Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- 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 |
---|
February 11
[edit]02:29, 11 February 2025 review of submission by BADAM SIVA REDDY
[edit]- BADAM SIVA REDDY (talk · contribs) (TB)
what i want to do for creation of new article, can you give some suggestions. BADAM SIVA REDDY (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @BADAM SIVA REDDY: None of your sources are acceptable. We don't cite LinkedIn (no editorial oversight), Facebook (same), or Wikipedia (circular reference). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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.
- Unless you can find several places where people wholly unconnected with you have written about you in reliably published places, you are wasting your time. See WP:42.
- Furthermore, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so difficult and so rarely successful, that you are very strongly advised not to try. ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
04:06, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Afsal8943
[edit]give advise Afsal8943 (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Afsal8943: What's your connexion to the company? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
05:08, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Brashloki
[edit]I updated all my information on this page, citing everything. I was wondering what I need to show proof of notability, and if there is any other information I need to consider. Brashloki (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Brashloki: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
- It's difficult to say what you would need in order to demonstrate notability as the possibilities are numerous, but in the context of academia, you would need to be a senior professor or perhaps the president of Florida State, as opposed to a 2nd year undergrad. That sort of things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
07:53, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Ahmad A.Bajwa
[edit]- Ahmad A.Bajwa (talk · contribs) (TB)
whats wrong with it? Ahmad A.Bajwa (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ahmad A.Bajwa: once more, in case you missed it: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Although I might also add that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I get it know, no need to become Roald Dahl on Wikipedia but on Wikitionary I can. Right? 119.156.126.149 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
08:03, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Dira deli
[edit]If I want to create an article about the Digital Sovereignty Stack, what should and should not be included? Can I use only news media or do I need to use journals related to this information? Dira deli (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Dira deli: you should primarily summarise (in your own words, no copypasting) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this subject, citing each source against the information it has provided. You may then supplement this with limited amount of straightforward and non-contentious factual information from primary sources, including ones close to the subject, but this must not form the bulk of the content: we have very little interest in what the subject, or sources closely associated with it, have to say about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
13:13, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Simona Uzunova
[edit]- Simona Uzunova (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I keep getting rejected for this article. The latest update was that the topic (business) is not notable. Any advice on how to make this more relevant? I included some notable sources but it seems that it misses the point with your guidelines. Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Simona Uzunova: there is no such thing as "notable sources". There are sources that can help establish the notability of a subject, but your draft cites none; they are all churnalism pieces published to promote your brand. (As is this draft, arguably.)
- If you could find multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that have, entirely on their own initiative without any prompting or enticement by your company, decided to write at significant extent and depth about your business and what makes it stand out from among its peers as particularly worthy of note, then and only then you may be able to compose a draft that could be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- How do you declare a source independent and reliable? Is there a rulebook that you follow? What is the criteria? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:IS and WP:RS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- What is exactly wrong about the sources from our references, such as Forbes, The Times, Flaunt? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Simona Uzunova: even reliable sources (and for the sake of the argument, let's be generous and include Forbes in that) carry churnalism, advertorial, etc. content. Case in point: your Times article explicitly says "SPONSORED CONTENT" on top of it. It's blatantly obvious that these articles were written to promote products. Besides which, pieces like "10 Of The Best Gemstone Engagement Rings" are about your product (among many others), not about your company, and do not contribute towards your company's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Forbes article [1] merely includes a link to purchase a ring. We require sources with significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Simona Uzunova: even reliable sources (and for the sake of the argument, let's be generous and include Forbes in that) carry churnalism, advertorial, etc. content. Case in point: your Times article explicitly says "SPONSORED CONTENT" on top of it. It's blatantly obvious that these articles were written to promote products. Besides which, pieces like "10 Of The Best Gemstone Engagement Rings" are about your product (among many others), not about your company, and do not contribute towards your company's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- What is exactly wrong about the sources from our references, such as Forbes, The Times, Flaunt? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:IS and WP:RS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- How do you declare a source independent and reliable? Is there a rulebook that you follow? What is the criteria? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
14:30, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Irishaltoid
[edit]- Irishaltoid (talk · contribs) (TB)
I want to upload the corporation's logo and a screenshot of a KQED video that was produced about the organization's service. From my reading I understand these are non-free content and can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, but when I try I get the message that I'm not authorized to do so. So I guess I need an editor to do it for me. I can provide the information for the description pages for both images. This last task will finish the draft so I can then submit it for review. Irishaltoid (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Irishaltoid: Images, while nice to have, are not crucial and whether there is a logo or not will not be a factor in whether there can be an article about the organisation. I'm fairly certain non-free images may not be added to drafts, but can't find the policy at the moment. In any case, I'm afraid the draft would not be accepted, with or without a logo, at the moment, since it does not show how the choir is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. Please follow that link to see what is required. --bonadea contributions talk 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, per WP:NFCCP #9 non-free content is restricted to the main article space only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Don't the external links (which is only a partial list) point to the notability of the subject? I created the article because I kept encountering references to the organization in the media and found no information about it on Wikipedia. Irishaltoid (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Irishaltoid: if you want to rely on the sources listed in the 'External links' section for notability, you need to cite them as references. Reviewers may not necessarily even look at optional appendices like 'External links', 'Further reading', etc., since they by definition aren't what the draft content is based on.
- On a more positive note, those sources at least are third parties, which is largely what we do want to see. Currently most of the citations are to the choir's own website. We don't really care what the subject wants to say about itself, but we very much do want (need) to see what others have said about it, especially in secondary sources. In that sense, the listed sources could help establish notability better than the currently-cited ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
14:39, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Prince md.ruhaanazam
[edit]- Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk · contribs) (TB)
Advice How many references do I need for my Wikipedia article Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Prince md.ruhaanazam I placed a link to your draft where one is intended; you had the word "advice" there instead. This question is academic since your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further- but there isn't a specific number of references required. To pass this process, though, most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll also add that this article does have WP:COATRACK concerns, given the only sections of any substance involve controversies the company was involved in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have to add from 6 sources provided 1-2 does not meet Wikipedia:ORGTRIV and 3-6 both WP:HEADLINES and WP:NOTNEWS as only passing by event described. There's many more in-sources notability exists but exclusively trivial (reg/closure info). That way no notability exists according to WP:ORG. If there'd be a news about they built something like a temple/castle/supermarket/etc., huge one or multiple times I'd doubt. Until then - I don't. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll also add that this article does have WP:COATRACK concerns, given the only sections of any substance involve controversies the company was involved in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
14:49, 11 February 2025 review of submission by EgmarIrausquin
[edit]- EgmarIrausquin (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi guys, Is it possible to give examples of what is not sufficient with the article? I have tried to gather as many published sources and still get rejection. At the same time, I am getting email on another account of a branding company that can help with this submission. Is this Wikipedia a commercial page? I want to know this, as I have been donating all this time. I will stop this. EgmarIrausquin (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do not respond to the email or give anyone money- that is an attempt to scam you. See WP:SCAM. If you still have the email, please forward it as described there.
- The issue is that you have not demonstrated that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. This is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further.
- I see that you claim you personally created the logo of the company and personally hold the copyright to it- is that the case? If you work for the company, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a company, it is a non-profit foundation. (has a notary paper this) I am a designer(i have a degree),so I designed the logo. Where do I send these proofs? EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you did design the logo, that's fine. No proof is needed beyond your already existing statement with the image. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a company, it is a non-profit foundation. (has a notary paper this) I am a designer(i have a degree),so I designed the logo. Where do I send these proofs? EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @EgmarIrausquin: I'll start with your later points. If someone has contacted you to ask for money in exchange for getting an article published, it's almost certainly a scam, see WP:SCAM. My advice would be not to touch it with a barge pole.
- I don't know what exactly you mean by "commercial page", but there is nothing to pay at any stage of reading or editing Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation, which develops the software and keeps the servers running, and a few other things besides, is known to raise funds from users by various means, but it has no direct link to Wikipedia editing or editors, and none of us ever see any of it as we're all volunteers here. Whether or not you choose to donate to the Foundation is your business, and has no bearing on anything here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems 'odd' to say the least, that the same moment my page is rejected, that another email account linked to the page of the foundation is used to offer me help with submission of that same page that just got rejected. The email does not state that it wants money, but the text.. if this is something you's like to explore, please let me know. coming from a company name (ltd) gives me the impression that a price is coming once I say let's explore this option. EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Scammers monitor this page to find people to offer their "services" to. While there are above-board companies offering Wikipedia editing services, most people who contact those trying to get a draft accepted just want your money. No one can make any guarantees to you(such as guaranteeing their work will not be deleted). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- got it. thanks EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is "odd", but unfortunately not at all unusual. The WP:SCAM advice is there, and many of involved in reviewing drafts highlight it on our user pages, for a good reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- They are everywhere. thanks EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Scammers monitor this page to find people to offer their "services" to. While there are above-board companies offering Wikipedia editing services, most people who contact those trying to get a draft accepted just want your money. No one can make any guarantees to you(such as guaranteeing their work will not be deleted). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems 'odd' to say the least, that the same moment my page is rejected, that another email account linked to the page of the foundation is used to offer me help with submission of that same page that just got rejected. The email does not state that it wants money, but the text.. if this is something you's like to explore, please let me know. coming from a company name (ltd) gives me the impression that a price is coming once I say let's explore this option. EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
15:36, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Fruitsnackglasses
[edit]- Fruitsnackglasses (talk · contribs) (TB)
This article was rejected on review based on the sources I used, and I wanted to get some clarification on which sources are appropriate.
I understand that citing CoinDesk and Decrypt may not rise to the level of reliability we are looking for. The rest are Forbes/Bloomberg/Wall Street Journal articles -- the specific feedback I received was not to source articles that are rewritten press releases and I now recognize this. Though a few of the others are longer pieces written in trusted publications (Forbes/Bloomberg/Wall Street Journal), and so these are fine, correct?
I plan on editing and trying again, but with number of sources I need to remove, does this topic no longer rise to a level of notability to be posted in the first place?
Also, smaller question -- is there a source of info I clearly neglected to go to that you would have used instead?
