I've just made this page in the middle of a wikiathon :) it'd be great to jump the queue so we can keep up the good work! this is my first article so happy to take any feedback <3 Fomoriii (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fomoriii Yeah, and 1,300 or so should wait for you?. Unlikely. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no need for the attitude love, im in a wikiathon and was encouraged to take a punt Fomoriii (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no means of speeding the review process, which is entirely conducted by volunteers. If we allow you to "jump the line" then we have to allow everyone to. If you are part of an event, perhaps a more experienced user can help you place the draft in the encyclopedia- if you want to roll the dice that it would survive an deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Shilohwebster

[edit]

What counts as a reliable source? Or, better questions, what are some examples of a good reliable source? I looked at the page and I couldn't quite understand and theres no examples to get a good idea. It says at the top of the page, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shilohwebster (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shilohwebster: We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review/scholarly sources that discuss the subject or their work at length and are subject to fact-checking and other sorts of editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ahh okay! thank you!! Shilohwebster (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 6 October 2024 review of submission by TSventon

[edit]

This rejected draft is a duplicate of Ayşe Zarakol, started 8 September 2024‎. Should the draft be published and redirected to the existing article? TSventon (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Draftspace is not for redirects; try making a request on WP:Articles for creation/Redirects instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my submission, I was looking at AfC submissions on 22 August and saw that this rejected draft is now a duplicate of an existing article and asked for advice what to do. Presumably this is a fairly common occurrence. Publishing and redirecting would create a redirect from a plausible spelling and keep the history in case there is any useful content there. TSventon (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: And I'm effectively saying that particular dog isn't going to hunt. The better option would be to just request the redirect be made at AFC/R, after merging any content in the draft that is worth keeping into the mainspace article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find out the normal response to a duplicate at AfC, would you inform the submitter and then allow the draft to be deleted eventually due to inactivity? The submitter was an IP account, so they would probably not see a message. I would have thought that if content was used in another article then the draft shouldn't be deleted, but I could be wrong. I am happy to create a redirect, I don't need to use AFC/R. TSventon (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: The usual response is for the submitter to come here or onto -en-help and try to split hairs as to how a red dog is meaningfully different from a burgundy dog.
In all seriousness, the draft is generally left up so that the content can be merged, and then deleted via G13 later down the line. We generally assume the submitter is watching the draft (and their talk page, which is less relevant when it comes to IPs due to how those are allocated), which would make any notification beyond the decline (and notice on the submitter's talk page) unnecessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, thank you for coming back to answer, I have found a page here that says Edit the draft, and replace it with a redirect to the article is one possibility, but I don't think that is really necessary here as draft and article are mostly similar. I have created a redirect for the name without diacritics as that is useful to have. TSventon (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Calebos04

[edit]

What kind of content would be considered sufficient? This was a historic moment in the MLB, and I followed the format of other articles of similar plays like the 2011 World Series walkoff, 1993 World Series walkoff, etc. Thanks Calebos04 (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have that discuss the importance of this game, never mind a specific play in the game, that warrants it a standalone article separate from the article about the series? It's not uncommon for games be won by a home run. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I talked about how it was a postseason winner-take-all game, and that it was the first time that that type of game was won in that nature. Calebos04 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that it led to them going to the next round, well, yes, that's the whole point. Maybe if they win the World Series and sportswriters say it hinged on this home run, maybe.....but it would be too soon. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this comment after writing my reply from earlier. Okay, we will wait and see what happens, though I will say that the reason why I wanted to create this article was because of the historic nature of it. Calebos04 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't all final games in a postseason series winner take all? 331dot (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winner-take-all games are games where the winner moves on, whereas the loser is eliminated. This was game 3 of a best-of-3. So best-of-7 series that are won in 6 do not have a winner-take-all game. Calebos04 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the other team had won the first two games, there would have been no third game, just as you describe with a 7 game series. I don't see the distinction. It's not required that I do, but sources will need to, and I think, if it does, it will come later. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more clear. A winner-take-all is a game that guarantees someone's elimination and guarantees that someone advances. The other 3 series all ended in 2 games, however they are not considered winner-take-all because had the other team won, no one would've been eliminated or advanced, which contradicts the guarantee that a winner-take-all holds. Here's a source that shows this distinction: https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2024/10/03/brewers-have-been-in-six-previous-winner-take-all-postseason-battles/75496717007/ Calebos04 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "if it does, it will come later"? Calebos04 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't a new concept, maybe it's never happened to a 3 game series, but it happens to other series all the time.
The game isn't a week old yet; the alleged historic nature of this may not be apparent until later. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A game-winning home run in the 9th or later while trailing in a winner-take-all postseason game had never happened before until then, which is why it is a historic play. Calebos04 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Calebos04: How many of your sources are about the home run specifically, and not just recaps of the game? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta agree with others here. The first X to do Y under Z conditions in a baseball game is not inherently notable. Neither Bill Mazeroski's 1960 World Series homer or Joe Carter's 1993 World Series game 6 homer would have been appropriate to add as pages a couple days later, if Wikipedia had existed at the time. This could very well be an appropriate subject for a standalone article someday, should it become a noted play that's talked about and covered in the future in and of itself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, well thanks for the responses.
Just a quick question, it says "If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted". Is this only talking about if you resubmit it again without the changes, or if you don't change anything for a while?
Thanks. Calebos04 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Imagerie Creations

[edit]

I would like to inquire as to why my article was declined and the ways in which I can revise it to get it approved. Imagerie Creations (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Missourian BJMD

[edit]

I have 2 questions.

1. Can I still make this article? The response after sending the review submission said the page already exists on the Lake Chad Wikipedia page. Does this mean I can not create the article?

