Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


February 2

[edit]

05:15, 2 February 2025 review of submission by BenEngee

[edit]

Hi there. I'm hoping to better understand the types of sources used to support article creation, particularly in the context of film and television in Australia. Thanks. BenEngee (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BenEngee. Does WP:42 help? ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Sunuraju

[edit]

should i ask reduced Plot or not? Sunuraju (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 2 February 2025 review of submission by VolkerHamburg

[edit]

hey everybody,

can u give me support for the update of the article I published? Draft:Henning Tewes Is there a need for more secondary sources? Or what else can I do? Looking forward to get your support! VolkerHamburg (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VolkerHamburg When linking to your draft, the whole url is not needed, just the title in double brackets.
You have summarized the work of the subject, but not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about him, how he is a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. His business work seems incidental compared to his field hockey career- at least, based on what I see here. If his main claim to notability is being on a national championship team, you need sources that discuss that aspect of him. If he's notable as a businessman, you need sources that discuss what makes him important as a businessman, not just documenting his work. What is his particular influence as a businessman?(hypothetically) That's what we're looking for.
The personal life section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Ozzdizz

[edit]

I've been reviewing Wikipedia's requirements, and really appreciate that Wikipedia is strict about sources and content!

I had provided 23 citations/sources on my first draft, but my rather short article was declined because it seems that it needs multiple published sources that in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject.

As someone without a lot of Wikipedia editing/publishing experience, I was wondering if it would help to remove some citations or sections of the article in order to get, at the very least, a minimal version of it published as a starting point for more experienced contributors to edit?

I've been looking at articles for similar companies and some of them are extremely brief with, for example, only 2 citations from sources that don't seem to be the most reputable (for example, the Wikipedia article for a company that operates in the same industry and makes similar products: Grandstream).

I have made some additional edits, and hope that by providing over a dozen citations from sources such as the Wall Street Journal, the Trademark/Patent Office, and published journals with a document/manuscript ID along with in-depth interview videos of staff and official product listings published by Microsoft/Verizon, there would be at least one or two that would be considered acceptable. So I was wondering if what I'm doing wrong is providing too many sources, some of which perhaps some aren't meeting the standard, or if it's considered that I haven't provided a single reputable source at all.

Keeping Wikipedia credible is important to me, so please let me know what I can do to meet your standards even if it means substantially reducing the content and eliminating a number of citations/sources. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this and help! Ozzdizz (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Beware in using other articles as a model, they themselves might be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this(see other stuff exists). There are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us, we can only address what we know about. Not every article was "approved" by someone. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzdizz: The drafting process did not exist full stop before 2011, and wasn't made borderline-mandatory until 2018. As to your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
You have a couple borderline sources and two I can't assess; other than that your sources are unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Vahemd2026

[edit]

Hey there! My article about Pashtoon Kasi has been declined due to a lack of reliable sources. But I think the sources are reliable enough, if I'm wrong please tell me why. I have read the page of reliable sources, but I still couldn't get what pages are reliable. Thank you for your assistance. Vahemd2026 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, that say what they see as important about him. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vahemd2026. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks a lot for your time! Vahemd2026 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 2 February 2025 review of submission by 2001:4490:4E4D:4D42:A0EA:858A:AF2F:476E

[edit]

Please help as this article declined due to some reasons so please review this article and move it as a artcle space.2001:4490:4E4D:4D42:A0EA:858A:AF2F:476E (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Barbara J. Smith ZPD

[edit]