Thanks for your help! Fruitsnackglasses Fruitsnackglasses (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- If all you have is the reporting of the routine business activities of this exchange, I would say that it is not notable at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to look at WP:CORPTRIV which details many of the things that are considered trivial coverage rather than significant coverage in the context of sourcing information about a corporation. For example, simple reporting of a capital transaction falls into this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
16:07, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Abidrahman10
[edit]- Abidrahman10 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear [Wikipedia Team],
I hope this message finds you well. My recent submission for a Wikipedia profile was declined, citing that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. I fully understand Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and would greatly appreciate your advice on how to better meet these criteria.
Here is a brief summary of my background: • I am a 16-year-old entrepreneur and the founder of multiple ventures, including Artisto Designs, where I provided employment opportunities to two people. • I currently serve as a resource person at Talrop, a master tutor at Steyp, and a creator master trainer at Whoyer. • My entrepreneurial journey and activities in EdTech, digital marketing, and youth mentorship have received significant attention within my community.
Could you please advise how I can strengthen my profile’s notability? Specifically: • What kind of coverage or third-party sources would help establish notability? • Are there particular accomplishments or milestones I should focus on to improve eligibility?
Thank you for your time and guidance. I look forward to your feedback.
Best regards, Mukhthar N. Abidrahman10 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not host "profiles", it is not social media. If you want to write a profile of yourself, please use actual social media to do that. Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is strongly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article is also not necessarily something to desire. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria, called "notability", like a notable person. You sound like a bright young man and I wish you well on your future, but you should proceed with your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia- if you truly merit an article, someone will eventually write it. Trying to force the issue is not likely to work. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
18:23, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Apilger2
[edit]Good morning! I am looking for a more detailed reason as to why this draft was rejected. In the rejection list, the editor listed a lack of secondary/independent sources. However, nearly half of my sources are independent research studies. What can I do to improve this article? Apilger2 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @Apilger2! Do telling 'nearly half of my sources' you mean you are the article author, who disclosed his WP:COI? If yes, you still be wisd to read how to deal with it, 'cause now it looks like you violated it some way (i.e. "When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject..."). If not - not half, but all links you added looks really dependant of subject or, at least, non-objective, i.e.:
- lww: no word about company or it's product, as one as: "Patients/Participants: Twenty-nine pediatric patients who sustained a diaphyseal femoral shaft fracture were included in the study... Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV."
- jbjs:"Conflicts of Interest form, which is provided with the online version of the article, the author checked “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work"
- award 1: trivial news. Expo is just a paid event who can be joined by anyone, which means if they were only ones who participated, it's obvious they are winners. Expo itselc was one managed by TRIDEC where competed only ones from 108.96 sq mi area, which does not look much great.
- award 2 have also not much selective criteria: "Eligibility
- The competition is open to any patent owners, patent applicants, or patent licensees. Applicants may team together to submit a single joint application as long as at least one applicant meets the eligibility criteria.", which means any patent holder can take a part. Same - if they were only who submitted application, describing how they good, that it's not a wonder they won a prize "for distributing low-cost fracture implants to speed healing in developing world hospitals." (Who competed them? What does that award means except they patented something and sold it?).
- As of doi.org links provided initially:
- doi 1: does not describe company itself, but their product use, as one as "Limitations None of the studies described herein are randomised control trials, rather they are highly heterogeneous and many only consider one of the therapeutic methods under discussion..."
- doi 2: same not about company, but it's product, as one aS:"The limitation of the study however was the lack of comparative group and lack of adequate follow-up in 29% of the study population.7 Caalim & Reyes conducted a local prospective clinical series in 30 patients"
- As a suggestion of improvement - make company and it's president names cite less then over 70 and about 30 times through whole the article, make history (it's nos about president and products (that makes think article is about patented technology and not about company) and services (which looks like WP:PROMO) and other not clearly related to company itself much lEss or just change the subje t of what article is about (i.e. invention itself, which article is mostly followed now) - otherwise it looks like WP:COATRACK.
- What I see now about company itself is only: "It was created by president who was inspired by his own experience at Vietnam War to distribute cheap and alternate care site useful internal fixation implants he patended, that still however need additional effectiveness approvement that's why mostly (exclusively?) being distributed outside U.S. where exactly such local studies last." however I don't see here much WP:ORG enough. So please suggest any if you have supporting it with WP:RS.
- All other looks for me as WP:PROMO of company products and services, that is WP:NOT. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with what the IP says above; they pretty much nailed it on the head. This is more an investment brochure and not a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the through review Apilger2 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
18:30, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Oktawiusz
[edit]I would like to publish "Renée Théobald". What must I do ? Oktawiusz (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Oktawiusz, click the big blue Submit draft for review! button. qcne (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- However, it has no sources at the moment and would not be accepted. Please add sources and follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
22:08, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Gzbpu72
[edit]It seems strange that articles on the NYT and many other major media outlets are not "sufficient coverage" (see list in the article). Be aware that this is a prominent public official who has been charged by the secret services, hence the evaluation may suffer from political bias. Gzbpu72 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Gzbpu72, I haven't evaluated the draft but the glaring omission is that many parts have no in-line citations to sources. In a biography, it is mandatory that every piece of information must be accompanied with an in-line citation to a reliable source. I would have declined it on that basis.
- Could you fix that, ensuring that every piece of information is cited, and then we can take another look? qcne (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Qcne, good point, thank you. I fixed that and I added multiple references. Please let me know what you think. Gzbpu72 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gzbpu72, you mention the NYT right off the bat as if we are going to be impressed by coverage in the New York Times . I happen to be a subscriber to the New York Times and this is what the cited article says about Lo Voi:
Ms. Meloni said Rome’s chief prosecutor, Francesco Lo Voi, was also investigating Italy’s justice minister, Carlo Nordio; Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi; and the interior under secretary, Alfredo Mantovano
and laterDeputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini pointed out in a post on X that Mr. Lo Voi was the same prosecutor who had taken him to court in Palermo, Sicily, on charges that Mr. Salvini had illegally refused to allow a boat carrying migrants to dock in Italy five years ago
. That is two passing mentions and neither provides any detail about Lo Voi, but rather just repeat criticisms leveled by his opponents. That is not significant coverage. You cite The Daily Guardian and Zeit Online, neither of which mentions Lo Voi and Al Jazeera which mentions him only fleetingly. On the other hand, the Il Sole 24 Ore source actually provides significant coverage of Lo Voi. So, I recommend that you get rid of the poor quality references and emphasize the higher quality ones. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)- Right! I fixed the missing references now. I also wanted to point out that Lo Voi, as Chief Prosecutor of Rome, covers the most important Prosecutor role in Italy and is the only magistrate in Italy who can investigate the parliament, the government and everything that happens in Rome. He has been involved in several important Mafia trials along with Borsellino and Falcone, he was proponent of the birth of the Anti-Mafia Directorate and has been involved in the indictments of several ministers. In 2021 Lo Voi was shortlisted as one of the four candidates for chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Is there anything else needed? Gzbpu72 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
22:37, 11 February 2025 review of submission by 2001:569:BDF7:8500:E448:E06B:D2A6:E1B7
[edit]Im having trouble knowing where I make improvements to our submission.
I would appreciate any help that you could provide.
(One of the past reviewers suggested that our article was created using AI. I can assure you that this article has been the work of 2 separate authors adding and editing and correcting each others contributions.) 2001:569:BDF7:8500:E448:E06B:D2A6:E1B7 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there! The first two sentences of the draft state "The Oaklands neighbourhood is one of 12 neighbourhoods in the City of Victoria [1], British Columbia [2], on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The Oaklands is approximately 173 hectares in area and is centrally located along Victoria's northern border with the District of Saanich [3]." What are [1], [2], and [3] meant to represent? GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
23:16, 11 February 2025 review of submission by MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK
[edit]i wanna create a person profile for wiki. what should i do MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Use social media; Wikipedia does not host "profiles". Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. It looks like you are trying to write about yourself, this js highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK: An infobox-only "article" is never going to be accepted. Nor is an article on a living person that is completely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
February 12
[edit]04:51, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Stimma
[edit]Please kindly tell me the particular season, that you declined the submission of this article. I doubt if you have ability to read Chinese original scholar works or new. Stimma (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think most problem is references 1&3 does not work telling "Link has expired" and 2nd is 2020 Jin Yan's Book Review by "Life Advice for Urban Youth" column (press release? Promo?). But WP:NOTPROMO. taking in view this only reference being opened is subject-dependant it's not qualitative enough. Therefore when no qualitative refs it's WP:V violation you have not do ever according to WP:BLP. Please provide qualitative sources approving her WP:NOTEabilify. That's for beginning. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Stimma, the references in your draft consist of two dead links and one possibly reliable source that provides significant coverage of Jin Yan. That's not enough. Either correct the dead links or remove them. More references to reliable, independent sources are needed. Setting aside the issue of the poor quality of your references, the text of your draft fails to make a convincing case that Jin Yan meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Not every professor is notable. She may be notable, but you have not yet established it. As for your comment
I doubt if you have ability to read Chinese original scholar works or new
, please be aware that Google Translate is a perfectly adequate tool for helping to evaluate your English Wikipedia draft. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Stimma, the references in your draft consist of two dead links and one possibly reliable source that provides significant coverage of Jin Yan. That's not enough. Either correct the dead links or remove them. More references to reliable, independent sources are needed. Setting aside the issue of the poor quality of your references, the text of your draft fails to make a convincing case that Jin Yan meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Not every professor is notable. She may be notable, but you have not yet established it. As for your comment
07:13, 12 February 2025 review of submission by FluraFlu
[edit]Hi, does Johan Gaume not fulfil the 7. criterion (substantial impact outside academia) with the Dyatlov Pass investigation? FluraFlu (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @FluraFlu: based on what you've said about it in the Draft:Johan_Gaume#Explanation_for_the_accident_on_the_Dyatlov_Pass section, I wouldn't think so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Would it help if I add the explanation for the accident there? I didn't do this because the ‘Dyatlov Pass incident’ has its own article. FluraFlu (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @FluraFlu: I'm saying that co-authoring a paper positing a theory on one incident doesn't IMO amount to "substantial impact". Happy to hear others' views on this, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @FluraFlu. No, it won't help any way, as this will be just a WP:COATRACK that doesn't affect notability of article subject. This fact is just tells he coauthored some theory (and not i.e. approved it, revealing the event secret having place for decades - that would be really notable) and no more, that doesn't look notable - i.e. Flat Earth is also just a ghosting theory but it's ancient author hardly notable (I mean he would if would be ever written about/known, but (s)he's just unknown, that's why not notable), it's modern revealer is really notable, but mostly because he have a numerous followers of his theory until now - when centuries passed - and even wrote a quite convincing [for time when noone saw earth from space] book, that they I bet read as bible - when Johan Gaume's theory will be same widely worldwide and in time believed (that can be counted as 'almost approved' or 'mostly believed as true' even if not in fact) - then - yep - he probably can be notable because of it - but not now, when that's just a theory he with coauthor only believe in. Still try to read WP:BIO to know what you really need for him to be notable enough. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Would it help if I add the explanation for the accident there? I didn't do this because the ‘Dyatlov Pass incident’ has its own article. FluraFlu (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
08:03, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Internationaltraderesearch
[edit]How is the article suppose to be written Internationaltraderesearch (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Internationaltraderesearch: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. This is essentially just a CV/resume, and quite promotional at that. You can post such content on LinkedIn and the like. Here we're almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this person and what makes him worthy of note. This draft cites no such source.
