Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


August 31

[edit]

06:49, 31 August 2024 review of submission by TorhoKO

[edit]

Hi, my submission has been declined a couple of times - and I'd like to get help in editing. I think the author is indeed worth an article on wiki, just like many other of her generations' authors from Estonia already have. I've provided lots of third party sources, that confirm her notability so I'd really like to get an perspective on what to change to get approval for the article. Thank you very much for your assistance. TorhoKO (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TorhoKO: the sources are book reviews, a database entry, and links to Finnish and Latvian publishers of her books, none of which contribute anything towards notability for her (though the book reviews might help make the books notable).
Whether "many other of her generations' authors from Estonia" are featured in Wikipedia articles isn't how we determine notability. She will have to establish notability in her own right, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:AUTHOR guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TorkhoKO, in all honesty, I have my doubts that an Estonian writer who has published four childrens' books is a convincing claim to notability. In the 21st century publishing ecosphere, I could write four children's books tomorrow, one about a baby eagle, one about a baby raven, one about about a baby sea otter, and for my granddaughter, one about a unicorn colt with rainbow coloration, and have all four published immediately if I have enough money to spend. Your draft needs to make it clear how this this author meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you might be able to write them but I wonder if you can repeatedly secure support by the Estonian cultural endowment for their publication and translation. So I beg to differ and I'll add a reference to the cultural endowment selecting to support the publication. Also the publishers are not random self-publishing houses but established Estonian publishers. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not exclusively book reviews, her books have been repeatedly selected as some of Estonia's most beautiful books. And being translated and published in both Finland and Latvia is a notable achievement as well. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if her books have been awarded or picked on some 'most beautiful' lists, these feats might help make those books notable, but unless we're talking Pulitzer or Nobel calibre recognition, they really won't make her notable. And having books translated really is no achievement, either, especially children's books (stereotypically, lots of pretty pictures and very little text).
I'm not categorically saying this person couldn't be notable, but so far there has been no evidence of that.
BTW, please remember to log in whenever editing. Thanks, --- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how one of her books being placed on somebody's list of 30 "beautiful books" published in Estonia or Latvia or Finland is a claim of notability. There are countless media outlets that publish "Top 25 under 25" listicles, and such "award" lists are ubiquitous on the internet. Similar list articles do not establish notability unless the awarding organization and the award itself are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and the receipt of the award is covered in reliable sources independent of the awarding organization itself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.. so are you claiming there's only Pulitzer recipients on wiki? @Cullen328 It's Estonia and not just some list but an annual competition and selection by a jury of experts organised by the Estonian Writers Union.
I really get your points and I would like to appreciate them, but they seem quite distanced from reality working as an author in North-Eastern Europe and getting public money to have books published and translated and featured by established outlets in recognizing their notability. I assume I should have made this article in Estonian first, then there would be editors maybe understanding the context better. TorhoKO (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say only Pulitzer-winning authors can have articles in Wikipedia. I said that if you're relying on winning prizes or awards to establish someone's notability, those have to be of significant standing (and even then, it's far from clear that notability can be thus established).
You're certainly welcome to create this article in the Estonian Wikipedia (assuming you can satisfy their notability and other requirements, of course). The English-language one is not 'special' or 'superior' in any way, it just happens to be the biggest.
And not that it matters in the slightest, but as it happens, I have a somewhat better understanding of North-Eastern European circumstances than you might think. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it somehow significant that this author obtains public money to publish her work? The US has a similar program. If you're saying that the fact she obtains public money makes her notable, that would probably be the same as receiving an award- that government program would need to be shown to be notable first. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TorkhoKO, I do not see the Estonian Writers Union mentioned in your draft. Am I wrong? If not, why not? I am not saying or hinting or implying that the Pulitzer Prize is the only notable award for literature. There are clearly hundreds or even thousands of such awards that are the subjects of Wikipedia articles that establish the notability of such awards, and winning a notable award is a piece of evidence in favor of notability. But they need to be properly referenced in the draft. I see no claim that she has received a notable award in your draft. Your comment maybe understanding the context better is not productive because your responsibilty as an author of this draft (perhaps eventually an article) is to make the context and the notability clear to any English speaking high school student in Nigeria or India or New Zealand, or even an older man like me living in California. We do not need Estonians in particular to detect notability. We need that evidence to be clearly present in the draft. We need rigorously written prose and supporting references that convince experienced Wikipedia editors from any country that this person is notable. I am not that hard to convince. Convince me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update - thanks for that remark. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's significant to get this kind of support, cause there's an expert jury that looks at applications and decides which kind of literary works they want to support. Thanks for you comment. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why Cole Massi1 (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:36, 31 August 2024 review of draft by Himaldrmann

[edit]


I'm confused by the "AfC" thing—the pages on article creation seem to suggest that I can simply create an article and didn't need to go through the review process, since my account and # of edits meet or exceed the requirements to do so.