I made time to update this information. I have researched the history of the Sarnia Imperial Football Club since 1976 and Gord Paterson was a member on this team between 1933 and 1937. His name was misspelled with an extra "T" so I tried to update your material. and give a summary of him so you did not confuse him with a Gord Patterson who played in the seventies. They are different people. Barbara J. Smith ZPD (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara J. Smith ZPD: Your article's sources are not properly cited, which is why it's getting declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] cited in nov. 1/72 Red Wilson. Sarnia Observer
[1] Wilson, April 22, 1981.
[1] Interview with Lyle McKay (by Red Wilson) Sarnia Observer
[1] The Toronto Globe, October 26, 1931.
[1] Lou Marsh, Nov. 9, 1931, The Toronto Star/
[1] McLean, Sarnia Observer.
[1] Jack Hambleton – November 23, 1931
[1] 1931- Canadian Press
[1] LN Bronson, “When Mustangs in Grey Cup” London Free Press.
[1] Joe Breen, correspondence, November 27, 1975.
[1] (CAN NNY (Andy McIntyre) p. 32
[1] Windsor Star, Vern DeGeer
[1] October 2, 1932, the London Free Press
[1] oct. 17th – Windsor star, 1932).
[1] Windsor Star , Oct. 28, 1932.
[1] Windsor Star October 24, 1932.
[1] (Windsor Star, nov. 7, 1932).
[1] Nov. 15, 1932 Toronto Star
[1] (Occidentalia Records) Western University https://archive.org/details/occidentalia33univ/page/186/mode/2up. p. 116.
[1] Esso Reporter
[1] Oct. 2, 1933 – The Gazette.
[1] (October 3, 1933 - Toronto Star),
[1] (Windsor star, oct. 7)
[1] (October 21, 1933) p. 5. Star Weekly.
[1] (Hamilton Spectator, Oct. 23).
[1] Hamilton spectator- October 30, 1933
[1] (Toronto Star, Sept 18, 1934).
[1] (Windsor Star oct. 9, 1934).
[1] (oct. 1 canadian press. Windsor star).
[1] (Windsor Star, Nov. 16).
[1] (Windsor Star, Nov. 16, 1934).
[1] (London Evening Advertiser, Nov. 19, 1934).
[1] The Windsor Star
[1] Windsor Star, nov. 23 – Canadian press
[1] Winnipeg Tribune, Nov. 26.
[1] Scott Young
[1] Dave Dryburgh, The Leader-Post, Nov. 26
[1] Vern DeGeer, Windsor Star, November 26
[1] (Windsor Star, canadaian press. Nov. 23, 1935)
[1] (Canadian Press, Nov. 22, 1935).
[1] Toronto Star
[1] Too Much for Toronto Team (Vern DeGeer - Oct. 25).
[1] (May 23, 1978). Sarnia Observer.
[1] Red Wilson, Sarnia Observer.
[1] The Observer, Sarnia Imperial Reunion, special edition
[1] Red Wilson, The Sarnia Observer
[1] Occidentalia, Mustang Yearbook, 1933, p. 66.
[1] Toronto star oct. 30, 1937
[1] London Free Press, January 10…
[1] (Jan. 25, 1930, Windsar Star)
[1] Feb. 12, 1931 – Windsor Star.
[1] Canadian Press, 6-4 Western in Intermediate OHA – Jan. 17, 1931
[1] London East – feb. 6, 1933
[1] Windsor Star - nov. 3, 1947.
[1] Sarnia Observer, April 20, May 2, 1979 Red Wilson.
[1] Fred Wheeler, Sarnia Observer. Nov. 2, 1972.
[1] Sarnia Lambton Sports Hall of Fame Program, 1986.
[1] Western News, October 22, 1998.
just because AI cannot find it, doesn't mean microfiche from local newspapers is not accurate. Barbara J. Smith ZPD (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara J. Smith ZPD: You are correct that AI can't find it - which is thoroughly irrelevant as we wouldn't trust an AI to do that in the first place. The onus is on YOU to provide enough bibliographical information for a human to find it in offline archives. The draft doesn't do that; it only makes references to two sources (without citing them or providing enough information to make a cite).
  • For newspapers and magazines we need, at minimum: Name of the publication, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1929), article title, article byline, and the pages the article is on.
  • For books we need, at minimum: Title, year of publication, author, publisher, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.
None of what you offer above provides the minimum information we need to cite those sources, either. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to hear that Ai is not an influence. I have been researching original primary and secondary sources including hundreds of documented accounts in national and local newspapers to verify my work. Surprised you would not respond to any of the 50 or more references I quickly shared. His name is Gord Paterson - with one "t" - and he is not A. Gordon Patterson who played for Winnipeg in the seventies. How could he be on the all-star ORFU team in 1935 (which in listed in Wikipedia)- if he played in the seventies? It is not the same person. This fact is evident in many sources. This is so disappointing when for over 20 years I have been supporting Wikipedia as a reliable source to begin thinking about research. Furthermore, the manner and tone of your response did not come across as professional. I was just trying to help - to provide Wikipedia with more accurate information. It does not seem to matter? Barbara J. Smith ZPD (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara J. Smith ZPD: The reason I did not respond to them is because, as I literally just said, you do not provide enough bibliographical information to allow one to find them, assuming they had access to an offline archive. Telling me Windsor Star - nov. 3, 1927 is about equivalent to handing me IT and asking me to, without opening the book, find the one page King never should have written in it. I don't have enough information to go on to try and find it in a timely manner, and nor would anyone else who tried to look up that source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you keep the wrong spelling of my father's name - and keep misleading people - and I'll be sure when the book I'm writing will be a better source than Wikipedia - because it is clear to me you are a gatekeeper of history - arrogant enough to enough to ignore the hard of historians. just trying to help. Barbara Smith, PhD Barbara J. Smith ZPD (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara J. Smith ZPD: I'm not gatekeeping anything. You're fumbling the ball by not providing the necessary information for someone who is genuinely interested in this to do any further research on him, resources permitting. I've explained the minima we need, and it's by design more than just a publication and an edition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What wrong spelling? The existing Gord Paterson article is about a completely different person named Gord Paterson. The reason that he played for Winnipeg in the 1970s while your father apparently died at age 63 in 1972 is that he is a different person with the same name [1], [2], [3], who played in the CFL in the 1970s and 1980s. We can't possibly be spelling your father's name or getting facts about him wrong because we don't have an article on him in the first place. You've tried changing the existing article twice in the last day to be about the Gord Paterson that the article isn't even about. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...you limit the truth by not recognizing that the misspelling came from you - not me. and now no one will know - from your site his real name - and accomplishments. Way to go. I'd say you fumbled with your thinking that sources in thirties adhered to APA. Barbara J. Smith ZPD (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara J. Smith ZPD: Sources in the 1930's still had titles, bylines, and page numbers - all of which you keep arguing about rather than providing them, something which should be trivial to do if you actually have access to the sources. Nowhere did I or anyone else say the sources had to comply with the APA style (and in fact it would be patently ridiculous to expect that from a newspaper). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 2 February 2025 review of submission by 172.242.54.179

[edit]

What type of reference is needed? There is nothing in print about Sancho Panza Day. It has an oral history. 172.242.54.179 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can't have an article on it. We need published third-party news/scholarly articles that are subject to editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you.
I will keep digging to see if I can find anything. 172.242.54.179 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 2 February 2025 review of submission by MustafaAldahabi

[edit]

How soon reviews get accepted regularly please? MustafaAldahabi (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced and well written drafts can be reviewed and accepted within minutes, conversley poorly sourced and written drafts like yours can be declined just as quickly. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Horophile

[edit]

Hi,

This article was rejected because the sources were not reliable. I want to find out why they are not considered reliable sources? Several them are published journal articles and published books on the subject of the article. It would be great if I can get guidance on how to fix the reliability issue of the sources.

Thanks! Horophile (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 2 February 2025 review of submission by Jspector8

[edit]

My draft of an article on Dr. Alice Friedman was declined because it didn't show notability and relied too heavily on primary sources. I don't believe the sources I used were primary and am wondering how to improve this. Thank you! Jspector8 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wellesley College is a primary source whether you believe it of not. Theroadislong (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting! I didn't realize. Thank you! Do you think the article will be improved if I add links to journal articles that Dr. Friedman authored? Jspector8 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would also be primary sources, so of little use. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

[edit]

03:26, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Jiosun

[edit]

Thank you for your message. We apologize for the inconvenience this time. We have significantly reduced the content, so please continue to review it. Jiosun (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to resubmit the draft in order for it to receive another review. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:47, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 117.250.153.142

[edit]

tried my best and included many references.. corrected the tone also but it is getting declined . Kindly guide how to improve notability and formal tone . i have the resources/references.. but is there anything i am missing ...kindly guide 117.250.153.142 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Georgehehehah

[edit]

I will sue Wikipedia and under UAE human rights order,I have every legal right to completely sue you, trust me you don't want to get in this mess, I want this to be sorted out legally, My uncle, is Sheikh Khalid alnahyan, in line for the throne can ruin your life, you make think I have no power, don't get in this mess. Georgehehehah (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to do whatever you want, just as Wikipedia is free to block you while you're making legal threats, which will likely happen the second an administrator sees this. A frivolous legal threat will not cause this nonsense draft to be approved. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will sue you, you don't want to test my lion power. I am the king of the jungle.I can sue you so fast it will make your head spin. Georgehehehah (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a (quite very obviously) related note, OP is blocked for attempted legal thuggery. I've merged his two sections together. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was either !HERE with a side of LEGAL, or LEGAL with a side of !HERE. Unsure of the protocol, if any, I opted for the former, although having then looked at the edit filter maybe should have done the latter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:55, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 103.176.88.7