2. If I can create it still how can I make it so it gets accepted? Missourian BJMD (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means you should first attempt to improve the Lake Chad article with this information. It doesn't seem like it warrants a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:36, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Lawrencia Vedor

[edit]

Notability Lawrencia Vedor (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencia Vedor that isn't a question, but your draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

[edit]

01:35, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Enter your username in wiki

[edit]

Hi, you declined my article for being not remarkable but it’s an encyclopedia everything belongs even weird cartoon shows. I am not trying to start a fight with you or anything but it’s just that if you can, please acept my article 🥹🐹. Enter your username in wiki (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enter your username in wiki no... not everything belongs. We have articles on weird cartoon shows, sure, but only because they meet our notability guidelines. Your draft was deleted under G11 (unambiguous promotion), which is strictly forbidden. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enter your username in wiki, congratulations! You have written content that is exactly the opposite of an actual encyclopedia article. Maybe if you write something that is also exactly the opposite of what you have already written, namely content that cites and summarizes the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources have devoted to the topic, your contributions may be accepted into this encyclopedia. Get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A.K.A. WP:42. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Limelight Lab Grown Diamonds

[edit]

My article is rejected. Can you please highlight where do you feel that this article is showing any promotional purpose? Limelight Lab Grown Diamonds (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Limelight Lab Grown Diamonds Please do not even consider using Wikipedia to promote your own business. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Bizzyfan

[edit]

Hi - I worked very hard on my references and citations, and formatting them properly, but it turns out I didn't succeed, as my article was rejected because the references weren't formatted properly. My article was also rejected because the sources weren't considered reliable. I am flummoxed by that, as they are almost exclusively newspaper and magazine sources. One of the difficulties is that the news stories are quite old, hence I had to post the links to them via newspaper archive sites, such as Proquest. In every instance I listed the date, the newspaper, the headline, the page. How might I get some assistance in doing this properly - I did my very best already! Bizzyfan (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bizzyfan. Your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning you are free to improve and resubmit.
You have formatted your references manually in plain text, but this unfortunately isn't how we reference on Wikipedia.
Check out the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which shows how to reference using the visual editor. You'll end up with properly formatted inline citations with an automatically generated ref list.
Your sources are mostly reliable other than FindAGrave which is user generated so shouldn't be used.
Hope that helps, do resubmit for review once you've gone through all the references and formatted them correctly. Qcne (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! 64.114.211.53 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Vanishanihar14

[edit]

Hi im not sure how to add the referrences. For hos works are available in youtube. Vanishanihar14 (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanishanihar14: the method of referencing is explained at WP:REFB. As for what sources you need to cite, it's those ones that have provided the information in your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 7 October 2024 review of submission by 64.253.215.212

[edit]

I really want this to be an article. But, how do I make it good? 64.253.215.212 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments left by reviewers. You need independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this airline to summarize in the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

[edit]

If I edit this page to add additional information will this delay the review process? Finlay73 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay73: no, it won't; you're welcome to edit the draft whenever you want, including after submitting it, and doing so has no impact on when the draft will be reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not go ahead and improve the draft, it will increase the chances of a favourable review. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 7 October 2024 review of submission by 176.42.132.44

[edit]

why is this not notable? he has very reputable awards and thoughts for Turkish people. 176.42.132.44 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:15, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Jermelw323

[edit]

Can you check over my Wikipedia page and let me know which thing I need to change to make my article verified Jermelw323 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb, Apple Music and Spotify are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jermelw323: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Kevin kerrison

[edit]

Hello, I hope you're doing well.

Could you please let me know why my article was declined and guide me on how I can get it approved for publication? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Kevin kerrison (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be reviewed further, see below. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Kevin kerrison

[edit]

Could someone please explain why this article is not live yet? Kindly guide me and let me know the response as well. 



Kevin kerrison (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it clearly says "After multiple declines for lack of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, a single primary and non-independent source was added. It's clear that the individual is in fact not notable". Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 7 October 2024 review of submission by Syedkumail hs

[edit]

My Peronal arcle was not published Syedkumail hs (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Syedkumail hs: We have zero tolerance for promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 7 October 2024 review of submission by KeithlCraig

[edit]

Hello Sir,

I hope you are doing well.

Could you please explain why my article is not getting approved? I would appreciate it if you could provide a reason for the rejection and guide me on what steps I can take to get the article approved, as well as the approval process.

Thank you. KeithlCraig (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the above messages about the draft. If the other editor is your agent or representative, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KiethlCraig: The reason the draft was rejected and will not be considered further is because the editor working on it couldn't/hasn't address(ed) the draft's issues in re notability as Wikipedia defines it. This is due to the sources not being in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review/scholarly sources that discuss Craig at length and are subject to fact-checking and other forms of editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also answered at User talk:Kevin kerrison#Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith L. Craig (October 7). --bonadea contributions talk 11:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

[edit]

05:54, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Delirium0nee

[edit]

why was it rejected? Delirium0nee (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly stated by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." See the notability criteria for musicians. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Supreeth Nagella

[edit]

I am unable to comprehend this error. "Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).[1]"

I have already had a look at the provided help page for this error. I followed the instructions, and made the changes. However, I am still left with the same.