Is this the case? If so, how do I, uh, un-submit my article (Draft:Hinc illae lacrimae) & just publish it, instead of waiting 4+ months(!)?

(Not that it's really urgent or anything... but still! It took several hours for all the phrasing, sourcing, & OCD-editing... so I want it accessible, darn it! :P)

Cheers & thanks,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Himaldrmann: usually you could literally just undo your submission, but seeing as you created the whole thing in a single edit, that's not an option. You can remove all the AfC templates from the draft, but that's a bit messier.
You can then move the article into the main space, which will have the effect of removing the Draft: prefix from its title. New page patrol will then come along at some point to run the proverbial ruler over it.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!
One request for clarification, if you have an extra sec: does removing the Afc templates automatically move it into the main space, or is that some second action I must take afterward?
(Sorry, I OCD-edit wording/grammar on articles a lot but this is the first time I actually created one--I saw that the Lacrimae rerum article didn't have "hinc illae lacrimae" in the "See also:" section, and when I went to add it, I found there was no "hinc illae lacrimae" page... I'm supposed to be doing actual work, but, well, I just couldn't let that stand--... Lol!)
Cheers,
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, I think I see it (the "Move" link, surprisingly enough...).
NOW my only question is, re the templates: do I need to somehow remove "transcluded" templates (and if so, uh, how--)?
Thanks again, and my apologies for my slow(-in-the-head-)ness,
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Himaldrmann: no, removing the AfC templates doesn't move the draft into the main space, or v.v.
Let me know if you'd like me to do all that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Himaldrmann, please be prepared to explain why this topic belongs on the English Wikipedia instead of Wikiquote. It seems more appropriate for that other website to me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I don't know if it isn't more appropriate for Wikiquote or not—I based the decision to create it on Wikipedia partly because there would be room to explain a bit about & include examples of notable historical uses, and I had the impression Wikiquote entries were mainly "just the quote"; and partly on the fact that entries like Lacrimae rerum existed (...and I wanted the articles to include each other under "See also" as a pleasing symmetry, heh, because I'm obsessive-compulsive–).
But if more experienced editors object, I won't kick up a fuss or nothin'!
Himaldrmann (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! Please accept this sham trophy until I may craft you a better one: ✨🏆✨
Cheers once more 🥂,
Himaldrmann (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I didn't actually do anything, because another reviewer had already done the deed by the time I got there. But I'll keep the trophy in a safe place (aka. the pawn shop) until Theroadislong comes to claim it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This got me wondering what the origin of the word was and apparently it's ..."derived from the Greek tropaion, referred to arms, standards, other property, or human captives and body parts (e.g., headhunting) captured in battle". I'll let you keep it this time. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Arnavvibhuti

[edit]

The book is available on Google books and multiple other sites globally. I am not able to add references. Kindly add references and create the article. Arnavvibhuti (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnavvibhuti I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. If you are unable to add references, the topic cannot be on Wikipedia. Any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The text that is there now- even if it were sourced- is a blatant advertisement. That's not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnavvibhuti: sorry, but that's not how this works, we don't fulfil article creation requests here at the help desk. If you want Draft:Echoes Of Kotdwar to be accepted, you need to provide evidence that it is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Kaeez06

[edit]


Clarification on Reference Requirements for School Articles Hello,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article for Matha Senior Secondary School but it was declined due to insufficient references. I understand the importance of citations, but I noticed that similar school articles, like the one for Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Cherthala , have been accepted with only a single citation from the official school website.

Given that Matha Senior Secondary School is a well-established educational institution, I believe the reference requirements might be more flexible, especially since it is common for school articles to have limited external sources. Could you please clarify why the article was declined and provide guidance on what constitutes sufficient referencing for school articles? Additionally, how can I ensure that my submission meets the necessary standards?

