Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 4 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 6 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


December 5

[edit]

03:17, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Almonday

[edit]

The article was written with the help of AI and the instructions were to include items based on wikipedia requirements in a tone that was endemic of articles within. I've attempted this several time and wonder how many Grammy awards does it take to get an article accepted? Not to mention I've donated to wikipedia. Please read the article and don't utilize bots to evaluate which I suspect is how you do this. 

Almonday (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This about Draft:Marc Jackson (Composer). Almonday, it is tough to describe how many ways that you are wrong. Let's start with your suspicion that "bots" evaluate drafts. That is ludicrous. I am a living human being named Jim Heaphy who has been editing Wikipedia for 15 years. I have written over 100 new articles and improved thousands of articles. I am an administrator on the #7 website worldwide, with tens of billions of monthly page views. You can find out a lot about me at User: Cullen328. Now, onto your next ludicrous remark The article was written with the help of AI. You clearly are not aware that human Wikipedia editors are intensely skeptical about the use of "artificial intelligence" for writing Wikipedia articles. In this particular case, "artificial idiocy" is a far better description of the work product that you submitted under your username, and that is on you. Your draft bears no resemblance to an acceptable Wikipedia article because it is jam packed with promotional drivel. Just one of many examples is The new millennium saw Jackson expanding his repertoire which is unreferenced promotional content-free nonsense. Your draft is in complete violation of the Neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policy. So, the robot "intelligence" you selected is completely incapable of writing content that complies with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Your draft is pretty much the exact opposite of how an encyclopedia article about a (possibly) marginally notable music industry figure should be written. I recommend that you delete it all and start over, using your own human brain instead of "artificial intelligence" hallucinations. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim to have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts the servers and pays the programmers and lawyers, we don't care in the slightest. The WMF and their paid staff do not write Wikipedia content. Human voluteers do. Your alleged financial donations have zero influence on Wikipedia content. Your AI "friend" failed to tell you that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing to see someone who wrote an article with the help of AI get upset that "bots" are evaluating articles. For me but not for thee... -- asilvering (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in answer to your (possibly rhetorical) wondering about the number of Grammy Awards needed to establish notability, one is usually enough. Our WP:NMUSIC notability guideline, and more specifically WP:MUSICBIO #8, tells you this, and many other useful things besides; it's well worth a read. -- !🤖 DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Pavithranarasimhan30

[edit]

My Submission was declined please help Pavithranarasimhan30 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavithranarasimhan30, Wikipedia isn't somewhere to post your CV, and we're not keen on AI-generated content. If you want to try again, please start from the sources. See WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala

[edit]

I have just submitted a new article for review and which I believe follows the guidelines, however it has been rejected. How can I be assisted? Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala: as suggested by the reviewer, remove all the unnecessary, non-encyclopaedic fluff, as well as all inline external links. Ensure the contents are properly supported by citations to reliable sources. And above all, make sure you provide clear evidence of notability.
I've posted a message on your talk page which explains why we very strongly discourage autobiographies. Please read and digest it. I also need to warn you that if your only objective here is self-promotion, this will get you into trouble sooner or later. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for you to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala Please be aware of the autobiography policy; it's not forbidden to write about yourself, but it is discouraged(and if you are going to, submitting a draft is correct).
The picture of you is a very professional looking image, but you claim it as your own work and claim that you hold the copyright. Typically it would be the photographer that owns the copyright and who can claim it as their work. Did your contract with the photographer assign you the copyright? 331dot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. And in the agreement, it was specifically stated that the pictures would be used for such projects. Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you hold the copyright, that's fine, but you will need to go to Commons and work with those there to edit the image information to indicate that the image is not your own personal work but you hold the copyright. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are persisting with trying to write an autobiography, Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala, which is strongly discouraged and is unsuccessful 99.9% of the time. Why have you chosen to waste your own time and the time of the volunteer reviewers? Your draft lacks references to reliable sources entirely independent of Mahala (you) which devote significant coverage to Mahala (you). Without several such references. it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. These standards are strictly enforced. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the references cited. Most of them are indeed independent sources. This includes news from institutions, newspaper articles and etc. Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Scratchysquirrel

[edit]

We have received the following:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject


We have 4 references. One is regional newspaper, 2 are from an trade industry publication, 1 is from an independent business magazine.

For each of our references, please can you indicate which of the above criteria they do not meet, and what is required for them to pass said criteria.