Please help me in fixing these errors. This will be very helpful for my article. Thanks. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreeth Nagella: A couple of other editors have fixed the errors: the issue was that your <ref name> tags used ref names that were numbers (integers) ; the simplest fix is to add a colon before the number, so it's <ref name=":1"> instead of <ref name="1">.
As an aside, I personally prefer to use descriptive names for the references, so if you're using a book by someone called Smith as a source, the reference might be called <ref name="smith">. That makes it much easier to keep track of the references, but it's just my own preference. --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much to those who have helped me. Thank you for your kind message as well. Supreeth Nagella (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Shafieisabetswiki

[edit]

I would like to receive advice to how edit and complete a reference based document for a researcher Shafieisabetswiki (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia; it is highly recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and their achievements; a Wikipedia page summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the relevant criteria, such as a notable academic.
If you are associated with this person, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Gauravmeh79

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted a draft for the biography of Indian film director Tejas Prabha Vijay Deoskar, which was declined with feedback citing that the submission does not meet the notability guidelines (WP ) and lacks adequate reliable sources.

I would like to clarify that the references included in the draft are from reputable, independent sources such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, and International Business Times, which provide substantial coverage of Tejas Deoskar’s career and contributions to the film industry.

The primary issue appears to be that some links are referenced multiple times, which might give the impression of inadequate source diversity. However, each reference supports a different aspect of his career (e.g., specific films, awards, or critical reception). I’ve ensured that the content and sources are genuine and relevant, with no reliance on promotional material or unreliable platforms.

I would appreciate guidance on how I can best address this issue to meet Wikipedia’s requirements. Could you please review the sources and offer suggestions for improving the draft to meet the notability standards for film directors?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best Regards Gaurav Mehrotra Gauravmeh79 (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravmeh79: please see WP:NEWSORGINDIA in general, and WP:TOI and WP:IBTIMES more specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 8 October 2024 review of submission by LiedliSammler

[edit]

An article on the Band "Flame Dream" is already existing on Wikipedia in German. It is my asset to add the story in english. But it is the first time I'm trying to do this. Is there an easy way to it? LiedliSammler (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LiedliSammler: I'm not sure what you mean by "easy way to it", but you should start by finding sources that demonstrate notability, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:BAND notability guideline. Currently the draft is mostly unreferenced, and therefore also has no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time getting citation, references and literature properly placed. Can you help me with simple, understandable instructions? LiedliSammler (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LiedliSammler: I've merged this thread with the previous one; please don't start a new thread with each comment.
You should find everything you need for correct referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should perhaps also mention that just because an article on this band exists in the German-language Wikipedia, doesn't mean that one will be accepted here on the English-language one. Each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and policies, and our requirements for referencing and notability are probably the strictest. I'm not saying this to discourage you, but rather to emphasise the importance of strong sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, @LiedliSammler, the German article de:Flame Dream has just two sources, both of them from Prog Archives, which according to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is a "Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG".
Thus the German site has zero usable sources as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 October 2024 review of submission by 87.236.135.34

[edit]

Acceptance or rejection timeframe. 87.236.135.34 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. We cannot give you a specific time frame beyond what it already says on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,294 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Smug response from reviewer ("zero independent sources do zero chance of being accepted") shows they did not look closely at my references.

I removed press releases and there are 2 independent sources in my references:

https://www.findmyhost.com/webhostingblog/email-hosting-provider-greatmail-llc-releases-groupware-edition/

https://www.getmailbird.com/greatmail-partnership-mailbird/

Clearly the reviewer overlooked these or just doesn't want to review my submission fairly.

Please advise. 

Charger69 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies they may be independent but they are certainly not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither is independent and neither is reliable. The first is a blog post that is the obvious result of promotional activity. The second is a blog post from a business partner. There is currently zero evidence that this company is notable, Charger69. As for smug, personal attacks are against policy so stop that now. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure they are independent. Let's just say "zero sources that contribute anything towards notability". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Bonadea, 6 of the 10 references cited are secondary sources. What is the problem with these sources and how they support the submission? Charger69 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. One source (the first one, a 167-page paywalled report which appears to discuss Greatmail and a number of other companies) is secondary, and it is probably also independent, but it's unlikely to offer significant coverage (though we can't know that as there isn't even a page number in the citation so it's impossible to locate the information). The rest are neither independent nor secondary, and the notability guidelines for companies requires multiple sources that are reliable and secondary and fully independent and offer significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Meqshercu

[edit]

hello, could you help me find verified sources for the page? or edit it without my response Meqshercu (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Meqshercu, but it is unlikely that any of the volunteers who look at this page will choose to spend their time looking for sources for the draft you want to make. You're the one that wants to create this article, so it's up to you to find the sources.
There is a good reason why experienced editors advise that finding suitable sources (that meet the criteria in WP:42) should be the very first activity in creating an article: because if you cannot find suitable sources, then every single minute you spend working on the draft will be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Mattamizer

[edit]

Hello! I'm working to get a page for Terrible Posture published and I've added a second high quality source which I think fits the criteria, however I would like some clarification on the "multiple published sources". Specifically, how many sources is multiple? Is two sufficient? Or should there be more than five? Does it depend on the page? Thanks in advance! Mattamizer (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattamizer. There is no fixed number. Reviewers generally ask for at least three. Two might be possible if they are both extensive in their coverage of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 8 October 2024 review of submission by Charger69

[edit]

Please provide more information. 11 of 16 references are secondary sources supporting the content in the article. Charger69 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatant advertising telling us everything the company wants us to know... garbage like "Greatmail has distinguished itself in the market through its strong stance on privacy. " will NEVER be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:Draft in question declined yet again for the same reason. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent resubmission without adequately addressing the reviewer comments will result in the draft being rejected, like this example, meaning the draft will not be considered further. I strongly encourage looking over the entire article again, and reading stuff like WP:WTW. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charger69: "This reads more like an advertizement" is an indictment of the article text, not its sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Secondary is one of several requirements, and it is not actually the case that 11 pf the sources are secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

[edit]

04:49, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Gfunkera1999

[edit]