- What is your relationship with the subject? A conflict of interest query has been posted on your talk page, but you don't seem to have responded to it. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
08:18, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Anne Bachmann
[edit]- Anne Bachmann (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, I've had several several drafts about philanthropy and social science accepted but this one got rejected and the feedback seems a bit generic. I wonder what I should do since the person already has a book talk about them, various TV and tier 1 media appearances etc. Any help appreciated. Anne Bachmann (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Anne Bachmann: the feedback is generic, because it's based on a template (so that we don't have to write the same stuff over and over thousands of times). This decline was for lack of notability. If you're asserting notability as an author, the relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR, which basically requires significant career achievements in writing. The alternative is general notability per WP:GNG, which needs significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Note that this person's media appearances may not be what we're looking for, because that would typically mean him being interviewed or otherwise commenting on things; only coverage which is about him counts towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, @DoubleGrazing! Another question, if I may please. The book that is referenced has a two-page profile of the person as a distinguished citizen of Geneva. I have found two similarly long profiles, both in print, both in major newspapers (one Serbian, one Swiss), but neither available online (that I have found) - can I use those and would I need to upload scans of the articles (and how to do that without breaking copyright)? Thank you again for your kind assistance. Anne Bachmann (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Anne Bachmann: it's difficult to say without seeing them whether these sources would meet the WP:GNG standard or not. But yes, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the requirements for reliability and independence etc. That will be difficult in practice for the reviewers to ascertain, though, so don't expect a swift review (or at least not a swift acceptance!). Offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographical detail to enable them to be reliably identified (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this), and the more additional information you can provide about the coverage (page numbers, and short salient quotations where possible) the easier you're making it for the sources to be evaluated. (And no, you should not upload scans of the sources; this would likely violate copyright, as you say, and in any case isn't necessary.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for such a comprehensive and lightning-fast response, @DoubleGrazing! I'll keep working. Anne Bachmann (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Anne Bachmann: it's difficult to say without seeing them whether these sources would meet the WP:GNG standard or not. But yes, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the requirements for reliability and independence etc. That will be difficult in practice for the reviewers to ascertain, though, so don't expect a swift review (or at least not a swift acceptance!). Offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographical detail to enable them to be reliably identified (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this), and the more additional information you can provide about the coverage (page numbers, and short salient quotations where possible) the easier you're making it for the sources to be evaluated. (And no, you should not upload scans of the sources; this would likely violate copyright, as you say, and in any case isn't necessary.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, @DoubleGrazing! Another question, if I may please. The book that is referenced has a two-page profile of the person as a distinguished citizen of Geneva. I have found two similarly long profiles, both in print, both in major newspapers (one Serbian, one Swiss), but neither available online (that I have found) - can I use those and would I need to upload scans of the articles (and how to do that without breaking copyright)? Thank you again for your kind assistance. Anne Bachmann (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
13:45, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Enriccb2004
[edit]My article was rejected, due to lack of reliable sources? I added a lot of sources, which ones are not reliable? Also it said that my article was awkwardly structured and with unnecessary lists (btw I found this comment offensive not sure what are Wikipedia guidelines but I never talk to anyone like this) it did not provide additional information on why so I am note sure what should I do differently Enriccb2004 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- We write using prose not endless lists of information your draft is also blatant advertising, is there a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why is "blatant" advertising, explain a product and cite what third party sources say about it? why conflict of interest? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- It says it is rejected because lack of reliable sources, but I have 18 sources in the article.
- - Some of them are websites of global well known entities like WWF, ASEAN, Agoda or Booking Holdings. those should be reliable.
- - Some of them are well known publications in the travel industry like Skif, WiT, TTR Weekly. In the travel industry are very well respected.
- - Others like The Business Times are well known media publications in Asia that should not raise any doubt about the reliability of their content.
- - It cannot be that there are not reliable sources: there are plenty and with solid credentials. Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Many of your sources are press releases which are NOT reliable indpendent sources and will need removing/replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Question: if for example there is 1 or 2 that are considered not reliable, then the whole article is rejected? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please use reply link after a message to reply and not creating new request form. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your very next edit on Wikipedia needs to disclose your paid editing status on your user page as requested. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- What? Me? What article are you talking about? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Enriccb2004 has a VERY clear conflict of interest editing using his own name, he is required to disclose this on his user page as part of the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- What is this line referred to? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- What? Me? What article are you talking about? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your very next edit on Wikipedia needs to disclose your paid editing status on your user page as requested. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Many of your sources are press releases which are NOT reliable indpendent sources and will need removing/replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is it coincidence that all of references are about Agoda?
- Isn't whole article about agoda planning to donate 1-1,5M$ to WWF and nothing more? article looks like clear promotion of Agoda. But WP:NOTPROMO. At current level of notability (that is none now out of agoda) you can just add one phrase about 1M donation and it's naming (Eco Deals) to Agoda - no need to create separate article. Also you can just create a redirect there with current name and done. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not about Agoda planning to Donate to WWF. It is a product launched in partnership with WWF Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- By whom? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok it seems you guys cannot understand it from what is written, I will go and get some help to write it again Enriccb2004 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please disclose your conflict of interest first. Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- You already have a suggestion below how to make article following WP:NPOV you can use or not. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok it seems you guys cannot understand it from what is written, I will go and get some help to write it again Enriccb2004 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- By whom? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not about Agoda planning to Donate to WWF. It is a product launched in partnership with WWF Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- And how hotels and south asia categories connected to worldwide programme for saving wildlife? If only it's still about Singapurian hotel company exactly? Suggestion: clear any info abourlt agoda and focus on programme itself - imo only after it anyone will review it in detail. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
15:48, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Marinheiro
[edit]- Marinheiro (talk · contribs) (TB)
General help with declined biography? I've had my first attempt at a biography - Draft:Sajida Haider Vandal - declined by User:greenman. While I am grateful for the very speedy response, I see User:greenman has a lot on his plate and am wondering if anyone else could talk me through the submission process for biographies? (the decline was for 'insufficient sourcing' unsurprisingly, with specific reference to the birth date, but I have specific questions related to this: firstly for Infobox:person, how can I remove the month and day of birth (which I cannot source without referring to Facebook or other non-acceptable sources) and leave the year of birth (which I can source)? Second, the review says 'statements need to be sourced or removed'. I don't know from this which statements the reviewer considers need to be sourced, or maybe better sourced? If several statements come from the same source, do I need to put a footnote to that same source for each of them? Is the subject's own CV a valid source, if it is held publicly on a UNESCO web site? Thanks for any advice about any of these questions! Marinheiro (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed your header to provide the link to your draft as intended(and remove a link to "general help"). 331dot (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Marinheiro (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please focus on comment below denial box - and try to understand it. There's everything clearly described. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Marinheiro: To answer the specific question about the infobox: you can remove the "Birth date and age" template (including the curly brackets that enclose it) and just put the year there, with a citation. --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Bonadea, I'll try that. Marinheiro (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Highlighting just one of my questions: There is a CV of Sajida Haider Vandal on a UNESCO web site (she has been a facilitator for UNESCO). This lists many of the events in her academic/professional life, with dates. Can I use this? The alternative is to use a rather random selection of online news articles which just happen to mention one of these events, but where the focus of the article is not on that event but something else. Marinheiro (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- To source her birthday - you can, to approve notability - you don't. Anyway last ones are preferrable. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
16:20, 12 February 2025 review of submission by 212.171.213.221
[edit]- 212.171.213.221 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- Stop
"no, I can't suggest anyone create an article for you, we don't source editors here. The point is, no matter which editor you hire, you don't meet the criteria for notoriety. Please don't reply anymore on my talk page because I won't reply. Flat Out ( talk ) 07:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)" With this Flat Out response I am blocking my draft which is in the process of approval and changes to be made, saying that it was not considered valid because it does not meet the criteria of notoriety. Instead, I believe that all the conditions are there for it to be seen and revalued and, if any changes are needed, I have a suggestion but he told me that it was useless to respond as he would not respond. I believe that I am not asking for anything senseless or incorrect and please, if anyone can try to re-evaluate the draft, bring it back and suggest measures, I would be grateful forever. Thanks Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Are you the subject of the article? What exact help do you need with that? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- And why don't you log in? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi UTC...., my draft from September 2024 sent several times and corrected with suggestions received from Wikipedia administrators, had been waiting for publication for two months but, as written, it was blocked and therefore no longer revisable. I kindly ask you if it is possible to have an adequate review as I believe that the studio responsible for developing the artistic profile has tried to provide all the necessary sources for notability. So I ask you this, thank you Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Gaetano. I am very sorry to say you have been scammed. You have employed a rogue organisation "InfoExpertWriter" to create a biographic article for you: these are scammers and part of an organised scam ring. I am sorry you have lost money, I would recommend contacting your local authorities and your bank to try and get a refund.