Thanks in advance. Kaeez06 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaeez06: we don't assess drafts by comparing them to whatever may exist out there among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia; we do so by reference to the currently applicable policies and guidelines. And no, those requirements are not 'flexible', they are pretty much hard and fast. This draft needs to demonstrate that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and it currently falls well short of either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kaeez06 (EC) fixed your header, the name of the draft is supposed to go where you had "Clarification..." written. Just because another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, and you would not be aware that they were inappropriate as an inexperienced user. We haven't yet gotten around to removing all the inappropriate articles, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can. See other stuff exists. Many articles about schools were created before policies were tightened up a few years ago(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and existence is no longer sufficient to merit an article. The school must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you would like to help us, please point out other inappropriate articles on schools so we can take action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Parsita

[edit]

What information i am missing? I understand the importance of citation. I have cited links from reliable sources about the subject including newspaper journals. I have taken reference of another wikipedia subject http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ishaan_Ghosh. Please assist. Parsita (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is not a reliable source. YouTube is not a reliable source, unless the video is from a reputable media outlet on its verified channel. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the subject: nothing less, and very little more. As far as I can see not one of your citations is to a reliable source that is wholly unconnected with Majumdar and contains significant coverage of Majumdar. That means that you have nothing at all to base your draft on, and it cannot possibly be an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realiable If there another way to send a Screen here it would Second to it takes secong to submit Jweighed1 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Jweighed1

[edit]

for safety Measure Of Fraud And Zero Trust Artificial Intelligence Law Jweighed1 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jweighed1. You apparently submitted your sandbox User:Jweighed1/sandbox, but that has no content. (Another editor has undone the submission).
Please read WP:YFA to understand how to create a Wikipedia article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Rresha

[edit]

what do i need to reference in this article to get it approved Rresha (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First you can tell us what your relationship is with him, as it appears he attempted to write this text himself at Draft:Magnus Achor. You might also want to let him know that he has likely improperly claimed the photo(with a watermark) as his own personal work and has improperly claimed that he personally owns the copyright. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Ansaar20

[edit]

Please add this is new company Ansaar20 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansaar20: If it is a new company then the odds are it cannot meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article at this time. We are not a directory or billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 31 August 2024 review of submission by SUNIL SUNDARI

[edit]

I am Sunil kumar meena 

My Wikipedia page should be made public My Wikipedia page should be made public SUNIL MEENA (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia NOT social media. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SUNIL SUNDARI: Absolutely not. We are not going to accept an unsourced two-sentence "article" on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Robertabonaldo

[edit]

problems having article accepted Robertabonaldo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertabonaldo: that's not a question; do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? You've resubmitted the draft and it is awaiting another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

[edit]

02:38, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Xinwang822

[edit]

Dear reviewer,

Please specify which reference does not meet the requirements. Do you give examples of references that meet the requirements? I will modify it as required, thank you! Xinwang822 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinwang822: this draft wasn't declined for inadequate referencing, but rather for inadequate evidence of notability. You need to provide sources proving that the subject satisfies either of the WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Artaxerex

[edit]

please help me to improve Alishah Novin has been helping youth to become computer savey, and NTC has awarded him for his efforts. There has been many videos of his work. I think NTC should be a reliable source, despite the fact that Novin is now moved to Seatelle. Please help me to improve the article. Artaxerex (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxerex I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended, so we know what you are referencing. This isn't the place to request co-editors. NTC may be a reliable source for its own awards, but it is not an independent source and as such does not establish that they meet the definition of a notable person. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize for not understanding that NTC is not independent source. I used Ai to generate the article. I thought independent implies the source should not be related to Alishah Novin. Artaxerex (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artaxerex It's not a good idea to be using AI to generate an article, that presents several issues, see WP:LLM. If you're doing that because English is not your primary language, you may feel more comfortable editing the Wikipedia of your primary language. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it isn't better than others.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(such as Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Filmfare Award) but even then there needs to be more than just documentation of the award, there needs to be independent reliable sources that discuss it. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Rockywriter88