[edit]

good 103.176.88.7 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable published sources wholly unconnected with the subject have said about the subject, and very little else. No sources, no article. ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Muhammed Ali Rahbari

[edit]

Hi. Why is my article not suitable for you? I was about to prepare the sources and add them. Plwase tell me why? Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host essays of original research. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also dyslexic . I dont understand 99% of this.
So maybe i should go on google.
That will be hard too. As i dont kniw hiw to do that either.
I just know my article will help people. That's all.
I just vwant to contribute.
Regards
Ali Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will add refrances, so can't you wait a few days? Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new thread for every post, just edit this existing thread. References are not the main issue- the text is written as an essay and not as an encyclopedia article. It is fundamentally incompatible with what we do here. You would need to radically rewrite the draft to only summarize what reliable sources choose to say about this topic, without interpreting the sources or drawing conclusions. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new. So I have no idea I have a article i like to publish. I will add the sources soon. Bit it be nice for you to send me a personal message and help me to understand better . Thank you...Ali Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please edit this existing section- there should be an "edit" or "reply" link in this section. Please do not create a new thread with every post. I am giving you personal messages. What specifically isn't clear about what I have said? 331dot (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, I give up. I just wanted to help people thats all. Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bye and take care...all the best Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helping people is a good thing, but this may not be the best place for you to do that. Try social media, or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
Thankyou for your advise and agqin i apologise to have taken your time.
Love,
Ali 2A00:23C5:C08:B01:443:91AB:30E0:10DA (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am 66 not accedemic and dont understand technology. So it will be hard for me.
I just want to help from my experiences.
Thats all. Muhammed Ali Rahbari (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Ermiermi807

[edit]

Kassim mecca profile how to wright an articles Ermiermi807 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to properly provide a link to your draft as intended. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. It is usually recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Please see the advice left to you by the reviewer, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Rogelioconstantinomedina

[edit]

Why my draft is declined when I am writing about myself? Rogelioconstantinomedina (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rogelioconstatinomedina I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about the topic. You have no sources at all. It is usually very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on what others say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 3 February 2025 review of submission by AnjaliJotwani

[edit]

Please tell me how can I improve this article. I did write it in neutral words also AnjaliJotwani (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. If you think that you can do that, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly.
If you work for this company, per the Wikipedia Terms of Use that must be disclosed, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 3 February 2025 review of submission by LaylabDL

[edit]

Hi,

I submitted an article which has been declined due to "Thus article contains major errors of fact. Diffuse scattering is an established technique and very different, as is wide angle scattering (in any form)"

Where might I address the listed issues with the reviewer? I reformulated the paragraph mentioning these definitions for better clarity, however, as proven by the references to articles in peer-reviewed journals, the term "diffuse scattering" has historically been used for the technique (TR-XSS) described in the article (as well as for other physical phenomena, which is the reason the term is no longer used today) and TR-XSS is always performed in wide-angle scattering geometry. LaylabDL (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can communicate with the reviewer on their user talk page User talk:Ldm1954. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Fishkick142

[edit]

Hi,

Just curious why my page draft was rejected. The reason was that the individual (Corey Webster) has not received "Significant coverage" to merit an article. I would disagree. Corey Webster (known as Nooky), is an award winner Indigenous rapper who has presented on Australia's national youth broadcaster, Triple J, for several years, has worked with significant cultural institutions in Australia including Sydney's Powerhouse Museum and Bundanon, established the social venture We Are Warriors to support Aboriginal people, and received the Bronze Lion at Cannes for his documentary We Rise.

I do not believe that the reason that he has not received sufficient coverage is a valid reason for the article to not be published so am posting here to see if there is a way forward or if I could receive further feedback.

Thanks, James Fishkick142 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft link fixed – you don't need the complete URL in the template, just the page title.) @Fishkick142: it looks like Flat Out declined the draft and then reverted their decline ten minutes later. I'm not sure if the decline or the reversal was by accident, but the draft was never rejected (which would have meant that it couldn't be resubmitted), and right now it is waiting for review. --bonadea contributions talk 11:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, much appreciated. I did initially decline the draft by Fishkick142 because they don't appear to have stablished notability outside of the band/group in which they are a member, however I don't normally review drafts on musicians and decided to leave it for another editor. I neglected to remove the decline message from the authors talk page, my apologies. I have since removed the template and the draft is open for other editors to review. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flat Out (and Bonadea), I've edited a fair few wiki articles but never drafted one from nothing before so am still getting my head around how all this works. Appreciate your help with this!
Cheers Fishkick142 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Dilshan Hesara

[edit]

Hello Qcne,

I noticed that my submission was rejected, and I would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve it to align better with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand that Wikipedia has specific content standards, and I want to make sure my submission adheres to them.

Could you please clarify what aspect of the submission was contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and how I can correct it?

Thank you for your time and assistance!

Best regards, Dilshan Hesara Dilshan Hesara (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilshan Hesara I am afraid that you are not a notable person by our notability criteria, and therefore do not merit an article at this time. qcne (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilshan Hesara: It looks like the text above was written by an AI. If you have questions, please ask them yourself, without getting a chatbot to write it for you. If you have follow-up questions, please post them in this section instead of starting a new section. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 178.136.107.114

[edit]

Hello, I'm working on submitting an article about Alex Stewart International inspection company, but it was declined due to some references I used/didn't used. The Ukrainian version of this article was accepted previously, but I've updated it to reflect the current name and other details of the company, aferwards I decided to add an article in English, as the company is international. The feedback I received mentioned that my sources may not fully meet the guidelines for secondary, independent, and reliable references. I have cited a book and a journal article, among others (official pages), but I'd like to know if I should provide additional sources or revise the existing ones to better comply with Wikipedia's notability standards. Thank you for your time and assistance. 178.136.107.114 (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was declined because there is no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. The draft only cites primary sources, mostly the company's own website. We have no interest in what the company wants to tell the world about itself, we almost exclusively want to know what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about it.
Besides which, the draft is insufficiently supported by citations.
Whether an article on this subject exists in the Ukrainian Wikipedia is neither here nor there, because each language version is entirely separate with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Shaavan077