- For more information please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I found the name on a Wikipedia page that gave them as authorized representatives from Wikipedia and to draw up profiles, and they got around, defrauded, given that it is difficult to create the profile as a fundamental rule, could you suggest me who to contact, you know I'm 87 years old and incapable of contacting or realizing, thank you for your kindness. Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please tell us with precision the page you found them on. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I found the name on a Wikipedia page that gave them as authorized representatives from Wikipedia and to draw up profiles, and they got around, defrauded, given that it is difficult to create the profile as a fundamental rule, could you suggest me who to contact, you know I'm 87 years old and incapable of contacting or realizing, thank you for your kindness. Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- i see you mean that discussion however didn't get what's wrong there? As of paying a studio - try to read WP:PAY to know how strict is it. Only I can suggest you to write thearticle by yourself, however it even more strict to do it. Fact anyone can edit the article about you is normal. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- as of review - just read a comments in the article and follow it until you can assure rejector that you are notable enough person and he probably cancel rejection. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- compiling a profile of my artistic activity according to Wikipedia on my own is very difficult, indeed impossible and it is for everyone, it can only be done by expert people who I don't know...that's why I kindly ask for someone in charge who can see and draw up my profile to be submitted for approval by Wikipedia...if you can kindly help me with this, I thank you. Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is we don't want a "profile of your artistic activity". We are an encyclopaedia project, and are limited by what reliable sources - newspapers, art criticism publications, etc. - have published about you and your work. Without those sorts of sources, we cannot have an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The problem is we don't want a "profile of your artistic activity". We are an encyclopaedia project, and are limited by what reliable sources - newspapers, art criticism publications, etc. - have published about you and your work. Without those sorts of sources, we cannot have an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- compiling a profile of my artistic activity according to Wikipedia on my own is very difficult, indeed impossible and it is for everyone, it can only be done by expert people who I don't know...that's why I kindly ask for someone in charge who can see and draw up my profile to be submitted for approval by Wikipedia...if you can kindly help me with this, I thank you. Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi UTC...., my draft from September 2024 sent several times and corrected with suggestions received from Wikipedia administrators, had been waiting for publication for two months but, as written, it was blocked and therefore no longer revisable. I kindly ask you if it is possible to have an adequate review as I believe that the studio responsible for developing the artistic profile has tried to provide all the necessary sources for notability. So I ask you this, thank you Gaetano Minale 212.171.213.221 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
18:23, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Yunusbhatt586
[edit]- Yunusbhatt586 (talk · contribs) (TB)
how to add references there are no subtle instructions! Yunusbhatt586 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Yunusbhatt586: Yes there are. Regardless of that, however, this seems to be more of a curriculum vitae, which we do not accept. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay then may i know how to make profil. This is What we often see the wikipedia profiles are like!! 175.184.252.190 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- You will have to go elsewhere, not Wikipedia. Try LinkedIn? qcne (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- shut ur ass Yunusbhatt586 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- If this is how a "distinguished PhD scholar" acts, I'd hate to see an undistinguished one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- ok can u kindly tell me how to add references there are no subtle instructions! Yunusbhatt586 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Yunusbhatt586 Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
- Please note that "shut ur ass" is unlikely to attract a favourable response. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank u 27.63.26.115 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- ok can u kindly tell me how to add references there are no subtle instructions! Yunusbhatt586 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not have profiles, @Yunusbhatt586 - not one. It has encyclopaedia articles.
- The difference is that a profile is written by or for the subject, and says what the subject wants people to know (it is therefore inherently promotional). A Wikipedia article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject - whether the subject likes what they say or not. What the subject says or wants to say about themselves is almost irrelevant, as is what the subject's associates say about them. ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- please!!!! i dont buy ur explanation, it seems disconnected. 27.63.28.140 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't our fault if the policy-compliant answers we give you don't match the answer you have in mind. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- please!!!! i dont buy ur explanation, it seems disconnected. 27.63.28.140 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- If this is how a "distinguished PhD scholar" acts, I'd hate to see an undistinguished one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- shut ur ass Yunusbhatt586 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- You will have to go elsewhere, not Wikipedia. Try LinkedIn? qcne (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay then may i know how to make profil. This is What we often see the wikipedia profiles are like!! 175.184.252.190 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
21:27, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Salimfadhley
[edit]- Salimfadhley (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Editors, this new article failed AFC review. I believed this subject was suitable for inclusion as the story had been covered by a number of reliable local sources. This is a subject that received coverage in the local press as it was a matter of interest in Essex, UK. This doesn't seem to conflict with WP:NCRIME guidelines, as this certainly is an example of where the 'crime or the execution of the crime is unusual' [2]. So what next, try to improve the quality or just abandon this subject? Salimfadhley (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are cunning here. First link you provided is really about events notability but 2nd - about one of people involved still having "of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role" (that way noone of persons involved are notable based on event as no any news about it outside event and trial, othdr words, - trivial info). As of event notability - there's "that fall within the category of "breaking news", which means "is a current issue that warrants the interruption of a scheduled broadcast in order to report its details.", which means same day news when event happened. What I see from the article - there were no such ones as timely first source dated 15 months later event itself happened. That's why imo draft subject does not comply to WP:NCRIME, but if persons involved will have connected to it further story - they can be notable according to WP:CRIME with the reason you pointed on above from there. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- However if you will find the evidence of breaking news had place at the day of the event and add it to the draft it still can become notable. At least imo. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
February 13
[edit]00:27, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Haileyworks
[edit]My article was accepted a few days ago, but I noticed that only its Talk page appears in Google search results, not the article itself. Is there a technical way to make the article searchable? I’d appreciate any guidance. Thank you in advance! Haileyworks (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- We have no control over how quickly Google indexes articles, other than it doesn't occur until the article is patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or time has passed(30 days, I think) Do you have a particular need for it to appear in Google quickly?
- I see you took a picture of Mr. Chung. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well noted. There’s no rush, but I was curious as to why only the Talk page is appearing, especially since that page is empty. Maybe I thought that the page was not moved to the main page. And just to clarify, I didn't take the picture myself—I obtained copyright permission from the company, HD Hyundai, via email and submitted it to the relevant Wikipedia team. I appreciate your advice nonetheless. Thank you! Haileyworks (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Though the copyright of the image is correct, the author is listed as you, meaning that you took the picture. Since you didn't, you should go to Commons and work with the editors there as to how you can stop claiming to be the author of the image. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Understood. I wasn’t aware that I was listed as the copyright holder for that image. I’ll take the necessary steps to correct the information. Thanks Haileyworks (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Though the copyright of the image is correct, the author is listed as you, meaning that you took the picture. Since you didn't, you should go to Commons and work with the editors there as to how you can stop claiming to be the author of the image. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well noted. There’s no rush, but I was curious as to why only the Talk page is appearing, especially since that page is empty. Maybe I thought that the page was not moved to the main page. And just to clarify, I didn't take the picture myself—I obtained copyright permission from the company, HD Hyundai, via email and submitted it to the relevant Wikipedia team. I appreciate your advice nonetheless. Thank you! Haileyworks (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
01:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Sofimcg
[edit]I am a passionate and active amateur photographer. It came to my notice that the Australian Better Photography magazine was not featured in Wikipedia. The Better Photography article currently in Wikipedia features the Indian magazine. The Australian Better Photography magazine has been in existence for as long as the Indian magazine. I have adopted a similar format to that of 'Better Photography'. I believe both magazines have a place on Wikipedia. The content I have used has multiple published sources that are in-depth and reliable, and has secondary references that are strictly independent of the subject. In my latest submission I have removed any wording that may be misconstrued as promotional. Please re-examine my submission and give me any guidance if the article still does not meet your requirements. Sofimcg (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- It absolutely still reads like a pamphlet for the site. The problem is larger than specific sentences; the tone is pervasive in every part of the article. It's more or less an enthusiastic list of the magazine's offerings, and very little an article about the magazine. Large parts of the article seem to be about Peter Eastway, and only tangentially related to the magazine because he's the publisher.
- The whole article feels like a case of writing an article WP:BACKWARDS, meaning that you start with writing the article and then try to find the sources that support the information contained in the article. Start with only sources that are about this magazine and that are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the magazine. Then write an article based only on these sources. That would be how to make the absolute best case for notability.
- As for the other magazine, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are millions of articles in English Wikipedia, many of which ought not to exist, so "X article should exist because Y article does" does not amount to an effective case for notability. In any case, someone else has nominated the other magazine's article for deletion anyway. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think decliner already made all you requested here and even wrote advice at comment below the declining boxes - please read and follow it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- as a suggestion - try to make it shorter, making each phrase full of valuable information be once-referenced and not only whole paragraph or the section. And focus to the quality of the text (describing exactly notable moments) and not the quantity (but having not much sense for notability). As one as do not avoid to read WP:ORG to understand what do you need to add more. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to what the other repliers have said: remember that what you know about the magazine is not of any interest to Wikipedia, except where the information you know is verified by an independent reliable source. I always recommend first finding the sources, then forgetting everything you know about the subject, and writing a summary of what the sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
03:54, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Shalebridger
[edit]Hi, I am confused why this draft keeps getting rejected for lack of "reliable sources". For example, the very similar article about a synthesizer from the same company at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Trak" has NO SOURCES AT ALL and is published. My current strategy is to just keep removing information that may not have multiple sources and keeping anything that does. Any additional pointers would be helpful, thanks! Shalebridger (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Shalebridger: never mind what other articles may exit out there; ignore them. There are nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, some of them pre-date our review processes, some were published by editors with the necessary permissions to get their content past all control mechanisms, some may have had sources but they were removed over time, etc. (If you find inadequately referenced articles, you're very welcome to improve them, or at least tag them with maintenance templates for highlight their issues.) All new articles must meet our requirements for notability and verifiability, the two reasons why this draft has been declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road).
- Notability is arguably the bigger issue here. Per the WP:GNG guideline, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Sources 2 and 3 would seem to meet that standard, so you're pretty nearly there; is there maybe one more such sources that you could add?