[edit]
Dear Reviewer,
In response to the previous feedback, I have made significant updates to the draft, particularly to enhance the notability of Ruben van Schalm's work. Below are the key changes:
  1. Museum Collections: I have provided detailed references showing that Ruben van Schalm's artwork, not just his book Paradise, is included in the permanent collections of notable museums. For example, his work is now part of the collection at The MA-g The Museum of Avant Garde, Switzerland, CH [1], which is a recognized institution in the art world. This inclusion contributes directly to establishing his notability.
  2. Secondary Sources: I have added secondary sources, including interviews and critical analyses, to provide independent coverage of his work. These sources are attached as PDFs, and have also been cited within the draft to support various claims about his career and impact in the field of photography. [2] - [3] - [4]
  3. Inline Citations: All claims related to his museum collections, exhibitions, and other notable achievements have been backed by inline citations, allowing for easy verification of the information provided.
  4. Addressing Concerns: I have taken care to address the concerns raised in previous reviews, particularly regarding the use of primary sources and the importance of showcasing his artwork's inclusion in notable institutions.
Note: Additionally, I have included Authority Control databases in the draft to further enhance its credibility and verification. These databases provide standardized information and external validation of Ruben van Schalm's identity and works, contributing to the draft's overall reliability and notability.
I hope these updates meet the necessary notability and sourcing guidelines for the draft to be accepted. I would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @331dot I see that was @M4V3R1CK32
I will edit the the message and add the appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft 9 months ago. Rockywriter88 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @M4V3R1CK32 I have responded above my appeal for review as I have made significant updates to the draft, I hope those updates meet the necessary notability and sourcing @M4V3R1CK32. I would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rockywriter88 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look again by the end of the week. Cheers M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A response has been posted on the draft Talk page. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 1 September 2024 review of submission by DOKTOR RICEBOWL

[edit]

My submission on an article of a living person has been decline because the submission does not use adequate reliable sources. This submission's references "does not show the subject qualifies a Wikipedia article" I would like to request help to improve the article to get this article approved. DOKTOR RICEBOWL (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DOKTOR RICEBOWL: you need to support the information with reliable sources throughout, and at least a few (3+) of those sources must establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 1 September 2024 review of submission by 24.250.192.190

[edit]

This is a Cedar Key personality who has legitimate press articles from Miami to NYC. Would anyone be kind enough to help with this submission? I feel the references are more than adequate and surpass in quality and quantity several similar accepted entries for notable celebrities. Michael has been featured all over the world for his reporting during Cedar Key extreme weather events, he's a published author, his many plays are performed regionally in Florida and he's been twice off-Broadway. As a Cedar Key celebrity coined as, "The Clambassador", he's represented aquaculture throughout Florida. Although his celebrity is deeply integrated in the small town of Cedar Key, it is his widespread media attention which makes him notable in my estimation. I'm not a professional Wiki-editor, but I've managed to get two other notable people represented in Wikipedia with far fewer references, so I'm at a loss as to why this is repeatedly and so quickly rejected. Maybe the standards have changed over the years, but I believe Mr. Bobbitt is notable and would appreciate any help in getting this article approved and listed in Wikipedia. Thank you kindly. 24.250.192.190 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted it, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the standard has changed somewhat over the years, and we have thousands and thousands of articles which would not be accepted today in their current form. Some of these could be brought up to standard by adding better sources, and trimming out text which is either not neutral or not supported by the sources; many of them will be deleted for lack of notability when somebody gets round to it.
Apart from possibly the rather vague "widespread media attention", nothing you have said above is relevant to whether he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which are, for the most part, about whether people totally unconnected with him, and not fed information on his behalf, have chosen to write in some depth about him and been published in reliable places.
I've only got down as far as your citation no 7, but so far I haven't seen a single source which is independent of Bobbitt. This does not bode well, as none of these contributes in any way to establishing that he is WikiNotable.
I recommend you examine each of your sources critically against the criteria in WP:42. If a source does not appear reliable, get rid of it, and any information that comes solely from it. (For example, I am dubious about Gainesville Downtown: lack of a byline, no mention of an editorial policy, and - to be frank - hosting on Wordpress, all suggest a well-meaning but amateur endeavour).
Any that do not mention him, or only mention him in passing: get rid of them. They add nothing to the article.
If a source is not independent (ie it is written or published by Bobbitt or his associates, or based on an interview or press release, take it out, but keep hold of it: you may be able to use a few of these later, once you've established notability, as primary sources. It is unlikely that a citation to anything written by him will be of use. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Officialzaminaliqais