[edit]

Sayyid Qtub is alive Wilson is bald Shaavan077 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for deletion. Do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:3260:9670:3009:7131:78E2:3262

[edit]

Libeling the Gateway Pundit, a credible news source with a direct interview with the subject is a lazy and partisan way of saying you are an activist and don't recognize truth when presented. 2600:1700:3260:9670:3009:7131:78E2:3262 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of your citations appears to be cited to Cullerton. If this were correct (and I don't think it is), then they would all be useless for establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability because they are not independent. 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.
Please correct your citations to show the important bibliographic information such as author, publisher, date. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gateway Pundit was deprecated as a source in 2019 following this discussion, and your overall attitude towards this parallels this discussion the same year, where it was also brought up. Even if The Gateway Pundit were usable, interviews with the subject are useless for notability as we define it (connexion to subject), regardless of where they were published. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 2409:40F4:D:7D5E:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

I am writing article so please review approved my article please no decline 2409:40F4:D:7D5E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliably published sources wholly unconnected with the subject have published about the subject, and very little else. No sources, no article. ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 3 February 2025 review of submission by GtnMnl

[edit]

I believe that the Stop has been given to a draft created according to Wikipedia criteria and which deserves to be reviewed and re-proposed if there are corrections: I therefore kindly ask to be given the opportunity to re-submit it. Thanks Gaetano Minale GtnMnl (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, much appreciated. Please note that @GtnMnl: is the subject of the draft that was created by a paid editor. Similar drafts at it.wikipedia have been deleted and the subjected salted. The drat here has been rejected a number of times and the issues raised have not been resolved before re-submitting. The editor has been not been able to provide verifiable sources that denote the subject meets WP:NARTIST. The subject himself, as you will see from this message on my talk page, believes he is entitled to a "profile on wikipedia." Given that the subject has provided a paid editor with all of the information they feel is relevant, and that multiple editors have agreed the subject isn't notable based on that information in the draft, I don't believe there is any prospect of the draft being accepted. Flat Out (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Deformatted

[edit]

I removed anything that might have been considered promotional, but I am not sure why it is not considered notable? Is it because the citations are from the Czech media rather than international? Any help would be really appreciated Deformatted (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deformatted:, I took a quick look and it still reads promotional. There is a section for "current teachers" which is something the organization may want people to know but there is no encyclopedic value to it. In addition, you have a list of courses which is great for the organization's website, but Wikipedia is not a place to list all courses offered. The section on recognition includes non-notable awards (all industry awards). As far as notability, references can be in any language as long as they support WP:NCORP. Please compare the sources you are providing to WP:ORGCRIT as that is the threshold needed to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deformatted: artmaster.com, Linkedin.com, Discogs, YouTube and assorted profiles are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that. But I only use those as relevant citations to other info mentioned Deformatted (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong I question the usefulness of your comment "Just an advert for ArtMaster". Kind of annoyed me really. Deformatted (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have annoyed you, but you have now edited the draft to read less like an advert so it was worthwhile I'd say. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit it down further regarding promotional. My main content citations iDNES.cz, Seznam Zprávy, CzechCrunch, Hrot24.cz, Forbes CZ I could qualify as notable. All the other citations are there to provide evidence that the facts are true. Deformatted (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, @Deformatted, that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note @ColinFine I have no association with ArtMaster. And I have not been prompted by anyone to write such an article. I was prompted by myself as I live in Prague, read an article about them, and I did their free 7-day trial membership. I was genuinely surprised there was nothing written about them on Wikipedia, so thought I would. If that is too subjective here than I apologise. iDNES.cz, Seznam Zprávy, CzechCrunch, Hrot24.cz, Forbes seem sufficient to establish notability. I will edit it more and try again. Do you think I have a chance? Deformatted (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that you were associated with ArtMaster, @Deformatted. I was saying that the draft seems to be saying what ArtMaster wants to say, not what independent sources say. For example, which indepedent source has listed the teachers? If none, then the list does not belong in the article. And as for the individual teachers, the citations you have attached appear mostly to be either not independent (eg the person's own website) or not reliable (eg a random YouTube channel) or not containing coverage of ArtMaster.
That is why people are saying the draft is promotional. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what ArtMaster or its associates want to say. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine. Thanks, at least I can get my head round that. I will have another go Deformatted (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@ColinFine@Theroadislong. I have edited it further. Can I get some feedback again before I resubmit? Thanks a lot. Also what do I do about the maintenance template bit? As in this: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. etc. Won't it just get automatically rejected because of it? It feels weird to delete it myself, but I really dont have a close connection Deformatted (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag for you, you need to submit for review in order to get feedback. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 178.51.50.21

[edit]

My Dearest Friend Angelino, is the cleverest and good person i knows, he did his best in the past, still now he do his best, i can say not a bad word of him, he is like my brother!!! 178.51.50.21 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O.o JanaDemasure (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy for you. But your friendships have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, unless they have been written about in multiple independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


"Angelino F. Michels" es una persona conocida en Bélgica; lo he visto varias veces en las noticias. Merece ser reconocido para una página. 94.109.248.7 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 84.193.96.109

[edit]

I recognize this person, I used to watch his BMX shows when I was a kid, wow! 84.193.96.109 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:58, 3 February 2025 review of submission by 95.92.181.154

[edit]

Eu conheço o Angelino do BMX! Eu o vi a competir em Portugal e também no ciclismo de estrada. Muita força para ele após o acidente, espero que se recupere rapidamente. Aliás, as informações na Wikipédia estão corretas, pelo que sei. 95.92.181.154 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Machine translation used) Olá! Infelizmente esta é a versão em inglês, não podemos responder muito bem aqui. Sugiro que você tente editar a Wikipédia em português? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 3 February 2025 review of submission by Vishnu Piriyan

[edit]

Please approve my article I am new writing Vishnu Piriyan (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

[edit]

06:41, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Type1type2

[edit]

Hello. I would like to ask for advice on how to make the following amendments on this page: 1. Comment received: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." > I have already used footnotes to cite each source. What do you recommend?

2. Comment received: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." > Each source was verified as valid when I was making the page, but now it is not the case. How can I rectify this?