- The quality of sources probably refers to the fact that you cite a few user-generated ones (LinkedIn, Blogspot, WordPress blog) which are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can understand what you mean about the LinkedIn and Blogspot sources, I only thought to link them since one (Chris Meyer, LinkedIn) was an engineer and designed the product. I'll remove the questionable ones and track down one or two better sources. Thanks so much for the tips! Shalebridger (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Shalebridger. Material by the designer of the product may not have to be reliably published, but it will not be independent, and so can be used only in limited ways (see WP:SPS), and does not contribute to establishing notability. Basically, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks. Shalebridger (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Shalebridger. Material by the designer of the product may not have to be reliably published, but it will not be independent, and so can be used only in limited ways (see WP:SPS), and does not contribute to establishing notability. Basically, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can understand what you mean about the LinkedIn and Blogspot sources, I only thought to link them since one (Chris Meyer, LinkedIn) was an engineer and designed the product. I'll remove the questionable ones and track down one or two better sources. Thanks so much for the tips! Shalebridger (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
07:09, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Electricalwest
[edit]- Electricalwest (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I checked this draft, Alireza Jadidi works as one of the pioneer musicians in the style of instrumental music in Iran, and he can pass this article number seven in NMUSICIAN! In addition, two of its sources are Russian, one of which refers to his record in Iranian music, and the other is an article by him about instrumental music.
This article is worth publishing. Electricalwest (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Electricalwest: this draft was rejected already, do not resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but I corrected it and added another reference and it should be checked again. Electricalwest (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you feel that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns that led to rejection, the first step is to ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider. I would say that I don't think you've done that- you say he's a pioneer but don't say which sources say that or why. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but I corrected it and added another reference and it should be checked again. Electricalwest (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
08:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Harbin Kiwi
[edit]- Harbin Kiwi (talk · contribs) (TB)
I disagree with the finding that the subject of my article is not notable. My subject has been mentioned in multiple news sources, all of which have been referenced. I request a review of my article for further edits or approval. Thank you. Harbin Kiwi (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Harbin Kiwi: your draft (not yet 'article') has been reviewed, by no fewer than five different reviewers, and finally rejected for the reasons given in the rejection notice and the accompanying comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Harbin Kiwi You have obviously looked hard for references. A failure to find them means that the person is not yet notable in a wikipedia sense. Please do not remove the review history. You may appeal to the rejecting reviewer with rationale, otherwise it stays rejected. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
09:34, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 1lockeny
[edit]updated the articles even more added reliable sources 1lockeny (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- You don't ask a question; you have resubmitted the draft for review. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
11:19, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Zain Mustafa10
[edit]- Zain Mustafa10 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello.
Could you kindly tell me where this page is lacking? Are the references inadequate? Or the content? Should I choose a different line to increase the chance of approval? Your help here would be great.
Thank you. Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- The draft was declined four times, and you got the same information and advice each time – the fifth time it was rejected because the same fundamental problem was still there. If there is any part of the information you received that is difficult to understand, we're happy to explain, but you will need to be more specific. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Yes, I don't understand if my references weren't sufficient? Or the content? I have more of both available with me so is there any chance my draft can get unrejected and I can resubmit an edited version? Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Currently the draft includes no claim to notability. You have the specific notability criteria for actors at WP:NACTOR, and according to the draft, Watson meets neither of them. And after four resubmissions, there is not a single reliable, independent, secondary source providing significant coverage of Watson – in fact, almost none of the current sources should be used in a Wikipedia article. One thing you need to be aware of is the fact that notability is not inherited: that he has collaborated with a notable person doesn't do anything to make Watson notable, for instance. Please also be aware that what Watson knows about himself can't be added to Wikipedia unless there are publised reliable sources that can verify the information. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Zain Mustafa10: before you reply to the response above, you have to address the question about your conflict of interest, which was asked on your user talk page a couple of days ago. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have done that already Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Zain Mustafa10: although you are not paid to edit, the fact that you personally know the person you're writing about and appear to be collaborating with him on this, creates an obvious conflict of interest (COI) which you must disclose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have done that already Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
11:40, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Alfeverett
[edit]- Alfeverett (talk · contribs) (TB)
This is my first article, which has been declined. I'd really appreciate some advice on where I went wrong, and how to improve it to get it approved for publication. Thank you! Alfeverett (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- For example - I would be keen to learn which sources cited are acceptable and which aren't in order to improve the article, thank you!! Alfeverett (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Alfeverett I have left a comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- thank you! I will have another run through and see how it goes Alfeverett (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Alfeverett I have left a comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
12:53, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 114.143.194.18
[edit]- 114.143.194.18 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please help me for citations. He is upcoming actor in Bollywood and he has 1 movie released and most of the links around them.
Plz help me live this page 114.143.194.18 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, IP user. An upcoming actor is almost never going to be notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. For an actor, there are specific criteria for notability, and as you can see, there is nothing to show that Veer Pahariya meets them. There is also a set of general criteria for notability of people, but again, he doesn't meet them at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
13:47, 13 February 2025 review of submission by P.crafter
[edit]Dear Wikipedia Moderators, I recently submitted an article for publication in the English version of Wikipedia, but it was rejected with the comment: "The content of this article includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."
I would like to clarify whether this is related only to the formatting of the references or if the sources I used in the article are not suitable for verifying the facts in the biography (or other content).
I tried to carefully gather reliable information and am eager to contribute to the development of Wikipedia. If the issue is indeed with the formatting of the references, I would appreciate any additional explanations or specific recommendations for improving the article. I am also ready to review the sources if they do not meet the platform’s requirements.
Thank you in advance for your help and support! I look forward to receiving feedback so I can revise the material and bring it up to Wikipedia’s standards! P.crafter (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @P.crafter Without examining the draft in any detail, I can say clearly that we almost never decline on the basis of format. Nr do we decline on the basis language of the references (in case you were going to ask). That is a trivial issue which can be solved easily. We look at whether the references provided pass WP:42 which is. sort version of the definition of what is required.
- You might wish to ask the reviewer who declined the draft what was in their mind? We all have a duty to justify our action to any editor in good standing who asks us. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- In case of biographies of living persons, reviewers can and do sometimes decline if content isn't cited inline, even if the references pass WP:42. Policies for writing about living people are a bit stricter, and drafts that would pass on notability might be rejected for having unsourced claims. In that case, what you should do is to follow each paragraph by the a citation to the source that supports it, so it can be verified. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
14:38, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Greenbird999
[edit]- Greenbird999 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello,
I have had my draft Ely Folk Festival page reviewed and rejected on the grounds that it doesn't quote multiple secondary independent sources. However other published comparable pages, for example Shrewsbury Folk Festival and Folk East don't do so either. Of the twelve references on the Shrewsbury page eleven were published by the festival and of the seven on the Folk East page four were published by the festival. I'd appreciate some guidance on exactly what the criteria are for references so I can get my page published. Thanks very much. Greenbird999 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Greenbird999 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by volunteers. There are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us(I can describe them if you'd like), we can only address what we know about. Thanks for pointing out other inappropriate articles that need action. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Shrewsbury Folk Festival has been marked as problematic since 2014. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
20:14, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Mast303
[edit]Explain why this list does not "meet the purpose of Wikipedia" and whether it can be changed. Mast303 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think most problem here described at WP:NOTDIRECTORY with exactly "without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" and WP:LISTCRITERIA with "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article". Only entry on your list follow it is Creeper (Minecraft), but it hardly believable list of 1 entry have any sense. Therefore it's at the current state not notable and even restricted. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- No,
Every entry meets the notability criteria
is only one of multiple selection criteria that are suggested, not a requirement for a list. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)- You right, but I hope you are agree about other. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- No,
- However I think it can be good looking added here. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Mast303, there was consensus for the deletion of a very similar list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minecraft characters, meaning there should be a wider consensus before this can be created with a similar scope. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Mast303, this kind of list of video game trivia is best placed on a wiki for that video game. You can see the arguments for deletion in the AfD that CE linked above. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
20:19, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Ma3033
[edit]Details regarding sourcing:
Dear Wikipedia team- This draft article is a direct english translation from the German Wikipedia article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Krismer - And has the same sources linked, just translated into english. Would you be so kind to assist me with this as I am really not too familiar with what is required. Thank you for your help Ma3033 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Every Wikipedia version is an independent project, with its own policies and procedures. English Wikipedia today is one of the strictest as regards quality of sources. An article chosen from another Wikipedia (or, indeed, an older article from English Wikipedia) may not meet the current requirements for verifiability and notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ma3033, German wikipedia is much more comfortable with "sources exist" than English wikipedia is. Editors here want to see the sources, not have to hunt for them. You'll run into this problem a lot translating from de-wiki. You'll have to find the source of the information in the draft and cite that source using footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response,
- Given im relatively new here, I wanted to confirm that I need to provide exact quotes & page references in the secondary sources i.e Author abc, pg.32 line 4.
- Also I had a question regarding the choice of sources, given that I have attempted to correct some ommissions from the original sources provided in the original deWiki article, and have made changes met with rather unpleasant and mocking backlash from users, likely as a result of disregard for the sources themselves, how is this different in ENwiki if one of the primary sources is an acedemically backed research journal that isnt freely available digitally but available once purchased?
- any help is greatly appreciated, as I find the EN wiki much more amicable of an environment to newbies like me than the De wiki Ma3033 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Ma3033. As of using offline sources, please read Wikipedia:Offline sources, to cite it you can use Template:Cite document or any other similar (writing style described inside).