[edit]

I want to add a picture of the subject Officialzaminaliqais (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You can add images later. As you seem to represent the person you are writing about, you must disclose that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Wp.ramesh wiki

[edit]

Hi anyone can tell me I have write the article named Ramesh Auti, what is that publishing problem. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have detailed the problems at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 1 September 2024 review of submission by CyantubeD

[edit]

confused

why did i just have a unexcepted article CyantubeD (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell your thoughts on a topic. That's what social media is for. Please see the new user tutorial to learn more about what we do here. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

[edit]

01:46, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Fatorious music entertainment

[edit]

creativity💃 and innovation Fatorious music entertainment (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not even know to begin with this. Do I address the fact you are submitting draft articles with the same title as your username, indicating a violation of WP:PROMO? Or the fact you submitted a blank sandbox for consideration by AFC? Frankly I feel like your behaviour indicates that you are not here to build an encyloapedia, so I'd stop while you're ahead. Please do not keep trying to get promotional material for your company posted, this is not the appropropriate place. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 2 September 2024 review of submission by ABastol

[edit]

I would like to publish good article in Wikipedia, for that I need advice to write a good article ABastol (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Please see Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is not the only or even best way one can contribute. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Wikirobag

[edit]

Hi, I've made modification in order my draft to fit wikipedia's recommendations but I did not get updates on this, would you mind letting me know if this draft can be updated ? Thanks a lot! Wikirobag (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikirobag: I'm not sure what you mean by "updates", but just to say that you haven't resubmitted this draft since your edits, therefore it isn't in the pending pool awaiting another review. If you would like it to be reviewed again, you need to click on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 2 September 2024 review of submission by AyanPlush

[edit]

I have to make this page because I have to spread awareness to other people about doxxing or mocking religions that someone follows AyanPlush (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AyanPlush: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AyanPlush: That is not what Wikipedia is for. And we can't use Wikitubia as a source (no editorial oversight) - especially not for biographical claims - even if it were all properly sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then how do people make things huh. just randomly type in some basic knowledge and gets approved while I am working so hard and get rejected. There are people who work hard. Just approve it AyanPlush (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wise words... good job motivating me AyanPlush (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, there are places to do what it is you are trying to do, Wikipedia isn't one of them. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ill try to do my best. For now on. I'll be using Wikitubia or Wikipedia AyanPlush (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 41.223.73.224

[edit]

How can I make my article accepted 41.223.73.224 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero usable sources. This is not acceptable for any article, let alone one on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 41.223.73.177

[edit]

My article was rejected 41.223.73.177 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, because there isn't the slight suggestion of, let alone evidence for, notability of any flavour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't start a new thread with each question or comment, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to write an article without first finding several high-quality sources is like starting to build a house without first surveying the plot to check that it is suitable to build on: it will quite possibly fall down, and all your work will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:85FD:8100:7D21:1545:5AFE:8A51

[edit]

in my opinion, my article was good, i used a known wikipipedia article, to be sure that the lay-out was correct, enough references, an biografy, career , so i don't know what else i can do that my article would be accepted 2A02:A03F:85FD:8100:7D21:1545:5AFE:8A51 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no evidence that they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR? Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rat World is basically a one person operation run by Jennifer Cheuk, with help of a designer/business helper. Although the article says a few nice things about Wills, it is not a reliable source and it is not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first reference is to a promotional show business page that she controls. That is not an independendent source. Your second reference is to a YouTube video clip, which is not a reliable source, not independent of Wills and not significant coverage of Wills. What is required here are references to multiple reliable sourced that are fully independent of Wills and devote significant coverage to Wills. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in five episodes of a soap opera with over 7,900 episodes is not a major role. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:32, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122

[edit]

Thank you for your feedback regarding the submission of the Wikipedia article for Randal Wells. I appreciate the guidelines provided on the notability of music-related topics, and I would like to respectfully request reconsideration of this submission based on additional context and references.

Notability and Significant Coverage:

BMI Recognition: Randal Wells, formerly known as Random Wright, was recognized by Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), a major American music rights organization, as a "Know Them Now" artist. This designation is not merely a passing mention but a significant recognition of emerging talent in the music industry. BMI's acknowledgment of Randal Wells positions him among artists who are considered influential in shaping contemporary music.