This article keeps getting rejected despite properly listing notable references including a verified music site biography. My article was rejected and I am unable to resubmit. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware it has been rejected an will not be considered further however I want to know what I did wrong after providing all necessary information and sources as well as how can I get a page approved. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfunkera1999: there is nothing to suggest that the subject is notable, and certainly no evidence of this, as you're only citing primary sources. The information is also inadequately supported by referencing, although that wasn't the reason the draft was rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a helpful reply all, respectfully. All you did was repeat the information provided. I’m asking for details so that I know exactly why it’s not considered notable despite provided references. Since they rejected my article after multiple attempts. I’ve tried to research endless possible causes and they were rejected every time. These references come from notable sources in music. Like you unnecessarily stated, my article wasn’t rejected due to “inadequately supported referencing” so what is it? Those are my actual questions. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the four sources provided is reliable and independent and secondary. Thus, she is not shown to be notable. None of the references has been added after the piece of information it supports. Thus, it is inadequately supported. If any of the sources had been useful, the inadequate support would have been reason enough to decline it again. As notability has not been shown after repeated resubmissions, the only reasonable course was to reject the draft.
I know that you had already been given all that information, but there is literally nothing more that we can tell you. The info is all there in the decline/rejection notices and the comments. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you understand that you’re feeding me the same information. It’s like talking to bots at this point. When people comment on here looking for answers after getting continuously rejected, they want to know what exactly is deemed a reliable source? Since you and Wikipedia claim that the ones provided are not. I see previous users above me were also given short, useless and repetitive information with no real direction or guidance of any kind. Some even have a slight attitude which is crazy. Let me break it down really quick for you and all of the Wikipets: To the average user, any artist with verified music accounts and a large audience would be considered notable therefore, why not better explain what exactly IS considered notable. You could get thru to people a lot better that way, just a tip. Lastly, the term independent sources is understood however, some artists pages have listed Instagram posts as sources so that still leaves the user confused. It is unclear how a source such as a verified Genius biography is not “reliable” but sources such as Instagram are in terms of notability. NO NEED FOR FURTHER REPLY. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you need to know about notability, reliable sources, etc. is contained in the decline and rejection notices, if you just bothered to follow the links therein; however, it seems you would rather rant here. We can only point you toward this information, we cannot understand it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people reviewing drafts and responding on this help page are all volunteers. We do this because we want to improve the encyclopedia. And our assumption, unless/until we are proven wrong, is that the editors who write and submit drafts and ask for help are also here to improve the encyclopedia, as opposed to simply wanting a particular article added for the sake of the article's subject. The templated decline notices all contain a lot of information, and many people don't understand they are expected to read that information carefully, following the links therein. A majority of the questions asked on this board are best answered by pointing to where the question is in fact answered (such as the policy and guideline pages about verifiability, reliable sources, and so on.)
As an aside, when you reply to I know that you had already been given all that information, but there is literally nothing more that we can tell you. with I don’t think you understand that you’re feeding me the same information. it suggests that you may not be reading all the responses that carefully. --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfunkera1999: CliffsNotes for WP:N: We require multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject-and-their-surrogates news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length and are subject to fact-checking and other robust editorial processes. Discogs has no editorial oversight, Viberate is a content-free profile that tells you jack squat about Noxious, your Genius link uses the Discogs URL (and Genius isn't the best source to be using for this anyway), and En El Mapa is her record label and thus is considered a surrogate for her. If you're claiming you haven't been told what we're looking for after this point, then Wikipedia is not the place for you; we are under no obligation to help a user who refuses to accept valid criticism or read pages they have been pointing to that explain what they need to do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Sropfilms

[edit]

why my articles are not accept Sropfilms (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sropfilms: No sources, no article, no debate. We can't cite social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished reading an article of a music artist who has Instagram referenced. To @Sropfilms, don’t waste your time on here with these people and just see if you can do more research on how you should be formatting and citing the information you provided. These individuals are not going to help you rather just give you short answers with no real answers or support. I advice all other users who come here for answers to just do your research instead. Gfunkera1999 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use this forum to air your grievances, and in any case please do not do so by posting in other users' threads.
If you're dissatisfied with your experience of trying to use Wikipedia to promote a musician, may I suggest you find an alternative platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gfunkera1999 That you saw this doesn't mean that it is permitted. 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. This does not mean we want more inappropriate articles added. We can only address what we know about. We will help people who are here to improve this encyclopedia and not engage in promotional activities, and are willing to learn our policies. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Evie and Oscar

[edit]

My draft keeps getting flagged. Evie and Oscar (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evie and Oscar: what do you mean "keeps getting", it was declined once?
It is very promotional in tone and content, reads like it came from the firm's marketing department.
Speaking of which, what is your relationship with this subject?
One more thing: your user name suggests there are two individuals using the account. Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one person only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Aloofmanish

[edit]

Seeking Assistance to Enhance My First Wikipedia Article on a Notable Swimmer I'm attempting to create a new article on Wikipedia, but it's not getting approved. This is my first time writing an article, and the subject is a Guinness World Record holder. There are numerous articles about him on various websites and in newspapers, and he has accomplished many significant achievements. Therefore, I believe the subject is notable enough to be published on Wikipedia. However, I'm unsure where I'm going wrong. Could someone guide me on how to improve the article? Aloofmanish (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Anshuman Jhingran has no sources and no indication of passing WP:GNG, holding a Guinness Book of Records is not inherently notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aloofmanish I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, that's what the draft should be summarizing, and you should provide those sources in line with the text, see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks So much Aloofmanish (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 October 2024 review of submission by P.V. Anirudh Reddy