- as of last question, answer is such not free sources are acceptable, please read WP:PAYWALL for details. To mark it you can use Template:Locked content or similar. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ma3033, German wikipedia is much more comfortable with "sources exist" than English wikipedia is. Editors here want to see the sources, not have to hunt for them. You'll run into this problem a lot translating from de-wiki. You'll have to find the source of the information in the draft and cite that source using footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
20:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Bobinski 11
[edit]Hello, the article I created was rejected minutes after I submitted it for review, without any detailed reasons as to why it did not pass. I tried to get in touch with the person who rejected the article, but never got a reply. Is there another level at Wikipedia I can take this to? References were included, if some of them are not good enough I'd like to know which ones, also no peacock language was used, so not sure what that was all about. Thank you, Bobinski11 Bobinski 11 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Bobinski 11. It was declined, which means you can improve and re-submit, and not rejected. The decline reason was based on lack of a formal encyclopaedic tone, which I agree with as it is written fairly casually; and a lack of coverage in independent significant coverage, which I also agree - you have a few sources but quite a lot of them are brief mentions / artist credits. We'd be looking for some in-depth reviews or critique in art books, magazines, or journals. The wz.de source is good. Find some more like those? qcne (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bobinski 11, you say that you avoided "peacock language" and yet you wrote
showcasing a unique perspective shaped by a blend of cultural influences. His works often explore themes of identity, societal structures, and the convergence of natural and industrial elements, resonating with audiences worldwide
. That is overtly non-neutral and promotional language devoid of substantive content, and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. We expect rigorous neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bobinski 11, you say that you avoided "peacock language" and yet you wrote
21:15, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Maxime Gayraud
[edit]- Maxime Gayraud (talk · contribs) (TB)
please delete this request and draft Maxime Gayraud (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just remove your last review request template and it will be autodeleted in half a year if noone else will make the same request. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- until you are an article subject and found false statements about yourself or found the copyright violation - but there's quite another procedure. If that's the issue - please be more detailed. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion per author request, an administrator should take care of it soon. 83.142.111.82, please do not restore drafts blanked by their only author. Author blanking is an acceptable way of requesting deletion and does not fall under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby, I doubt until it marked with speedy deletion template and he's the only editor (and here it's not). Can you tell me where am I wrong pointing on the rule? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- He's the only person to have substantively edited the article (the other person with non-trivial edits, User:Klappia, only expanded citations). The specifics are in Wikipedia:G7,
[i]f the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request
. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)- @Chaotic Enby Agreed. Missed trivia of another editor. Thanks. However still confused about deletion as subject is notable even by decliner. What is the solution of such an situations? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, IP. If the only substantial editor requests deletion, we delete, irrespective of notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby Agreed. Missed trivia of another editor. Thanks. However still confused about deletion as subject is notable even by decliner. What is the solution of such an situations? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- He's the only person to have substantively edited the article (the other person with non-trivial edits, User:Klappia, only expanded citations). The specifics are in Wikipedia:G7,
- @Chaotic Enby, I doubt until it marked with speedy deletion template and he's the only editor (and here it's not). Can you tell me where am I wrong pointing on the rule? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
22:18, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 68.48.208.11
[edit]- 68.48.208.11 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi! We're trying to get our company Wikipedia page off the ground, and keep receiving declines. This is our first time working on something like this, and would appreciate some pointers of what we should redo. I do see the comment about AI, but I'm not sure if that means it sounds like it is written by AI or if it mentioned AI too much (or something else altogether)? Please help! 68.48.208.11 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "company Wikipedia pages" here. We have articles about certain companies that meet our criteria, that are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. They summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not what it wants to say about itself. Please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. The fact that you are "trying to get your company Wikipedia page off the ground" strongly implies that your purpose here is promotion, i.e. telling the world about your company.
- Promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
- Only if your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most companies don't) can there be an article about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
22:33, 13 February 2025 review of submission by MissouriIsthebeststate
[edit]- MissouriIsthebeststate (talk · contribs) (TB)
The person who drafted this page hasn't started working in it. MissouriIsthebeststate (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- He have 6 months to do it. So what was is the question? And why did you submit it then?
- Tip: If you'd not submit it it'd be autodeleted in next 3 months, now it will be in half an year. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @MissouriIsthebeststate, it does look like you accidentally submitted that person's draft before they could write it. You can see that the light gray banner turns into a yellow banner when doing it – this isn't needed, and you should ideally wait for the person writing the draft to submit it by themself. They hadn't touched it in months, but this is not an issue as drafts aren't stored indefinitely. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly the person who drafted the page decided to keep it and not do anything with the page... MissouriIsthebeststate (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't make assumptions about other people's intentions, @MissouriIsthebeststate. While it's true that Wikipedia pages don't belong to anybody, it is polite, and good practice for our collaborative project, to ask somebody before submitting a draft that they created. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly the person who drafted the page decided to keep it and not do anything with the page... MissouriIsthebeststate (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
February 14
[edit]00:32, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Esme im
[edit]Hi. My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tradlinx) was declined and I'm having difficulty figuring what how to apply the feedback given which was 'Prose needs work as it is overly promotional; I cannot verify this company's notability as I do not speak Korean (all cited sources are in that language).'. I find it hard see which part of the content is overly promotional as i've specifically avoided any value added adjective and only referenced independent sources(I have disclosed the page belonging to the company I work for, and made sure the language used is as neutral as possible)
also in regards to the references article being Korean, should I provide translated versions of these articles? These are articles from independent media (reputable publications in Korea) testifying what the article claims which is the company's reputation in Korea. While I sincerely appreciate the effort of the editor, I do not know how to take the feedback 'I cannot verify this company's notability as I do not speak Korean (all cited sources are in that language).'
To summarize: I would like to get some pointers on which part come off as overly promotional (As the language choice was intentionally neutral) and also if the reference material should be translated. Esme im (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neither how it looks there's much important problem of dependent only sources in the article (their press-releases or based on their only words news) and one dead link. To clarify what do you need as sources your draft is lack of now please read WP:INDEPENDENT. If you will find and add it - that problem will be resolved and you can think about writing style decliner pointed on. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Esme im. The first sentence after the lead is "Tradlinx plays a role in the modernization of South Korea's logistics sector, particularly by reducing reliance on manual and paper-based processes." That is marketing speak. Who says that it "plays a role"? Doesn't every company with similar products play such a role? Don't tell us what the company wants people to know about it: tell us only what independent commentators say about the company. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
06:20, 14 February 2025 review of submission by NaijaExplorerX
[edit]- NaijaExplorerX (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Wikipedia,
On 9 February 2025, I meticulously crafted a Wikipedia post for Balogun Kuku, a visionary 19th-century Yoruba leader, military strategist, and socio-cultural icon. His influence shaped the social, economic, and political landscape of Ijebu-Ode, southwest Nigeria. Before embarking on this endeavor, I investigated the Wikipedia guidelines comprehensively to ensure his notability. I began drafting the page after being certain that he met the conditions.
After several edits from Wikipedia, I was disheartened to receive a post from one of the editors stating that my submission was rejected. The reason given was that the references did not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. This was despite my inclusion of peer-reviewed academic publications, historical journals, and credible secondary sources that provide in-depth discussions of his contributions.
I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the rejection of my Wikipedia submission on Balogun Bello Odueyungbo Kuku. The decision cited a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, even though my submission included peer-reviewed academic publications, historical journals, and credible secondary sources that provide in-depth discussions of his contributions.
Balogun Kuku was not just a historical figure but a pivotal one in 19th-century Nigeria. His influence extended to military leadership, commerce, political diplomacy, and the spread of Islam in Ijebu-Ode. His role in the Ekitiparapo War and the British-Ijebu War of 1892 and his founding of the Ojude Oba Festival all underscore his historical significance.
My submission included a wealth of evidence, with 19 sources provided, including academic journal articles, books, and news publications. While the number of sources may not match those of Western historical figures, the evidence they provide of Balogun Kuku's influence and importance within his community and historical context is substantial. These sources go beyond mere passing mentions, offering detailed accounts of his life, achievements, and impact. For instance, the 'Biography of Chief Bello Kuku', 'Balogun Kuku: Military Brass, Merchant Prince and Muslim Leader', and 'Knights of a Global Countryside: The Balogun Institution of Ijebuland, Nigeria provide in-depth accounts of his life and impact. It's worth noting that only two of the 19 sources used for the page are written by the family, which refutes the claim that the sources are not independent.
Balogun Kuku's notability aligns with aspects of the Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines for People because:
1) He held a unique, historically important position: As the Balogun (warlord) of Ijebu-Ode, Kuku held a crucial military and political role in the Ijebu Kingdom. The Balogun was responsible for the kingdom's defense, leading the army and advising the ruler.
2) His actions had a significant impact: Kuku played a key role in military conflicts such as the Ogunsegun War and the Ekitiparapo War. He also influenced the political and economic landscape of Ijebu-Ode and contributed to the spread of Islam in the region.
3) His life has been the subject of historical study: Historians have examined Kuku's life and impact in the context of 19th-century Yorubaland. This demonstrates sustained scholarly interest in his significance.
Regarding 'Sustained Attention Over Time', Balogun Kuku's notability is not temporary. He remains a significant figure in Ijebu history, with his legacy continuing to be recognized through:
a) The Ojude Oba Festival: Kuku originated the Ojude Oba festival, which has become a major cultural event in Ijebuland. This festival serves as an annual reminder of his contributions and ensures continued focus on his office. It is paradoxical that the Ojude-Oba has a Wikipedia page, while the originator is deemed not notable for having a Wikipedia page.
b) The Olorogun Title: The Awujale of Ijebuland conferred the Olorogun title upon the Kuku Dynasty as a hereditary title in recognition of Balogun Kuku's achievements. Now, in the Ilamuren class, this title ensures the family's continued prominence in Ijebu society.
c) Continued prominence of his descendants: Balogun Kuku's descendants have played significant roles in Ijebu society, with many achieving success in various fields. This ongoing legacy reinforces the family's notability and connects it back to Balogun Kuku's original contributions.
d) Historic Landmark: The Olorunsogo House, built by Balogun Kuku, has been designated as a Special Architectural and Historical/Cultural Significance building by the Ogun State Government. The house and its surrounding memorial burial vaults serve as a tourist attraction and a tangible connection to the history of the Kuku family
The rejection of this article underscores a more profound issue concerning the representation of African historical figures on Wikipedia. The platform's notability guidelines for biographies prominently feature examples of Western figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, known for his role in the American Civil War; Marie Antoinette, the last Queen of France; Michael Jackson, the iconic pop star; and George Orwell, the influential writer and essayist. However, the glaring absence of non-Western historical figures in these criteria raises alarming concerns about potential systemic bias inherent in the definition of historical significance.
This implicit framing around predominantly Western figures creates a troubling environment where numerous 19th-century African leaders, esteemed warriors, and impactful cultural pioneers may be systematically overlooked despite their substantial contributions to their societies and global history. This bias could indeed shed light on the widespread underrepresentation of significant African historical figures on Wikipedia, ultimately skewing the platform's role as a comprehensive and equitable repository of global history.