Thank you for your support in advance. Type1type2 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kimchi and Chips
@Type1type2: Your draft has several problems as written by the reviewer. Large sections are unreferenced and a couple of the references are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not for promoting yourself or any entities that you are associated with, and everything that is written has to be sourced. You have to find additional sources that support the article and add them with inline citations. Also, if you do have a conflict-of-interest, it needs to be disclosed as written here. cyberdog958Talk 06:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you very much for your quick reply and the helpful information. Will get onto it. 220.72.234.218 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Wangu Kanja

[edit]

I am nor familiar with the inline citations. Would you help? Wangu Kanja (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can get help by reading WP:REFB, please also remove the weird random bolding of words. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Jonas Ruškus

[edit]

Hi, I don't know how to proceed with the draft for creating the page. I would be very happy to get your support. Thank you Jonas Jonas Ruškus (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero independent reliable sources? Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's inadvisable for you to write about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Andriuspetrulevic

[edit]

Can you explain more detail why my application was rejected? Thanks. Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andriuspetrulevic: this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that it fails to establish notability. The sources cited are user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. We need to see what multiple independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Anagarcia2000

[edit]

Still, it is in draft and i don't want to move it to main space until and unless i got go ahead from reviewers, Kindly review it on neutral basis, last time it was rejected and deleted due to some sock puppet accounts, if all OK this time i ll move it to main space then, Thanks for considering my request, If there are still loopholes kindly advise me i will rectify draft but it is my humble request to reconsider its review on neutral basis not on past comments. Anagarcia2000 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anagarcia2000 the draft has been rejected and will not be considered - please do not move to mainspace, it will just be put up for deletion again. qcne (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well noted Anagarcia2000 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Nalemayehu

[edit]

Hi, are interviews insufficient as sources? I thought that would be enough, or is the issue that I didn't include enough of them. Nalemayehu (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability, as they are the person speaking about themselves. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about her, not what she says about herself. Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Interviews can be in articles, but as a supplement to what others say about her. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Adrifdo.sdl

[edit]


Hi My artcle was rejected and its stated do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Need your support Adrifdo.sdl (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page you say "Hi What about the payments?" Could you explain what you meant by this? Theroadislong (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought i need make some payments to publish it. Adrifdo.sdl (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adrifdo.sdl no this is not a paid advertising website. It is an encyclopedia on notable topics, as defined by our guidelines and policies at WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia does not accept payments to publish anything. There are people who will offer to take your money and write an article, but most of them are scams, and the honest ones will tell you that they cannot guarantee to get an article about you accepted, or that such an article will say what you want it to say.
Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia.
An article about you is possible only if several people, wholly unconnected with you, have chosen to write about you and been published by reliable publishers. Any article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say about you (good and bad), not on what you or your associates say or want to say. If suitable sources do not exist, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the support team! 112.134.229.243 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Fardin Sheikh Tiham

[edit]

What are the necessary requirements for this page to get published. Please tell me, I would be grateful. Fardin Sheikh Tiham (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fardin Sheikh Tiham. As far as I can see, every one of your sources is from the subject or somebody associated with him (festivals he has exhibited at etc), or is from an unreliable source such as imdb. 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.
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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for enlighting me. Fardin Sheikh Tiham (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Jojo815

[edit]

I would like to better understand the reason my draft was declined for Artist and organization director Salome Asega (Draft:Salome Asega). Safariscribe [the reviewer] discussed notability, but as my citations show, this artist has been profiled by distinguished media sources such as The New York Times, Ebony Magazine, and Guernica Magazine, as well as highly regarded specialized art magazines such as Artforum, Cultured Magazine, Apollo Magazine, and Artnews. She is the director of an important New York cultural institution (New Inc.) that is part of the New Museum of Contemporary Art, a preeminent contemporary arts institution in the United States. Could someone please clarify by what standard this person is not "notable," given that information provided is verifiable by well-regarded sources, and that there is significant coverage of this artist/art director's work? Jojo815 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jojo815. In Draft:Salome Asega (note, you need the "Draft:" in the link), you make some of the classic mistakes of editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works.
A source can be as reliable as you like, but if it is not independent of the subject, it has limited value, and does not contribute to establishing notability. The artnews piece, for example, simply quotes Asega's words, and doesn't say anything substantive about her.
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.
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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojo815: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Most of what you cite is in some way connected to her. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano,
In response:
"I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/arts/design/new-inc-new-museum-incubator.html"
– here is a gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/arts/design/new-inc-new-museum-incubator.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.4ybt.1jpO9ullLjaB&smid=url-share The New York Times is a global publication and leading source of credible information across the world, and cited widely across Wikipedia, and this article profiles the subject and organization she runs, deeming her notable.
"https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/times-square-new-york-punk-show-new-museums-cultural-incubator-new-inc-1234680698/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about art museums that recently opened and doesn't discuss Asega in any real depth."
—This is not true—as the headline shows, "the New Museum’s Cultural Incubator Shows Off Its Versatility" —the article refers directly to the organization Asega runs and discusses her leadership; "New Museum’s Cultural Incubator" IS New Inc. I think you may have misread the article.
–Wikipedia:Notability guidelines does not state that interviews are unreliable. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies. These articles are not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with the subject. An interview with expository text at the beginning published by a legitimate reliable source is none of these categories.
"We can't use https://www.artforum.com/news/new-museum-taps-salome-asega-to-lead-cultural-incubator-new-inc-250207/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're leery of role/absent bylines because of how frequently they're used to launder fake news.)"
– Artforum is the preeminent cultural magazine in the United States and Europe — their news section does not include individual bylines as it is published by the News Desk. Jojo815 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 4 February 2025 review of submission by 136.57.86.224

[edit]

We cannot reject this draft! 136.57.86.224 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With not a shred of sourcing we could do nothing but reject the draft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not predict the future. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Horophile

[edit]

Hi! I am unsure why this draft article doesn't satisfy the "reliability" element. Horophile (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess because of a distinct lack of secondary sources and a proliferation of primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Tressbo59

[edit]

Hello, I have reviewed the sources of this article two times and added external and tracable sources for all the information in this small article. I am a bit lost in how to make it better... could you please let me know specifically what is missing ? Thank you very much! Tressbo59 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are still not independent of the association. 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) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 4 February 2025 review of submission by 66.64.11.115

[edit]

I would like to edit/modify to ensure it falls within policy guidelines. Our attempt is to document the efforts of Chris Taylor "Top 10" in Worldwide Karaoke Championships, not promotion of a company, individual or otherwise. 66.64.11.115 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off just writing a biography on Taylor wholesale. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