Alternatively please can you publish our page! Scratchysquirrel (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for Frisk Radio, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.
The draft does little more than document the existence of the station and tell of its activities. You need to show it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 5 December 2024 review of submission by SyedTayyab560

[edit]

Hi,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft about Dr. Toula Gordillo, but it was declined due to insufficient references and other issues. I have since made significant changes, including adding reliable citations and improving the overall content. Could you please guide me on how to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards for approval?

Thank you! SyedTayyab560 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance; this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SyedTayyab560: you need to remove the Amazon links and the Wikipedia links and the Podcast links. That leaves.. nothing? No evidence of notability under our WP:NPEOPLE criteria. qcne (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also stated that the photo of Toula is "Your own work": which suggests you took the professional headshot photo of her. What is your connection, personal or professional, to this person? qcne (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
Regarding the picture of Dr. Gordillo, I did not take the photograph myself. It was provided with permission for use in the article. My connection to Dr. Gordillo is as someone assisting with documenting her work and contributions to psychology and literature for an accurate and well-sourced Wikipedia entry. If there are any further suggestions or guidelines for improving the draft before resubmission, I’d be happy to hear them. SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication this person is notable enough for an article, @SyedTayyab560. qcne (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How i can do that? SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you do what, @SyedTayyab560? qcne (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Please Help Me.
Thanks SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SyedTayyab560 Notability cannot be created from nowhere: notability is derived from the special notability criteria. Your draft fails the former. qcne (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you've uploaded the image on the commons claiming it as your own work, this will need to be rectified and proper attribution and permission given. It is likely that you do not own either the copyright or permission to upload and release under the license you have. You've blindly clicked through a lot of buttons thinking it would make your job easier but all you've done is made it incorrect and created more work. So my advice on writing the article would be similar: read the links people are providing you and don't click through them and then ask for a shortcut here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SyedTayyab560: if you didn't take that photo yourself, then it isn't your own work, and you shouldn't have uploaded it as such. You have no released the copyright into the public domain, ie. given away someone else's property. When you say you were provided this photo with permission to use it (of which we would need to see evidence), did you get explicit permission to release it from the owner's copyright? Or did you just not think about that aspect of it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Kestrel2Zero

[edit]

Hello - Please can you help me with formatting the infobox in my draft. I would like the box to be right justified (float right) and for the photo image to be centred in its own (merged) cell. Also I would like to have the adjacent text then wrap to the left.

In my original submission the infobox was a jpeg, which worked fine. However the person who reviewed and declined my draft said not to use a jpeg and this is where I have become a bit unstuck using unfamiliar software.

I have checked through the help resources available within Wikipedia, but they are too technical for me to understand and make use of. Unfortunately my experience stops at MicroSoft Office! If someone can help me I would be most grateful. Many thanks - Nigel/Kestrel2Zero Kestrel2Zero (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are an enhancement to an article, and are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. My suggestion would be to just remove it for now and once your draft is accepted, you can work on the infobox at your leisure. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; this is very helpful advice. 212.108.134.119 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kestrel2Zero: you've created a wikitable, not an infobox. You should use a template such as {{infobox scientist}} -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kestrel2Zero, you'll see that I've conducted some major copy-editing and formatting of the draft article and left a note describing what I think the remaining problems of the draft are with some guidance. Some things have been cut or moved and if you have a specific question about a particular editorial decision I would be happy to reply but there are too many to list out unprompted. I have made some template changes as was described above so there's no particular need to tackle the aesthetics of the article. What you need to focus on is the content. In particular:
  1. There are numerous unreferenced sections that, if it were to be published now, could be challenged and removed wholecloth so I expect some additional time in the draftspace would be beneficial, lest that work is cut.
  2. Further, there are instances where Wikipedia is cited. We can't accept this as Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source as WP:UCG.
  3. While your existing citations to offline work are not against policy, please head the advive of WP:OFFLINE and be as specific as you possibly can in using these references. If they are journals, consider {{cite journal}} and give authors, date, journal, etc. Same goes for {{cite news}} for old clippings and articles you may have: authors, date, publisher, location, etc.
I agree with the previous review, the subject is likely notable but this version of the draft still needs work. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobby
Thank you so much for your editing work and formatting the info box. This is just the help I needed. Thank you too for your comments with respect to citations. I have a lot of hard copy material that I gathered to start this project , so I will undertake a fresh review of how and where I can include the independent validation needed.
Finally, I have a big conflict of interest (COI) to disclose, which you may already have guessed. The subject was my father and, at 77 I am the youngest of his three surviving children. Please can you let me know if I need to do anything else about this.
it, will take me some time to address the comments you have made, but I look forward to getting back to you in the New Year.
Best regards
Nigel/Kestrel2Zero 212.108.134.119 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please remember to log in whenever editing.)
To properly disclose your COI, you'll need to place this template {{User COI}} on your user page User:Kestrel2Zero. Let me know if you need any help with that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing - Thank you so much for this guidance. I will action the COI issue asap! And I will definitely get back to you if I find I need help. - Nigel/Kestrel2Zero 212.108.134.119 (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; this is very helpful advice. 212.108.134.119 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Susan Hackett