Balogun Kuku meets and exceeds the notability requirements regarding historical, political, military, and cultural influence, and his contributions have been widely documented in academic sources, historical studies, and cultural analyses. Despite meeting these criteria, the rejection of his biography reinforces the underrepresentation of African historical figures on Wikipedia and contributes to the erasure of African contributions from global history.
I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards for notability. However, I urge you to consider the broader implications of applying these standards uniformly without acknowledging the potential bias against historical documentation for certain regions and cultures. A more nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that Wikipedia accurately reflects the diverse tapestry of human history and does not inadvertently contribute to the erasure of important figures like Balogun Kuku and other African historical figures.
I respectfully request that this submission be reviewed again with a more inclusive, globally conscious approach to historical notability.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
NaijaExplorerX (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @NaijaExplorerX: We do not entertain requests written via chatbot, and users are greatly disinclined to read a long, rambling screed against our notability criteria. I agree that non-European cultures, leaders, and history is grossly underrepresented on Wikipedia, but this is the absolute worst way to make that argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I was just following the instruction on where to file an appeal. NaijaExplorerX (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
- If you believe that the reviewer erred in their analysis of your sources, please ask them directly to reconsider or explain more specifically what the concern is. Also note that this process is usually voluntary- you are free to move it into the encyclopedia yourself(you are now autoconfirmed), though it's usually a good idea to use this process, as moving it into the project yourself risks it being potentially nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
12:57, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Umetnikperformansa
[edit]- Umetnikperformansa (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi. I am beginner in writing an article on Wikipedia, and just got declined. I was wondering to ask for help regarding the footnotes required in my article. Thank you Umetnikperformansa (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please see Referencing for beginners with regards to referencing.
- Please explain how you obtained the photo; "it's a promotional photo" is not acceptable as a source. You're also claiming copyright as the uploader. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- You have a problem not with citation style you use but it's absence somewhere when each article line have to be cited. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
15:00, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Mydaemonthirst
[edit]- Mydaemonthirst (talk · contribs) (TB)
The latest reviewer is objecting to the title. I'm not sure why but I'm happy to see it reduced to 'Swindon Health Hydro'. I've removed the one comment that looked like personal opinion but I can't see anything else of that sort. The references I've quoted are the ones available to me. Tell me which are unacceptable - I will have to remove parts of the story of the Health Hydro, which will undermine the value of the article but perhaps I will find more sources in the future. I've trimmed the article a bit, admittedly not much. Depending on which references are unacceptable, I will probably be chopping out more and losing parts of the story of the building. Have I entered URL references correctly? Wikipedia is not the accessible tool I thought it would be. If I didn't think that the story of this building mattered I would just give up. You have to be an expert on Wikipedia, not just be on top of the story you care about. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, you still have unreferenced statements. Please ref all of it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- ... or delete it 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mydaemonthirst You have dived right in to the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- writing a new article. We usually recommend that newer users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles before attempting to write a new one. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- The tone of the draft is very essay like, it will need WP:TNT and a fresh start with no rambling background details just the plain facts as supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
18:14, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Siddharthaavermaaa
[edit]- Siddharthaavermaaa (talk · contribs) (TB)
The information is return in the wikipedia is totally wrong about lodhi caste Siddharthaavermaaa (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Siddharthaavermaaa: that's as may be, but you must support your edits with reliable sources, which you didn't.
- And if you wish to write about Lodhi (caste) or any other existing topic to do with Lodhi or Lodi, please edit the relevant article rather than submitting a new draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
18:19, 14 February 2025 review of submission by AnneTucker
[edit]Hi!
Thank you for the feedback. I'm not Anne Tucker, but I I thought I was supposed to use her name as my username if I was writing about her. I'm very new to this. How do I change my username to my name and then write about her? Many thanks! AnneTucker (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't bother there is zero indication that they are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Anne Tucker" also doesn't strike me as a particularly unique name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- You can change your user name with help from Wikipedia:Changing username. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Anne Tucker" also doesn't strike me as a particularly unique name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Giving additional feedback, the draft as it currently stands is very promotional. Sentences like
Anne's mission is to support awakening souls
aren't encyclopedic: we want to write about what other people find notable about Tucker, not what she says her mission is. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
19:23, 14 February 2025 review of submission by 2601:4B:4701:280:F4FC:3E38:2FAB:C9B4
[edit]This wiki page is a about me and me brand in the music industry i would like tho know what errors were made and what can i fix to make sure this gets published correctly. 2601:4B:4701:280:F4FC:3E38:2FAB:C9B4 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Remember to log in when posting. I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft(you need the "Draft:" portion). It is completely unsourced and shows no indication of how you are a notable musician as Wikipedia defines one. That is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. I suggest that you go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia- if you truly merit an article, someone unaffiliated with you will eventually write it. You shouldn't write it yourself, please see WP:AUTO. An article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
20:08, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Esterhazcolony
[edit]- Esterhazcolony (talk · contribs) (TB)
How can I upload a photo of Count d'Esterhazy to include in the article? Esterhazcolony (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.
- I can say your draft is not likely to be accepted as the references need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. Please see referencing for beginners.. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
21:42, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Statr
[edit]I do not understand why this draft is rejected when this page has more sources than some of the pages for other bike tours on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Ride_Across_Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biking_Across_Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_DC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_MS:_City_to_Shore_Ride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_Lakefront_Tour and so on. Statr (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- It was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted.
- Please see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed yet by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- It was declined because of not having text that cited and follow next criterias. Try to read it, add such one's evidences if available and cite it for sure. Then resubmit the draft. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
February 15
[edit]04:23, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Turnerbake
[edit]- Turnerbake (talk · contribs) (TB)
why its always getting rejected even I been editing and submitting back again and again pls give approval
Turnerbake (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Turnerbake: it was rejected because the draft is effectively unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
05:05, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Raparticlesofalbuquerque
[edit]I would like to get this article published. Raparticlesofalbuquerque (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Raparticlesofalbuquerque: that would be fine, as long as you can provide reliable sources to support the information and to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Currently you have none of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- and Google, YouTube,Facebook,Instagram, X, And Burque Records LLC are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Raparticlesofalbuquerque. The question you need to ask (in fact, the very first question, long before actually creating a draft or writing any text) is "Where have people wholly unconnected with Reach, and not commissioned or invited or informed by Reach or his associates, chosen to publish a significant amount of material by him, and been published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking?". (See WP:42 for more explanation).
- If the answer is "nowhere, or hardly anywhere", then he is probably not notable by Wikipedia's definition. If you have several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42, an article may be possible. You should forget everything you know about Reach, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
09:32, 15 February 2025 review of submission by 1234udaRaz
[edit]- 1234udaRaz (talk · contribs) (TB)
What other info should I add to be this verified? 1234udaRaz (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing more you can do, the draft has been rejected. It is a promotional text wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- How so? It's not even a promotional text and I can't see it as inappropirite. I've not stated phone number,s,locations , etc., o thereofre, it's not promotional. 1234udaRaz (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is not what Wikipedia means by "promotional". The draft is written in a promotional style. But it would not be appropriate even if it had been neutral in tone, because there are no reliable, independent sources and no claim to notability. If you read the first decline notice on your user talk page, you will see an explanation of what that means. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Have a nice day! 1234udaRaz (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is not what Wikipedia means by "promotional". The draft is written in a promotional style. But it would not be appropriate even if it had been neutral in tone, because there are no reliable, independent sources and no claim to notability. If you read the first decline notice on your user talk page, you will see an explanation of what that means. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- How so? It's not even a promotional text and I can't see it as inappropirite. I've not stated phone number,s,locations , etc., o thereofre, it's not promotional. 1234udaRaz (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
12:57, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Anagarcia2000
[edit]Can you advise anything that i can do to make it live? Anagarcia2000 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. If you were paid specifically to create this article, I suggest that you return his money. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
15:49, 15 February 2025 review of submission by GksEOauJAn
[edit]- GksEOauJAn (talk · contribs) (TB)
When a first version of this article was submitted, the reviewer noted a lack of secondary sources. Since then I have expanded on the text and added secondary sources. I would like to know if my article is ready to be resubmitted. An experienced eye would be helpful! Many thanks in advance. GksEOauJAn (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- We don't really do pre-review reviews; the best way to get feedback is to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
16:20, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Swiss-MH
[edit]I do not understand the rejection. They don’t explain well. This is wrongly rejected each time. This done neutrally with various sources but they wrongly states it is self promotion. I have nothing to do with Wecan but just sharing my knowledge Swiss-MH (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- The main source was Wecan Token's own website...it was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Swiss-MH Wikipedia is not for sharing personal knowledge, it for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Swiss-MH: I would suggest editing in a topic area that isn't a contentious topic (Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
February 16
[edit]01:50, 16 February 2025 review of submission by PaxMulta
[edit]The above draft submission's references do seem to show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article since all citations are from published, reliable, primary and secondary sources independent of the subject, for example, Radio New Zealand, the NZ Herald, the NZ Royal Commission of inquiry into Abuse in Care, The Journal of New Zealand Studies (NS37), The international dialogue centre case KAICIID, among others. Can you advise otherwise? PaxMulta (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PaxMulta, it's simply not true that all of the sources in that draft are independent of the subject. Some of them are his own witness statements in court, others are explicitly by him, and at least two are his biographies on websites like this [3], which he almost certainly wrote himself. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems you may be confusing information with source. Longhurst is not the NZ's Abuse In Care Inquiry which was the source. Nor is he KAICIID but a member of KAICIID. Therefore, the sources are in fact independent of the subject. This distinction should not be difficult to understand. If you still disagree, then why not edit the draft or explain how an intuition is conflatable with a person. PaxMulta (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PaxMulta: Anything a subject or those connected to them says, no matter where it was published, is useless for notability on that subject and can only be used once notability has been established thru other means to verify quotes or personal information a reasonable person could never challenge (such as beliefs or national/racial identification). Saying the source is an enquiry where he gave testimony or a group where he is a member is a distinction without a difference; the source would be useless all the same due to his and his surrogates' direct involvement in its creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thanks, Jeske! PaxMulta (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Could you update the draft with this citation for the statement about the subject being a KAICIID fellow?https://cathnews.co.nz/2020/04/23/longhurst-international-dialogue-centre/
- Cheers! PaxMulta (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly, @PaxMulta, but that source is certainly a "handle with care". First, the last couple of paragraphs are evidently based on his words, and so that part at least is not independent. More troublingly, there is no byline, and in fact it says "source: supplied"; which strongly suggests to me that this text comes from KAICIID, and is again not independent.