[edit]

03:24, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Bulletbilliam

[edit]

I wanted more detailed feedback for the article, it's difficult to know which section/ sentence is being referenced. I do not understand if it is in review or draft stage now. Bulletbilliam (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a different John Joseph Murphy so I a want it to be a separate page Bulletbilliam (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A WIkipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent published sources have said about the subject, and very little else. Your first two sources appear to be blogs, which are very rarely regarded as reliable. Your third source does not mention Murphy, so it is hard to unhderstand why it is even cited. The last source has a couple of sentences which mention Murphy, but hardly any information about him. The Hindu piece I can't read (it directs me somewhere else - is that because it requires subscription, or is the URL wrong?). If it has significant coverage of Murphy, then that will contribute to establishing notability, but one valid source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Motsupport

[edit]

Show me the error Motsupport (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Motsupport: Every last one of your references is, and I quote, "Source for <foo>". You're basically citing nothing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Motsupport. From the way you are citing, it sounds as if you are believing (as many new editors believe) that you first write the article, and then find the sources. This is backwards: it is like first building a house and then going back and trying to build the foundations.
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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 203.128.10.33

[edit]

this celebrity work on movie and drames 203.128.10.33 (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not one single valid source cited (IMDB is user generated, so not regarded as reliable). No sources, no article, ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Sharmajprjpr

[edit]

I want to publish it on wikipedia pls help me Sharmajprjpr (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharmajprjpr: presumably you mean Draft:Dr MohammedAli Kurlageri? This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I suggest you first read a few biographical articles to see what sort of content is appropriate to include in an encyclopaedia. If and when you wish to create an article, you will find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 137.132.27.160

[edit]

It says that the draft still contains text which reads more like promotion of its subject than like disinterested recording of facts. Is there any part of the article that we should not mention? Any example? 137.132.27.160 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the entire thing. We don't want to know what it considers to be its aims, or a mere list of its routine activities. A Wikipedia article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Remember to log in(if you're the account who's been editing the draft). 331dot (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Jmawilliams

[edit]

Hi - how to I get back to the draft? I click on edit and just get to edit the comment page which isn't helpful.

I want to ensure no copyright infringements in the copy...

Kind regards

Jon Jmawilliams (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmawilliams: not sure what you mean? There is no 'comment page'; there is the draft page, and its corresponding talk page (Draft talk:Michael Haynes (artist)), and they're both editable as per usual.
If you're editing the source, then the AfC templates (declines and comments) do show up on the top, if that's what's putting you off? Just scroll past them, and you get to the actual draft content.
If none of that answers your question, then please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmawilliams: It looks like the copyright infringements have been removed from the draft and its history, so that should not be a problem now – just make sure not to copy any text verbatim from sources into the draft, so as not to introduce any new copyright violations. It's worth mentioning that close paraphrasing of the source is also something to avoid. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 17.79.75.210

[edit]

I would like to improve this article so it's acceptable for publication and I'm seeking more feedback as to why it was originally rejected. I understand there's a desire to prevent the use of Wikipedia for marketing so wonder if perhaps this submission was seen as that. The intention is purely to catalogue the existence of the company and refer to reputable publications covering the history of the company. 17.79.75.210 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that an article may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know about it. What drew you to the draft?(or maybe you just aren't logged in to your account that already edited it)
Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of a company and tell of its activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my mistake, I wasn't logged in. This is the draft: Credit Kudos. It includes references from a number of external sources including CNBC, Financial Times, Forbes, and so on. I appreciate the guidance on news sources and apprecate some elements of the articles mightb conjecture or opinion, however I believe the articles provide multiple independent sources on the subject matter. FreddyKelly (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, the vast majority of the cites here consist simply of routine coverage of a corporation's normal business activities. Reports of expansions of the business and capital transactions are explicitly WP:CORPTRIV. Basic vanilla reporting discussing "X is now partnered with Y" or "X has raised $Z" don't really amount to WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage about the company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Memories235

[edit]

My draft got rejected Can someone tell me how to be not promotional? I have used a lot of credible sources but they still rejected me. Memories235 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memories235 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you had "my draft got rejected" where the full title of your draft should go). Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean that it could not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Are you connected to this company?
Most of your sources just describe the activities of the company, not what makes it a a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Iamkkronline

[edit]

please permanently publish the page Iamkkronline (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, and your draft includes two links to spam websites. qcne (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Edadras

[edit]

whats problem for decline creation new page ? Edadras (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in promoting crypto scams. qcne (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edadras: This isn't a draft, it's a sales pitch/investment brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Zhuang zi mao

[edit]

Could you please give me some advice? I want my article to be approved and published, but I don't know how to revise it correctly. Thank you very much. Zhuang zi mao (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how she meets WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary they are likely notable per WP:NARTIST because of having work in multiple museums, including the National Museum of China and WuXi Museum. I would suggest removing anything that isn't sourced for starters. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Mohamed2235sayed

[edit]

can you please tell me why did you rejected my article ? Mohamed2235sayed (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed2235sayed The reason was left by the reviewer- "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". You have no sources to support the content of the draft. A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the lack of sources, the draft itself does not make any claim of notability. It is a text that looks a little like a Linkedin profile or a cover letter for a job application; the subject is a college student who has some qualifications in 3D modelling and programming, but is not (yet) notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Edvinsstrautmanisart

[edit]

When I created this draft I also created a user, "Edvinsstrautmanisart".

I'm concerned that this choice may appear to create a conflict of interest. Is this an issue and how can I correct it? For clarity, I do not have a connection to the subject. Edvinsstrautmanisart (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edvinsstrautmanisart: See Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your username, and thank you for quickly noticing your issues with the username. (Though I will note the issue is less conflict-of-interest and more potential impersonation.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Tt123yv

[edit]

this person is a very notable person in the jewish community. Tt123yv (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tt123yv: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

[edit]

draft:Ramkripalyadavg_(YouTuber)

[edit]

draft:Ramkripalyadavg_(YouTuber) Please help us make this article submittable 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? The draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:50, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Hexlexdxb27

[edit]

Hi,

This is my first time creating an article and while it's true that I'm associated with company, my intentions are solely for our brand to a Wikipedia entry. While the contents may sound like an advertisement, it isn't. Kindly let me know how I can possible edit the article so it may be approved. I can remove the citations if needed.