[edit]

I would like advice. I am submitting an article about a living person. It was rejected due to lack of secondary sources. I have over 100 secondary sources I can include. I am toning down the narrative. Susan Hackett (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hackett It's not about the volume of sources, but their quality. References also need to be in-line with the text they are supporting, see Referencing for Beginners.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. The promotional tone needs to be toned down; the draft should not talk her up, it needs a neutral point of view.
Do you have an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been formatted such that it now appears more like a Wikipedia article, but that's to say nothing of its tone. Write in bland, neutral, summary style. Then, use the links that have been preserved in the bottom in a section title "Further reading" and use them as references, following the guide at Help:Referencing for beginners. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JarJarInks

[edit]

I've been told to avoid using social media as sources (which is fully understandable if I was using them for any substantial amount of content), but I've only cited Twitter posts for timestamps. I'm more than happy to remove any Tumblr citations since they're not particularly necessary. However, I'd like some clarification on when it is appropriate to use Youtube as a source as I'm relatively sure my use meets WP:VIDEOREF JarJarInks (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like some help moving the article to my user space if the article is deemed not notable enough again. Thank you! JarJarInks (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarJarInks: As a rule, YT is only usable as a source (1) if the video was produced by an outlet that has established editorial oversight and fact-checking processes and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified (i.e. with a checkmark) channel. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JarJarInks It doesn't necessarily need to be in your user space; it can remain as a draft as long as you edit it at least once every six months. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to move it as I'm unsure I'll be able to edit it every 6 months but believe that more reliable sources will come out since the symbol is relatively new. JarJarInks (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! I’ll remove any references relying solely on the video. JarJarInks (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Straw Holdings

[edit]

why is my short article not been published, it's been days Straw Holdings (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Straw Holdings The re-review is in a pool of drafts awaiting review. There re currently ~1,700 other drafts waiting review, which means it may take up to seven weeks at present. Drafts are mot queued, but reviewed at whim by reviewers. Please maintain patience and continue to improve the draft while you wait 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Pavithranarasimhan30

[edit]

Can please provide me assistance or reason for denying permission to publish Pavithranarasimhan30 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavithranarasimban30: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your only source is his own company (connexion to subject). Even if it were an utterly unimpeachable source, one source by itself is not enough for an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JackHarris1212

[edit]

Just asking, for the Julian Horton page, will he be hyper linked in all the things he’s in? And will his page come up as other actors do when you search him? Right now, his page comes up and with Wikipedia as the source but it appears like it previously did when he had IMDb providing his background information. How does it come up like other notable people with his birthdate and birthplace on one tab and the movies and shows on the other? JackHarris1212 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackHarris1212, links to pages from other Wikipedia articles are created by placing [[ and ]] around the title of an article. Review Help:Link for more information. In short:
  • Writing Walter Cronkite was born in [[Saint Joseph, Missouri]].
  • Writing Grand Central Station is a commuter [[Train station|rail terminal]].
With that knowledge, you can add links from other articles by placing the [[ and ]] around mentions of Julian Horton. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 5 December 2024 review of submission by 81.174.155.168

[edit]

Regarding rejection due to independence:

  • I've added what independent secondary sources I can find but the label is very small and not exactly press-seeking...
  • for the artists (Bandcamp and Discogs obviously being under artist control)
    • I've had to resort to Discogs for most (removing the links to most of the Bandcamp pages)
    • a couple have had news mentions being with Rockosmos (Sel, of course, but also Awooga, who I'd struggled with), which I got from Google News search
    • the rest don't get much or any news mention, and nothing clearly independent linking from the group to the label
    • Sel I've left the Bandcamp link for as it gives a different location from Discogs
    • PFANG... well, it's only Rockosmos who know of them...
  • I've added stub markers on this basis

Is there anything I could actually do beyond this?