[edit]

i want to publish my research paper on the wikipedia website i want people to learn and research about it ,Hence I Want you to approve my paper and correct it as i am student of grade 8 Cbse it is very crucial for me to research on the topic mentioned above

thanking you P.V Anirudh Reddy P.V. Anirudh Reddy (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.V. Anirudh Reddy Wikipedia is not a place to publish your research paper, sorry. See original research. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P.V. Anirudh Reddy: Is your instructor making you do this? If so, are they operating in coordination with WikiEd? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Achelminsky

[edit]

Dear Kylie Tastic: It has recently come to my attention that an AChelminsky is seeking to publish a Wikipedia page where I am the subject. I've had a chance to review this proposed page, and I can state that everything AChelminsky has included is 100% accurate. All the information is factually correct. If you like, I am happy to authenticate any or all of the information through my attorney. Achelminsky (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achelminsky I'm a bit confused as you seem to be speaking about yourself in the third person. Only a single person should be operating your account. The accuracy of the information is not at issue. Your approval or confirmation is not required for others to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable creative professional.
Beware in invoking attorneys, see no legal threats.
If you want to address KylieTastic directly, please use their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achelminsky: Anything the subject or their associates say does not matter for our inclusion criteria, which are based solely on the presence and depth of third-party news/review/scholarly sources. We also hard-require said sources when writing about living people. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources provided help towards notability as we define it, and in fact we can't use the vast majority of them. The decline looks appropriate. We absolutely cannot work on "just trust me, bro" for claims about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Baker235

[edit]

I am confused why this article is being repeatedly rejected despite providing an equal level (if not now greater) extent of notable references than the Results of the 2008 Queensland local elections and Results of the 2016 Queensland local elections articles. As this is a list of election results for an event that has an accepted article with 2012 Queensland local elections (where notability of the election is apparently established with a single reference to the ECQ's results page) why is this specific article not suitable when it is consistent with the accepted standards of other lists of results for Australian elections?

In this case, isn't the use of the Electoral Commission of Queensland's results reporting a suitable use of a primary source to make a "[statement] of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" as stated on Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)? This list provides a statement of results (i.e. facts) with effectively no analysis/commentary of the effects of said results in the list. The commentary on these results (referencing secondary sources) should then to be made on said main article(s) as is done for these elections in other years. Baker235 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 9 October 2024 review of submission by Apriltools

[edit]

This is an article about a one of a kind product. Yes, it is a product, but it is a notable product.

Can I get some help / pointers on structuring the article to get past the "reads like an advertisement" canned response in AfC. The product reviews are what makes the product WP:N. People actually took the time to write about the product on reliable sources.

Apriltools (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first line- "novel guitar accessory" is not WP:NPOV.
The reviews should be written as prose, not as a list of quotes, and the prose should explain what makes this notable. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 9 October 2024 review of submission by AleFalgheri

[edit]

Hello Guys, I recently passed my draft to submission to later pass it as an article in the encyclopedia, but it was recently rejected. Could you support me in knowing why? I still accept ideas and collaboration in it? Thank you very much in advance AleFalgheri (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, I have already posted a question to ask for help in this task, if you like to collaborate with me any feedback is welcome. AleFalgheri (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AleFalgheri I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot. AleFalgheri (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

[edit]

08:27, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Cjenkinson75

[edit]

Hi there,

Can you help me with this page? It needs to be changed to Carrie Jenkinson and needs to be updated correctly. Someone was doing it for me but they have not bed. Successful in setting it up. And help would be much appreciated Cjenkinson75 (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cjenkinson75 I fixed your post to properly link to your draft(you need the "Draft:" portion). The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant, if accepted, it would have been placed at the proper title by the reviewer, but that's academic now. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves(either directly or via a representative), please see the autobiography policy. Your representative needs to formally disclose their relationship, they need to see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked your representative as they failed to respond to numerous inquiries. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Draft:Carrie Jenkinson. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Wiki's Slash

[edit]

I am requesting assistance because i needed the outmost review for this article, as Mayor Carmelo "Pogi" Lazatin Jr. is currently running as Pampanga's First District Representative for the 2025 Midtern Election, and I wanted to see if it is possible to approve this to have a better information regarding Mayor Pogi Lazatin. Wiki's Slash (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki's Slash: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk; also, Wikipedia has no interest in supporting someone's political or other career. I think you'll have to just wait until a reviewer comes along to assess this draft.
I will give you a piece of advice, though: you haven't exactly encouraged a quick review by WP:REFBOMBING this draft. For example the 'Lazatin and city's awards and citations' section (which arguably shouldn't be there at all) has 27 citations, most if not all of which are unnecessary. You might want to reconsider that, and your approach to referencing more generally. Most reviewers prefer to see a small number of solid sources which clearly establish notability, rather than dozens of flaky ones which may or may not do, and which take a lot of effort to sift through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to ensure a speedy review; we have no deadlines here. Wikipedia is not a voter guide.
He doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOL. He is currently a mayor, but local office isn't sufficient unless there is significant press coverage of him, usually from outside his local area. You would need to show he meets WP:BIO more broadly. The awards are meaningless for notability as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Raghad Alhawali

[edit]

What should I do for my article to be accepted? Raghad Alhawali (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raghad Alhawali: first, you need to disclose your relationship with this subject and/or the GUST university.
Then, you need to be able to write in a neutral, factual manner. Expressions like "his impactful tenure" and "Alameddine's academic credentials are extensive and diverse, underpinning his substantial contributions to higher education" are absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
You also need to support the draft properly. Currently the vast majority of the content is unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable in an article on a living person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected typically means that there is nothing you can do. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. If, however, you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, you may then appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I work as a web admin at GUST university, Prof. Bassam is our president. We need to create a website content for him since we're editing GUST content on Wikipedia. Thank you for your advice. Raghad Alhawali (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal disclosure of your employment, see WP:PAID for instructions. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit the GUST article in the same manner as was done. All references were removed, promotional content was added, and the new article did not comply with our manual of style. I have already reverted those edits back to the last acceptable state.
Also, please note that due to your paid-editing status / conflict of interest, you should make edit requests via the article talk page, rather than editing it directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Raghad Alhawali