Thanks. Hexlexdxb27 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexlexdxb27: the first thing you must do, without delay, is to formally disclose your paid editing. This was requested already a month ago, and I've just posted a reminder on your talk page.
Your draft is inherently promotional, because it's you telling the world about your business; that is the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). We have no interest in what you want to say about your business, we are almost exclusively interested in what reliable and independent secondary sources have, on their own initiative and without being prompted or enticed by you, said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is then merely to summarise such coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 6 February 2025 review of submission by 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905

[edit]

Help us submit it 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? If you have edited the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you may resubmit by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button in the top most decline message. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Tparashar

[edit]

I recently submitted the article "Yatish Kumar" through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and it was accepted. The message states, "which you submitted to Articles for Creation, has been created," but the article is still not live or publicly accessible.

Could you please assist me in understanding the issue and help make the article live? Tparashar (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tparashar: the draft was accepted, but soon after that moved back into drafts, where it remains at Draft:Yatish Kumar. I'm not sure what happened there, so I'm pinging the reviewer @SafariScribe: anything you can share with the author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tparashar. @SafariScribe accepted the article, but then reverted the accept and moved it back to draft space, and so the draft is back at Draft: Yatish Kumar.
I have added the AfC template to the top of the draft again, but we cannot accept biographic articles without in-line citations. Please see the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Tahikkaexpo

[edit]

my draft has been rejected Tahikkaexpo (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahikkaexpo: This is a practically unsourced and hagiographical biography. What is your connexion to Mathew? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Fstscott

[edit]

Peter Eiseman is an iconic figure in the field of grid generation. His family asked if we could create a wiki page while he is still living and can add some of his perspectives and life history. Peter is currently 82 and full of stories involving the evolution of aerospace in the united states. Fstscott (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fstscott. That may be so, but what you have written is not a viable encyclopedic article which is why it has been rejected and marked for deletion.
I would recommend a blog or other social media instead? qcne (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we?" Wikipedia accounts are for private individuals, not groups or companies. In any case, the sourcing is incredibly sparse, and as qcne has suggested, I think a blog about this subject is far more appropriate. That would be an avenue for him to share his stories involving the evolution of aerospace. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 6 February 2025 review of submission by TusharMakkar

[edit]

How can I get it reviewed well and published. It is not accepting references that I gave as appropriate enough. TusharMakkar (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TusharMakkar: This is very poorly sourced, actually (most of your sources are things he wrote/said, and one is a subReddit), and the draft looks like chatbot output to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TusharMakkar. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources, wholly unconnected with the subject have written about the subject, and very little else. Sources that say what the subject says are almost useless, as are sources which are not from a reputable publisher.
Also, writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, and almost never succeeds. ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 6 February 2025 review of submission by 151.64.10.103

[edit]

hello please consider to publish my draft....I do not understand why my articles says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"....I listed and linked all sources that I could find and quite plausible....please revise it....Thank you, regards Stefan 151.64.10.103 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a list of references, but it's not clear what they are supporting. References need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Uboent

[edit]

I went ahead and fixed the links. I am unsure how to build a sidebar of references for art, media and press accolades and published content Uboent (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought at first you meant an infobox, but that is not a place for !media and press accolades". In fact, nowhere on Wikipedia is a place for "media and press accolades" - that would be promotional, and is not permitted.
In fact, your current text is pretty promotional, and probably needs redoing from the start. 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) 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 6 February 2025 review of submission by BlazingBlast

[edit]

I am the author of Draft:Nosferatu_(Bloodbound_album), and I've gotten my submission declined for lack of coverage, yet I have three five independent, secondary sources who have published a review of the album in question. On top of this, I have included statistics that show that the album has over 21 million online streams. What more do I need to provide to prove that the subject is worthy of an article? BlazingBlast (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlazingBlast: when this was reviewed back in November, it had four sources, one of which was the producer commenting on the songs, another was just confirming a guest musician; the other two were reviews, but that's not yet enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM.
Number of streams or downloads is not a notability metric.
And to answer your question "what more [you] need to do", you need to resubmit this for another review, whenever you feel that sufficient evidence of notability has been included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have indeed added some new sources recently as I've been able to get the help of a Swedish national to find Swedish-language reports on the topic. I will resubmit the draft soon. BlazingBlast (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

[edit]

00:17, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Novalindanger

[edit]

My submission keeps getting rejected. I feel I do meet the requirements but the rejection isn't specific enough. For example, I have cited, 3rd party articles from major outlets such as Polygon and Nintendo Life. I also wrote it as neutral as possible, using only objective facts associated with the business. This has been going on for months, and I've only continued to add more content. I'm at a total loss here. Novalindanger (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just need someone to be specific. For example, if the Owner section is disagreeable for some reason then please just say "remove that"? (Although, I thought it adds more color and is objective...but I'm find to do whatever). For example, if you think I need one more article that is notable then say so and provide some samples of what is and isn't notable. Please... Novalindanger (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fundamental problem here is that the sources aren't really about Retro Game Books, they're generally straight reporting that a product is available or coming soon or that preorders are open. An interview can't really establish notability, nor can a user-generated site like the Mobygames listing. And I say this regretfully; I'm a happy owner of the first volume of SNES maps, as this kind of stuff is like cocaine for an aging Gen X gamer like me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply. My assumption is that the Polygon article on Rygar is considered the most in depth and noteworthy. I just wish a reviewer would be direct and say something like "share two more things like that and you're good" — otherwise I'm just guessing here.
Also, thanks for you're support :) Novalindanger (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:55, 7 February 2025 review of submission by BuffaloHist

[edit]

This figure holds national level positions and is the highest-ranking elected official in a country larger than 5 U.S. states. What needs to be done to make it meet the requirements? BuffaloHist (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuffaloHist: Properly sourcing it, for a start. Literally every claim that could be challenged by a reasonable person must be referenced to a source that explicitly corroborates it. In addition, offline cites to newspapers/news magazines hard-require page numbers. (I'd recommend using {{cite news}} to help make things easier.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BuffaloHist County level officials(regardless of the size of the county) are not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN, which means you need to show that they meet the broader notable person definition. Counties have differing powers, or no powers at all, depending on the state; some states have abolished counties as a level of government(Connecticut, most of Mass.), this is why county level officials aren't inherently notable. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Dartslord

[edit]