-- Peter 

81.174.155.168 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that this business is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. So far there is no evidence of that. I cannot comment whether this is possible or not, depends on whether you find suitable sources. (Judging by what you say about it being "very small and not exactly press-seeking", I'm guessing not.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- that's fair enough. I don't think they'll be notable unless the business can expand its horizons. 81.174.155.168 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 5 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:207:184:4610:7076:A1A0:10D7:261

[edit]

The last rejection said that the sources were not reliable. That comment was vague. I'm not sure which source was unreliable. Is it just this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul_Medical_University ? 2601:207:184:4610:7076:A1A0:10D7:261 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (being user generated), and should almost never be cited. In any case Kabul Medical University does not mention Dr Ali, and would be completely useless as a citation for that reason as well.
It is unfortunate that the standard message that reviewers used mentions only "reliable": sources are required to be reliable, but that is not the only requirement. Most sources (and in particular, all sources being used to establish that the subject of the article is notable) must also be independent of the subject.
Your reference no 1 looks as if it might well be a satisfactory source, but we need more than one. Your other references are probably all reliable (though it's not clear how much oversight there is on the directory sites), but they all fail the other two criteria of being independent, and having significant coverage of Ali.
All the sources used to establish notability need to pass the three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Cockomelon

[edit]

what can i do to improve it so it can be published Cockomelon (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing blatant hoax/vandalism on the encyclopaedia? qcne (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JackHarris1212

[edit]

Hey, for the Julian Horton page… how long will it take until his name comes up in search bar? When I search it, nothing comes up as of now. JackHarris1212 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts, not articles, the general Help Desk is better for this. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Google (or other external search engine), we cannot tell. The article was only moved to mainspace five hours ago, so search engines may not have indexed it yet. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Daudasikiru

[edit]

I need help to accept my Sandbox and put me through Daudasikiru (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Estermoyb

[edit]

hI! My draft was rejected. I believe I have made all the necessary changes to ensure a neutral tone and remove any promotional language. To the best of my knowledge, all claims are supported by references. This is my first Wikipedia article. Could someone please review it and let me know if any further adjustments are needed before I resubmit it? Estermoyb (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Estermoyb. The draft has not been rejected (which would be the end of the road) but declined (which means that you have an opportunity to work on it).
Unfortunately, creating an article in Wikipedia is a much more difficult task than most people realise. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Sources that are to be used to establish that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability need to be not just reliable, but also independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.
I haven't looked through all your citations, but I can see that several of them are problematic. In the first few citations I can see:
  • A work by Belmonte, which is not independent
  • A citation to (Catalan) Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source
  • Publications by institutions of which he is or has been an employee, a member, or a prize-winner: these are not independent.
Some of those (but not Wikipedia) may be cited to support a small amount uncontroversial factual information about Belmonte, but the bulk of the article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with Belmonte have published about him in reliable places.
Please see golden rule for a summary of the standards that most of your sources should meet. ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my first article but I’m a medical writer so I am used to search for information and verify its credibility. I used references “by Belmonte” as he is an author. Also, I thought that the Wikipedia reference would be accepted as the Catalan article would have gone through the same review process than this article. Belmonte is part of most of the scientific organisations relevant to his area of study and was the founder of different research organisations. Not using any references related to them doesn’t make any sense. 2.97.150.19 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please remember to log in whenever editing.)
Works authored by the subject, and organisations with which the subject is associated, are close primary sources, which in most cases cannot establish notability, although they can usually be used to verify non-contentious facts.
I've no idea what review processes, if any, the Catalan-language Wikipedia employs, but to assume that what's good for them is automatically good for us is unfounded, as each language version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. (I can also tell you that the referencing in ca:Carlos Belmonte Martínez would be unlikely to pass muster here.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:54, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Lilmami123

[edit]

hello, I've been editing after editing just for my draft to be published but every time it's the same problem. my references are not valid I find this to not be fair because I interviewed Cristal Steverson herself and got all the info from her please tell me what to do to make this valid Lilmami123 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable third party citation. Interviewing somebody yourself, as far as I know, is not a reliable source.
There are tonnes of other problems, e.g. it is not from a neutral point of view and most of it is basically promoting the subject. In fact, I even doubt if it passes the notability guidlines. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lilmami123, your interview of Steverson cannot be used on Wikipedia. It is a violation of No original research, which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is uncertainty regarding the reliability of my interview opportunity with Crystal Steverson, as I have come across conflicting information on various websites. Some sources are on your blacklist, while others provide misleading or inaccurate details. Such inconsistencies can naturally lead to confusion. To address any concerns, I believe it is best to contact the individual directly about whom I am writing the article. Lilmami123 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lilmami123 Wikipedia articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. Interviews- even ones not conducted by the editor- do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews ARE NOT a reliable source. Also lack of notability may have contributed to your article's rejection. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_5&oldid=1262366592"