[edit]

Hoe to resubmit ? Raghad Alhawali (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raghad Alhawali: please read the advice in your previous thread, above. (And please don't start a new thread each time.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 10 October 2024 review of submission by 79.144.109.9

[edit]

Having difficulty understanding the feedback: Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed. Why does data of birth need to be removed? Are there rules around posting the data of birth? could not find any. Also, I removed "noted authority" as that is probably not fully supported by the citations. But I am not aware of anything else that needs additional support or reference. 79.144.109.9 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DOB specifically, and WP:BLP on articles on living people more generally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 10 October 2024 review of submission by 98.113.64.35

[edit]

can I have an explanation as to why this draft was declined? what can I do to make this draft better? the artist is of note with a comparable professional record to that of other contemporary artists who have published pages. Extensive exhibition history within reputable, top tier galleries and museums, primary articles/reviews and is collected within 3 public institutions that I can find. 98.113.64.35 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be- for many reasons- that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and just not yet dealt with by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about; that other inappropriate articles exist cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to help us, you can identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken.
It looks like you have mostly cited press releases and announcements, not significant coverage of the artist, coverage that goes into detail about him. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mostly press releases? that is factually incorrect and whoever reviewed the draft didn't follow the citations. I made note of where the exhibitions took place and cited the locations because they have professional merit. I also cited a review in art in America, reviews from glasstire, which is the primary art writing publication in Texas, for the bulk of the text and listed a slew of other reviews/credits in further reading. I could point you to a number of other contemporary artist pages with equivalent professional records and similar citations. the collected coverage cited goes into extensive detail so I am not sure where that logic is coming from. 98.113.64.35 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 10 October 2024 review of submission by OriginalVoice

[edit]

Hello! This is my first wikipedia article submission, and I'm struggling to understand how I can make it read not like an essay? I really thought I nailed the initial submission when it came to neutrality and sounding like a wikipedia page, so I'm not sure what I can do to fix it. OriginalVoice (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a model developed by Branco et al needs to be based almost entirely on publications by people and institutions wholly unconnected with Branco et al. 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) 11:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Sajjad Hossen Sifat

[edit]

Why my apply is decline again and again. If you help me by advice, I will so glard to you. Sajjad Hossen Sifat (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop recreating blatantly promotional drafts. Your draft likely met one of the speedy deletion criteria as blatant advertising, and was thus deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement, and such attempts will get the draft protected from being recreated again and also get you blocked from editing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 10 October 2024 review of submission by 176.236.197.59

[edit]

amazing infos 176.236.197.59 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tiktok and for most situations Youtube are not appropriate references. Wikipedia works off of what others say about the person.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 10 October 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl

[edit]

Greetings! The sources cited are leading ukrainian media outlets and some international ones. What other sources are needed? Yevrowl (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

[edit]

07:51, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Gopalpariwar

[edit]

Hello Team, I have submitted a Page but it is declined and Please help me in creating a New Wikipedia Page in Hindi Content Gopalpariwar (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hindi Wikipedia; you need to go to the Hindi Wikipedia to create your draft article. Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Experiential Events by Visual Architects

[edit]

My recent article got rejected, and this is the first time I tried creating a wikipidea article so I am sure it might have missed a few keey points even though I tried my best to follow the guidelines. I seek your help to understand how to averrt this and launch/publish the arrticle Experiential Events by Visual Architects (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Experiential Events
@Experiential Events by Visual Architects: your draft has been deleted as promotional. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Your user name also implies some sort of connection with this subject. Could you let us know what it is? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 11 October 2024 review of submission by 3DmicroPrintExpert

[edit]

My article got rejected and I don't know what to do

I’m reaching out to better understand the reason behind the decline of my article about the company Nanoscribe. In the rejection comment, it was mentioned, "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established."

I previously revised the article based on similar feedback. I added several independent publications, removed press releases, clearly stated when information is from the company itself, and included additional sources demonstrating the company’s relevance in research.

I genuinely believed these revisions would bring the article in line with Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability standards, so I absolutely don't know what further adjustments might be needed.

Could anyone please provide more specific feedback on what remains problematic? 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3DmicroPrintExpert I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you thought it was a section header, I think). You already asked the reviewer for advice, I'd suggest waiting to hear from them first, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @331dot thanks, I got an answer and the answer is that one sentence in the draft is promotional. But I think the problem is that every time someone else reads it, there may be another sentence that is seen as problematic. So I'm trying to get the big picture and not just change one sentence, resubmit, and get rejected again for another sentence. That's why I asked the question here. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that different reviewers will see different things, either because they have a different perspective, or because a reviewer doesn't want to front load all the problems at once as it's easier to deal with them one or a few at a time. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you that the awards are meaningless towards establishing notability; an award only contributes to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). The Technology section has little discussion of the company and should just be removed. If you do both those things, that leaves little behind that summarizes what independent reliable sources see as notable about this company as Wikipedia defines it . 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @331dot, thanks for the advice! I thought it was important to use the technology section because they were the first company to make 2PP available as a commercial tool and they invented the 2GL technology. Do you think it would be a better way to remove that and maybe add the first point to the history of 2PP/multiphoton lithography and write a second article about the 2GL technology where it's also well explained and defined? Maybe this would be a good start because I think it will be easier for me to write a technology article. I see I'm still learning the rules here. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the company invented and made available a technology would merit the technology an article, but not necessarily the company. For the company to merit an article there needs to be sources with significant discussion of the company itself, not its products and inventions. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Cuentaderevision