MTV's Making the Band 4: Randal Wells' participation in MTV’s Making the Band 4 provided him with national exposure and led to his transition from local to national recognition. The show, produced by Sean Combs (P. Diddy), was a significant platform that launched the careers of several artists who are now notable figures in the music industry. Wells' inclusion in this show underscores his relevance and notability within the entertainment industry.

Legislative Impact in Florida: Randal Wells’ work as the President of Florida's State Youth Advisory Board led to the successful lobbying for the "Road to Independence Act," which extended benefits for foster youth. This legislative achievement is documented in Florida's legislative archives and recognized by various child welfare organizations. This work highlights his impact beyond the music industry and his significant role in advocacy.

Media Coverage: Randal Wells has been featured in multiple reputable media outlets:

FOX LA's Community Champions: Wells was honored for his contributions to foster care advocacy and his work in the entertainment industry. The recognition from a major news outlet like FOX LA provides significant coverage of his impact.

ThisIsRnB and Singersroom: Both platforms have featured in-depth articles on Wells, discussing his music and his journey. These articles provide more than just passing mentions, offering detailed coverage of his career and influence. Recording Academy and Grammy Awards: Randal Wells, under his former name Random Wright, has been featured by the Recording Academy and has appeared at the Grammy Awards, with his image being captured and distributed by Getty Images. His connection with the Recording Academy, combined with his Grammy appearance, further cements his notability within the music industry.

Request for Consideration: Given the significant recognition by BMI, national exposure through MTV, impactful advocacy work documented by the state of Florida, and detailed media coverage in reputable sources, I believe that Randal Wells meets the criteria for notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. I have provided reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and demonstrate substantial coverage of his achievements.

I kindly request that the submission be reconsidered with the above context in mind. Randal Wells' contributions to both music and foster care advocacy are notable, and his story is one of resilience, creativity, and impact. His inclusion in Wikipedia would provide valuable information to those seeking to learn about artists and advocates who have significantly influenced their fields.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Randal Wells 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Attempting to write an autobiography is strongly discouraged and almost never successful. Your draft is highly self-promotional and your post here is highly self-promotional. Promotion, advertising, marketing, public relations and all similar behaviors are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please post this content on social media platforms, not on this encyclopedia, because the neutral point of view is a core content policy here. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had the article edited by a 3rd party as to not indicate bias. If someone says they have passed legislation, appeared on film and television, musical works are being played on television, and released multiple musical projects, I'm not understanding how that does not qualify as reputable or self promotion. It just seems like bias to not publish. 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone working under your direction is tantamount to you doing the edits yourself. I will look at your sources shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The only sources that do anything are related to the KITS awards, and even then they're so lacking they're effectively useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You write I have had the article edited by a 3rd party as to not indicate bias and yet your draft still contains overtly promotional language like Born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Wells overcame a tumultuous childhood in the foster care system to become a recognized artist and passionate community activist and His persistence paid off and Wells found solace in music, writing, and singing as a way to escape the difficulties of his reality and His persistence paid off and which was well-received and highlighted his journey through the music industry and fueled his passion for advocacy and he played a pivotal part in lobbying for and passing a law. If reliable, independent sources discuss your tumultuous childhood and your passion and your persistence and your solace and the difficulties of your reality and your persistence paying off and that your music was well received and that you are on a journey through the music industry and that you played a pivotal part in passing legislation, then why aren't there references to reliable sources saying all those things in the draft? Otherwise, it comes off as if you are trying to tell your life story in this encyclopedia, and that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That is the purpose of social media instead. So, your 3rd party seems unable to detect self-promotional content that experienced Wikipedia editors can detect in one minute. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Mickfir

[edit]