I've put considerable effort into creating a well-sourced article about an Australian band that I have heard. Despite my diligence, it hasn't been approved, and I'm unsure why. Could you please provide specific feedback on areas needing improvement? I'm committed to meeting Wikipedia's standards and would appreciate guidance on any issues with neutrality, notability, or formatting. I'm eager to refine this article with your input. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dartslord (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dartslord: it was declined for lack of notability per WP:BAND - did you read the decline notices and accompanying comments? They seem pretty clear to me.
Anyway, you have now resubmitted this draft, so you will get feedback when a reviewer gets around to assessing it. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can of course ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You say this is a band that you "have heard", but is there more to it than that? They appear to have posed for a group photo for you by the side of a lake somewhere. I assume that means you're at least on talking terms with them? Please see WP:COI, and make any disclosure necessary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dartslord Fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended; you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 7 February 2025 review of submission by PB Binu

[edit]

Dear Respected Team, We are unable to find where we are gone wrong. Please, can your team help us to identify it so that we can rectify our mistakes and work on it for resubmission. Looking forward to your assistance. Thanks & Regards PB Binu PB Binu (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PB Binu: with respect, I don't think you've put much effort into trying to understand where you went wrong, given that it is quite clearly stated in the decline notice why I declined your draft (lack of evidence of notability and referencing), and that I then also posted a notice on your talk page advising you of our autobiography policy which very strongly discourages users from writing about themselves. Did you happen to read any of that?
If you wish to tell the world about your business exploits etc., you need to find a different platform for that; perhaps try LinkedIn, that's what they're there for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Ileowoever

[edit]

The subject matter is notable and has been widely covered by notable and reputable media organisations over the years, so I'm wondering why the article is rejected. Ileowoever (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ileowoever: this draft was rejected because after multiple reviews there is insufficient evidence of notability. You saying he is notable does not make it so; presenting evidence of notability is what matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, as well as what DoubleGrazing says, understanding what Wikipedia means by notability is crucial. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 7 February 2025 review of submission by SuhovaNS

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of the Wikipedia article on Prof. Mikhail Kudryashev, which I believe meets the notability criteria for academics as outlined in Wikipedia’s guidelines. Prof. Kudryashev has received two highly prestigious national and international academic awards, demonstrating significant recognition in his field:

-Sofja Kovalevskaja Award (2015) – Awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, one of Germany’s most prestigious research grants. Notably, Prof. Kudryashev’s name is already listed on the Wikipedia page for the Sofja Kovalevskaja Award. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Kovalevskaya_Award - Heisenberg Award (2020) – Granted by the German Research Foundation (DFG), a top-tier distinction for outstanding researchers preparing for permanent academic leadership roles. Additionally, the article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss Prof. Kudryashev’s research contributions and impact.

Given Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics, which recognize individuals who have received prestigious national or international awards, I respectfully request a reconsideration of this article. If there are specific concerns regarding content, sourcing, or formatting, I would appreciate any guidance on how to improve the article to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback. SuhovaNS (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuhovaNS: I'm not sure if those awards are major enough to establish notability. Our acid test tends to be, does the award have its own Wikipedia article? Of these two, the Kovalevskaya one does, but its own notability is in question, as the article is based mostly on close primary sources. The Heisenberg one does not. So I'd say this leaves the result of the acid test inconclusive.
As for your comment that the "article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss Prof. Kudryashev’s research contributions and impact", which sources would these be? The majority of the sources are papers co-authored by the subject, and the others are primary sources, at least some of which are associated with the subject.
My feeling based on a cursory inspection is that this is currently at best borderline, and may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? I'm asking because I noted earlier that the two earlier authors seem to be closely related to the subject. They appear to have abandoned the draft, and then you came along (with two different accounts?) to pick it up? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Mamani1990

[edit]

Good morning! I don't understand why my article on Vander keeps getting denied, twice now. There are a total of 15 articles I included over the span of 3 decades. Reference #3, #10, and #12 talk about Vander's career and his solo albums of different genres since the disbandment of Les Colocs in 2000 - I would've thought that these 3 references would be good enough to confirm WP:GNG. I understand that all the sources are in French - could this be the issue? Also, I believe that Canadian content is lacking on Wikipedia. Two other past members of Les Colocs have pages about them, Patrick Esposito Di Napoli and Serge Robert. However, I understand that these articles were written many years ago when the standards about article creations were different. I humbly request some help please. Thank you in advance. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 13:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles you mention probably should be merged into the article about the band, they are poor examples to use(as you seem to know but did anyway). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Members of a band only merit articles if they are notable independent of the band; example, Paul McCartney who has a solo career outside of The Beatles. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thank you for your comment. This is what I'm trying to say. Vander made 6 different albums with success and media coverage since Les Colocs. Sources #8-12 cover this. Why does he not qualify under [[WP:GNG]]? m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mamani1990 The relevant criteria is WP:NMUSICIAN. Merely creating albums is insufficient. Most of the coverage cited in the draft is about his work with the band. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Archiduck2018

[edit]

Hello, my draft article has been in limbo for over two months now. I would like to know if it will be accepted now. Thank you very much! Archiduck2018 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,250 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 7 February 2025 review of submission by TulipHysteriaCoordinating

[edit]

Hello. My draft was rejected and I'm not sure why. There is already a French Wikipedia page for this person, who was Marcel Duchamp's biological daughter. I will update my draft to reflect this. My sources are: An authoritative biography of Marcel Duchamp (by Calvin Tomkins); two scholarly articles by Francois Grundbacher (one published in 2003 and the other in 2020); Yo Savy/Yo Sermayer's obituary in Le Monde; and a webpage from the Musee de Arts Decoratifs in Paris. Are these not qualifying sources? TulipHysteriaCoordinating (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TulipHysteriaCoordinating It's only been declined. Please read the message in the big, pink decline box and return here if you have questions. The French language Wikipedia is independent and has different inclusion criteria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 7 February 2025 review of submission by IMacattack

[edit]

Hello, this is my first time ever doing this. I got a rejections due to "reliable" sources. This is confusing as these are reliable resources. I'm not understanding what my article should look like to fit the requirement. IMacattack (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMacattack You have two sources; an article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. One of your two sources seems to be a user-generated content website(I could be wrong) which would mean it isn't a reliable source.
Your sources need to be in line next to the text they are supporting, see Referencing for beginners.
You have already resubmitted it for review; the reviewer will leave you additional feedback. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Cavaliere ospitaliero

[edit]

I tried to be as objective as possible and reporting objective facts. What to improve? 

Cavaliere ospitaliero (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1274550465"