[edit]

Please, could you tell me what else can I do? The WP Three are ok. There are references from The Times, BBC, NYT, Financial Times, CCN, El País, Washington Post... Triana was awarded with the Grand Cross Royal Order Civil Merit (it is a international top recognition), Triana is in charge of the reconstruction of one of the biggest natural disasters of this century... Cuentaderevision (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Wikisickidiki

[edit]

where do I put my article to review? Wikisickidiki (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisickidiki press the blue Sumit draft for review button at the bottom of the box, but your article will most likely be instantly declined in its current state — Karnataka 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about notability and reliable sources before you do anything else. Unless you have at least three sources, each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42, your draft will not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you will be wasting your time in writing an article, and wasting somebody else's time in submitting it for review.
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. ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Sayuru Athsara

[edit]

Hello, I have created a Wikipedia page for the accredited European School of Lille Métropole in Lille (Marcq-en-Baroeul) France. My request for submission was declined stating that I have not cited enough sources. My point is, the school only opened up in 2019 and is still in a gradual development schedule (to be completed in mid-2025). Therefore, evidently, the school lacks a vast amount of sources (especially in English) to be cited. I'd like to know what the procedure would be in such a specific circumstance. Furthermore, I'd like to state that the most important information about the school is already cited with reliable sources, including the website of the school itself; the Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools (the over-seeing body of the school); reliable European Union document archives; regional newspaper La Voix du Nord; and as well the website of the Lille European Métropolis (Métropole Européenne de Lille). Rest assured, I'll try my best to find more sources to cite. In the meantime, I would be more than glad to know what I could do in such a specific instance. Thank You in advance. Sayuru Athsara (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayuru Athsara: The school's own website is not considered a reliable source; government sources are not considered secondary. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject secondary (news/scholarly/review) sources that discuss the subject at length and are subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sayuru Athsara your sources do not have to be English, but they must fit the criteria listed in Wikipedia:GNG. The information found at Wikipedia:NSCHOOL will explain this further. — Karnataka 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Amman24

[edit]

Good day,

an ambassador is the highest official representative of a head of state in another country and can only be appointed with the approval of the head of state of the receiving country. In this case, there is a clear reference to the official website of the King of Jordan, receiving the person of this article as the new ambassador and highest diplomatic representative of his country/state. There is no higher authority than the head of state himself confirming the ambassador (other than God), so what reference is a minimum criteria for Wiki then? The appointment of the ambassador is also referenced and confirmed by 3 of the leading news agencies in the Kingdom of Jordan, also linked to this article. And there seems to be no difference between this ambassador and all the other ambassador’s of the Order of Malta on Wikipedia. Also, the references clearly link to official government websites. Taken bio information about a top-diplomat from the official website of an embassy is “biased” in Wiki’s opinion? Where else would you get information about an official’s personal bio, like the Secretary of State, other than from the CV he had written himself and being published on a website?

Thank you for your help. George Amman24 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amman24: Ambassadors are not inherently notable as we define the term. You need to find third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly discuss him and his work in some depth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought it was noteworthy since the ambassador is the youngest ever head of a diplomatic mission of the Order of Malta, which usually only appoints 60+ years billionaires. But you are probably right, Wiki is not the right place for this kind of information. I suggest you have the article deleted. Thank you for your time! Amman24 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 11 October 2024 review of submission by DMmmAM12345

[edit]

Submission shows declined for lack of sufficient citations, but citations are prevalent. DMmmAM12345 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMmmAM12345: Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

[edit]

13:37, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Aknotik

[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to create a page of my mother, which was very known in music person in Latvia. The source of the page is from various interviewers of Larisa Puzule. Its not clear how do I add secondary sources. They are mostly on Russian on Latvian languages. And in any case, only a few facts can be checked and approved by secondary sources. Should I just add links which I can found in the Internet?

Thanks Aknotik (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements of being independent reliable sources. As you're unlikely to find a reviewer fluent in Latvian here, you may wish to, on the draft talk page, discuss what each source you provide says.
You should formally declare your conflict of interest, see WP:COI for instructions. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 October 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF

[edit]

Improve the site please + How will you be able to accept the website? 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that reviewers don't think improvement is possible, which is why it won't be considered again. You provided no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss what makes this notable(such as reviews by professional reviewers); you just documented the existence of the series. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 12 October 2024 review of submission by AlexCollins4u

[edit]

Hello. I was instructed to 'ask for advice' by SafariScribe. The subject meets the academic criteria specified and reliable sources were provided. Can you kindly unreject it? Thank you. Regards AlexCollins4u (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexCollins4u What they have to do is to pass WP:NPROF. The referencing is not helped by the WP:CITEKILL which follows "He is a biology and biotechnology researcher with several collaborations and publications to his credit", which hinders reviewers from knowing what references you really choose. Please reduce them to a maximum of three good ones
I think there is a probability that they pass NPROF, though I have not looked in depth. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I will do as you suggested by reducing the many citations to the last sentence. Can you unreject it afterwards? Thank you AlexCollins4u (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Message me on my user talk page and I will take a detailed look. I make no promises, but you will get my full attention whatever the outcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've messaged you. Cheers AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Thank you. I do not feel that the rejection should stand, so I resubmitted it on your behalf, but no Declined the draft for the reasons stated in some detail. You are welcome to ask for help from other reviewers once you understand the review, and if you disagree with me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the review. Many thanks for cancelling the rejection and resubmitting it on my behalf. Cheers. AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Focus.enterprise

[edit]