- Having said that, yes, it could be used to verify the uncontroversial fact of his being a fellow, though an independent source would be better. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PaxMulta: Anything a subject or those connected to them says, no matter where it was published, is useless for notability on that subject and can only be used once notability has been established thru other means to verify quotes or personal information a reasonable person could never challenge (such as beliefs or national/racial identification). Saying the source is an enquiry where he gave testimony or a group where he is a member is a distinction without a difference; the source would be useless all the same due to his and his surrogates' direct involvement in its creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems you may be confusing information with source. Longhurst is not the NZ's Abuse In Care Inquiry which was the source. Nor is he KAICIID but a member of KAICIID. Therefore, the sources are in fact independent of the subject. This distinction should not be difficult to understand. If you still disagree, then why not edit the draft or explain how an intuition is conflatable with a person. PaxMulta (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
04:24, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Bowie2109
[edit]I'd appreciate your input on my draft wikipedia page. Hi there, please have a look at my draft (Draft:Martin Looi) and let me know what you think. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Bowie2109 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Bowie2109, if you want someone to comment on your article, please submit it for review. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bowie2109 The whole url is not needed when linking to your draft; I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
04:59, 16 February 2025 review of submission by DeclanMiner2023
[edit]- DeclanMiner2023 (talk · contribs) (TB)
How can I improve the draft? How can I quickly put information from my own research and testing into the draft? How can I get a speedy review? I need an answer to these questions, because I don't want to give up and fail to make this article. DeclanMiner2023 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @DeclanMiner2023, have a look at WP:BACKWARDS. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @DeclanMiner2023: We don't accept
information from [one's] own research and testing
; that's called original research and has no place in an encyclopaedia, which summarises what has already been published about a subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC) - DeclanMiner2023 I fixed your header, you need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking to your draft. We cannot guarantee a speedy review, as this is a volunteer project with no deadlines- what is the source of your need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- DeclanMiner2023, your draft is entirely unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy Verifiability. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I need a helper to edit this draft with me, and someone who has experience in this. Because, I myself understand this, but... I am still new to this stuff! I have edited 10 to 15 times so far, but I am new to writing a completely new article. DeclanMiner2023 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @DeclanMiner2023: read carefully the advice you've been given here. It boils down to sources. You need to research the subject to find reliable sources that have published substantial content about this topic, then summarise what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @DeclanMiner2023, I would advise that you stop trying to write this draft for now, and instead go about editing articles that already exist. It will be much easier to fix up this draft once you have some basic experience with wikipedia editing in general. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
16:08, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Summonier
[edit]Wikipedia:Anselm Wong Siew Shen I stumbled upon this page. It seems that its title is incorrect. Summonier (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Summonier: yes, it was, thanks for the heads-up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
17:07, 16 February 2025 review of submission by KS782
[edit]Why my draft is declined . KS782 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- The reason was left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @KS782, writing a draft without citations is like building a house with no foundations. Please see backwards. If you keep on submitting it for review without addressing this fundamental shortcoming, it will get rejected (not just declined). ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
17:10, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Absent.Editor
[edit]- Absent.Editor (talk · contribs) (TB)
A Wiki editor has not approved the draft of this page that I have been working on for a couple of months. She indicates that the tone is not formal. I teach formal academic writing to grad students and disagree. 'As an example to help me understand her decision, I asked her politely to select a portion of the content that she believes is not in a formal tone so that I can understand her decision. She has not replied. Do I have any recourse if I disagree with her decision? Help! Absent.Editor (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Absent.Editor: the full decline reason reads
"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."
I expect what triggered this was expressions like "key roles", "achieved", "excelling", "top generals", and many more peacock expressions besides. Also, quite a lot of the content isn't cited as coming from any sources, let alone independent and reliable ones. - Your 'recourse' is to edit the draft, support it better, and resubmit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you this is very helpful! Absent.Editor (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
17:37, 16 February 2025 review of submission by MuchangiJK
[edit]can i get some help on the changes that i can make to improve this draft so it's not declined. Anyone that can help me edit it, kindly? MuchangiJK (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- MuchangiJK We don't do co-editing here at this help desk, we just help with the submission process. If you have questions about what is needed, please ask. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It would be my pleasure if any input is given on my draft MuchangiJK (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Remove ALL unsourced puffery ie. "Enos Njeru is a devoted family man who prioritizes the well-being and happiness of his family. Outside his professional commitments, he is a philanthropist, a passionate farmer, and a businessman with a love for nature. He actively participates in community initiatives aimed at improving education, governance, and overall community well-being, believing these efforts directly benefit the public." Totally unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the feedback. I just made the edit please review and guide me accordingly MuchangiJK (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- The "personal life" section is unsourced garbage and we don't use external links in the body of an article and there is still little indication of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the feedback. I just made the edit please review and guide me accordingly MuchangiJK (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Remove ALL unsourced puffery ie. "Enos Njeru is a devoted family man who prioritizes the well-being and happiness of his family. Outside his professional commitments, he is a philanthropist, a passionate farmer, and a businessman with a love for nature. He actively participates in community initiatives aimed at improving education, governance, and overall community well-being, believing these efforts directly benefit the public." Totally unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It would be my pleasure if any input is given on my draft MuchangiJK (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
21:14, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Umetnikperformansa
[edit]- Umetnikperformansa (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi. I'm sorry this article has been rejected. First it was mentioned that the articled should be rewritten to avoid promotional language and to include more citations, and now, after trying to rewrite, it's rejected. What would be your advice? Shall I return with a new article when there are more significant coverages for Branko Milisković as a mid career artist in his early 40's? Thank you Umetnikperformansa (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Umetnikperformansa, what is required are several references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Milisković. All you have is two listings in databases or directories. That is completely inadequate. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
February 17
[edit]00:31, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Archivelens
[edit]- Archivelens (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am not able to publish an article I spent so much time researching and writing. Archivelens (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- It reads like a resume, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about this man and what makes him notable. He seems like an ordinary government employee/civil servant. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
02:01, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Thatsoundsreallygood
[edit]- Thatsoundsreallygood (talk · contribs) (TB)
Could you please help me and explain why this didn't get approved? Thank you:) Thatsoundsreallygood (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The reviewer letf the reason why. Please review the pages linked to in their decline message. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
04:00, 17 February 2025 review of submission by John Jou
[edit]I do not understand where I am going wrong John Jou (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
04:42, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye
[edit]- Helloyesgoodbye (talk · contribs) (TB)
Made appropriate edits and added in references for article. This is now ready to publish. Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
04:59, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Zhanga1996
[edit]- Zhanga1996 (talk · contribs) (TB)
This love Zhanga1996 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Zhanga1996: We don't accept blank "drafts". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
09:05, 17 February 2025 review of submission by MuhammadSuhail2006
[edit]- MuhammadSuhail2006 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am new to Wkipedia, and I am not too much aware of rules and regulations. Can anyone help me know where do mistakes lie in my article, that is actually a translated version of the one already existing in Sindhi? Can anyone even correct the mistakes? it would be great. MuhammadSuhail2006 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please know that what is acceptable on one language Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to ensure that the subject meets the guidelines of the Wikipedia that they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
- The sourcing of the draft is far from sufficient. Every substantive fact about a living person must have a source, please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Sources need to be in line next to the text they support, please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MuhammadSuhail2006: The issue is that it's just a straight translation, would be my guess. Wikipedia's standards, and enforcement of those standards, is more stringent than the vast majority of other Wikipedia projects, so much so that a straight translation that would pass muster at the origin wiki would be undersourced here. This is especially so as far as content about living people, where pretty much everything a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
09:43, 17 February 2025 review of submission by 93.39.86.233
[edit]- 93.39.86.233 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear contributors, may I ask for help in the correct editing of this page? I would need to understand more specifically what points are not working and for which the draft is rejected (since the same page is already on Wikipedia in other languages). Thanks a lot! 93.39.86.233 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Remember to log in when posting. Please know that what is acceptable on one language Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to ensure that the subject meets the guidelines of the Wikipedia that they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Please see the message left by the reviewer at the top of your draft.
- You seem to have a connection to this person, as you took a very professional looking image of them. Please see your account's user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
09:49, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Aston3421
[edit]The article has been rejected due to not enough coverage and a lack of formal tone. However the exact mistakes have not been highlighted. Could someone help me to show me exactly what is wrong and where to improve it. Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Aston3421: we don't point out every single issue, just the reason(s) why the draft isn't ready to be published. This has been declined, because it doesn't show that the person is notable enough. You need to show that he passes either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:CREATIVE notability guideline.
- The informal/promotional tone is evident in expressions like
"Koukjian's artistic vision is rooted in the concept of connection. His recurring motif of the chain serves as a profound symbol of unity, interdependence, and human relationships. Through this form, he explores how individuals are inherently linked, bound by shared experiences, and yet retain their own identities within a collective whole."
This is not appropriate style of writing for an encyclopaedia. We need you to focus just on facts, and skip the floral tones and peacock expressions. And anything you say about his artistic style etc. must be based on a reliable and independent published, not your own opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I will review and correct. Aston3421 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The necessary changes have been made, if possible could you review the draft and let me know what other problems you encounter? your help is much appreciated. Aston3421 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is still not at all clear how they pass WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- According to the last point, if there are public sculptures aor part of museums then it passes the requirements. In this case both these conditions are present. Is it OK like that or there is a mistake somewhere? Aston3421 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The draft doesn't mention this though? Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is still not at all clear how they pass WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
12:40, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Phx-Racing
[edit]- Phx-Racing (talk · contribs) (TB)
On February 9, 2025, the submission of the page I am writing was rejected, so I tried to make the corrections and changes that were suggested to me by expert editors, before resubmitting it for verification. I am trying my best to write the page respecting Wikipedia standards, but I am a new editor and I do not have much experience, so I ask you for your kind help to know if I could now, perhaps resubmit the page for verification. Thank you very much Phx-Racing (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)