My submission is constantly being rejected for so called being "AI generated" despite it all being original work, what do I do? Focus.enterprise (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With at least 8 unsourced sections there is zero chance of acceptance, where did all the content come from? Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear, did you send it through ChatGPT or any similar program for any reason? Even if you only intended to have it soundGi more polished and more like a Wikipedia article, the way large language models work gives their output a very distinctive pattern and means it's likely to be flagged as AI generated. Very few people write the way ChatGPT and its fellows do!
More importantly, though, make sure you have your information referenced - the wording of the article can be adjusted if necessary, but words don't matter if you don't have sources to back them up. Have a look at WP:YFA, WP:42, and WP:REFB - they should get you on the right track. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how long the article is and how many specific facts are claimed, I'd expect to see more than an order of magnitude more sources rather than...four, and I'd argue that three of the four sources aren't both reliable and independent of the subject. In the first paragraph of Background alone, nothing is referenced, and I stopped counting halfway through at a dozen factual claims that needed to be sourced. And yes, without any AI detection, there are some hallmarks here. The whole section on "Lyrical Themes" looks a lot like an AI readout that was not properly copied-and-pasted from the website, because the section headers that AI loves to create smush right into the text. For example "Humor and Bravado Despite the serious themes, Eazy-E's characteristic humor and bravado permeate the album" and "Discontent and Personal Struggles Eazy-E's frustrations with the music industry and his personal life are also prominent themes throughout the album." Yes, sourcing everything is a lot of work, but that's why quality articles of this length can take years and the efforts of myriad editors to get right. Your best bet is to start with the good sources you can find and then cut everything way down to the article that those sources can support. There's no deadline here and the article can -- and likely will be -- expanded later as more people find more sources that support different characteristics and history of the album. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Lief Vespucci

[edit]

I am a PhD historian that has written numerous encyclopedia articles, hence I am baffled by this rejection. I have two questions, should I add a footnote to every sentence of this article (all information has been published and is publicly available, no statement or sentence in this article is without corroboration from an available and cited source). Second, regarding the "peacock language," does this refer to standard Financial Times level prose, or is the idea that we used too many honorifics to refer to Gower? If the latter, please point out one so we can correct it, if it is the former, isn't standard Financial Times and New York Times prose OK for Wikipedia? With many thanks! Lief Vespucci (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lief Vespucci Accepted You do yourself no favours in your "Do you know who I am" toned introduction here. Wikiedia is not kind to experts, I'm afraid. See WP:ACADEME. Nonetheless I view this article as standing a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, this differs from Tavantius. Such disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
The tone is a little magazine-like. Doubtless the community will edit that away.
As for references, every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Wiklipeds

[edit]

Hello. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong. I just copied what was stated on the Nigerian Intelligence (DSS) website about an award their president/chief/other received by ISO-SEC Switzerland. But I removed the comment they did, as it probably can make it look "how great it is" and this can be considered as an advertisement. Not sure if there is something else. Please help me to understand what to avoid. I have plenty of time and I can truly be a good editor soonest I learn what to NOT do. Thank you in advance. Wiklipeds (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiklipeds. The sources in your draft do not provide significant coverage of ISO-SEC. They are passing mentions and are not sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

[edit]

00:08, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Canute Saint

[edit]

Hi, My submission Draft:House of Torgar has been declined twice. The reasons for the first rejection were comprehensible, and in response, I added a considerable amount of inline references. The reasons for the second rejection were, however, general and intangible: 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.' Nonetheless, many pairs of eyes see better than one pair, so I hereby ask for advice as to improving the article further. Thank you. Canute Saint (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:56, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Bz public

[edit]

Hello, I have created this article with the help of reliable sources, if necessary, please improve it and I request you to publish it. Bz public (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bz public, what's required are references to significant coverage of Norz in reliable independent sources. Pitchfork and the Los Angeles Times and BBC Persian Television provide significant coverage of his client Googoosh, but only passing mentions of Norz. His own website is not independent and of no value in establishing notability. Unreferenced promotional content like Shahram Norz’s passion for music was evident from a young age violates the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. In conclusion, your draft fails to establish that Norz is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 13 October 2024 review of submission by 211.224.23.251

[edit]

Hello, I am currently a student at Gimcheon High School in South Korea. I would like to upload information about our school to Wikipedia. However, I am asking you because it was rejected for various reasons, and I modified it based on this, but did not follow the purpose of Wikipedia. Can you tell me what is the problem? 211.224.23.251 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your school does not meet the definition of a notable organization that we have here. Schools do not merit articles just because they exist, and Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school.
The Korean Wikipedia is different from this one, with its own editors and policies. If this draft would be acceptable there, you should write it there. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

[edit]

I need some help with the sources, what references do I have that are necessary and aren't, I need some reliable, I just need help in general on how to improve this draft, if you can assist that would be amazing, please and thank you! Hectorvector27 17:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asdf;jldsafdl. Unfortunately Geni, FindAGrave, and Ancestry are generally considered unreliable sources. See links for reasons why. miraheze.org cannot be used as it's editable by anyone. chateauversailles doesn't mention her.
Is she discussed in literature, journals, academic work, history books? Those sources would work better. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh my golly gosh, thank you! Hectorvector27 17:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne, are the references I have now reliable? Hectorvector27 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you've removed the unreliable sources, but now most of the draft is unsourced (unless you haven't published your most recent changes?). Readers need to be able to verify her date of birth, early life, death, etc.
The Literary Life and Correspondence of the Countess of Blessington doesn't seem to be significant coverage, just a mention. Usually we look for three solid sources that meet our golden rule: independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage.
Being a Countess she must would hopefully appear in books or journals from historians? Qcne (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1250982352"