The draft for this page has been repeatedly denied due to "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions)" - This is an independent film - the references in the draft include 2 links to independent news articles. All other references rely primarily on IMDB pages. There are references that make use of the film's official website, however these are almost always supported by IMDB links too. Other than IMDB and independent news articles, I fail to see what else can validate this film's existence. I fear the reviewer who has denied this draft has not taken the time to accurately read through the supplied sources. Mickfir (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mickfir: We can't use IMDb (no editorial oversight). Your other sources are the production studio (useless for notability: connexion to subject) and two non-sequiturs. You have no in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-film news/review sources that discuss the film at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so you don't have anything to base an article off of. A plot synopsis is not an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will adding more independent news articles that explicitly mention the film help? Or will they too be ignored (as the current two have so far) ? 203.214.60.17 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions will not work. They need to discuss the film at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the claim IMDB references are unacceptable - is dubious. For example, the 4th reference on Avengers Endgame is and IMDB citation.
Avengers: Endgame#References Mickfir (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that reference is to the IMDb-owned Box Office Mojo, as should be obvious by actually looking at the link. Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source for box office receipts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mickfir, notable films have almost always been extensively reviewed by professional film critics and those reviews have been published in newspapers and magazines that routinely run movie reviews. This film came out only three weeks ago. Perhaps it is too soon at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- Like its parent company IMDB, Box office mojo, by its own admission, gets its data from " film studios, distributors, sales agents" (https://help.imdb.com/article/imdbpro/industry-research/box-office-mojo-by-imdbpro-faq/GCWTV4MQKGWRAUAP?ref_=mojo_ftr_help#) - All of which have a vested interest in the films promotion and maximizing its profits. An objection to the above draft was due to the film's production studio being cited. If studio/ (other conflict of interest parties) sources are unacceptable, this should also apply to box office mojo.
-- The claim that three of Fiji's largest domestic news organizations are "not independent" "have no editorial oversight nor fact checking" seems at best somewhat ethnocentric in judgement. It seems the lack of 'western' sources is the real issue here.
As for the "at length" point, the three sources constitute almost 500 words dedicated to the film as well as a full nationally broadcast TV segment.
Nationally broadcast TV segment (later clipped for youtube. The link cannot be sent here - Video title " FIJI ONE NEWS 130824 at 13:26 timecode" on the Fiji One News Channel.
Fiji Television was founded on the 15th of June, 1994 as the first permanent commercial television broadcasting network in Fiji.
https://fijilive.com/film-industry-development-prioritised-in-ndp/
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Hon. Professor Biman Prasad highlighted this at the premiere launch of a locally shot and produced movie "Langha Phobia" themed "Trust and respect in a marriage" at Life Cinema in Nakasi. Professor Prasad acknowledged the Director, Producer and the entire cast and crew for the collective efforts, dedication, and hard work for bringing the vison to life. "Interestingly, every movie by Mr. Vimal Reddy has an authentic Fijian flavour with strong social messages that resonate with the local audience, culture and breaking barriers in society" Professor Prasad said.
https://www.fijitimes.com.fj/training-locals-a-priority-prof-prasad/
Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad (left) at the launch of a locally-shot and produced movie, Langha Phobia at Nakasi's Life Cinema last Friday. Picture: FIJI GOVERNMENT Prof Prasad said at the launch of a locally-shot and produced movie Langha Phobia at Nakasi’s Life Cinema last Friday, that Fiji was becoming a preferred production location in the world.
https://www.pressreader.com/fiji/the-fiji-times/20240805/281930253259948
The Fiji Times By ELENA VUCUKULA 5 Aug 2024
NADROGA born and Australia-based film director Vimal Reddy is back with another locally produced movie Langha Phobia which will be screening at the Life Cinema in Nadi on August 12. It is Reddy's fourth movie after Adhura Sapna, Ghar Pardes and Highway to Suva. A former high school teacher and accountant, Mr Reddy said the movie had an interesting concept. The theme of the movie is about trust and respect in a marriage and what one should be doing to make sure that your marriage is success- full," he said. "The main thing about this movie is that all cast members are local. "Either they are former Fijian residents or cur- rently living in Fiji. (We hope that the audiences would love to see this movie in Fiji. "It's a very good entertainment and two hours of fun, emotions and drama." Mr Reddy said the messages in the movie revolved around issues of depression and mental illness. "How we can avoid this by talking to people and discussing your problems rather than staying quiet. (So, there are a lot of good messages in the movie. "But at the same time the movie is made for entertainment.) Mr Reddy said all his movies were based on Fiji stories and about migrants from Fiji. "This is my fourth movie, my first movie was released in 2007 which is Adhura Sapna, and then Ghar Pardes, Highway to Suva and now Langha Phobia. So, we do some movie shooting in Fiji and some in overseas. "Adhura Sapna and Highway to Suva was basically shot in Fiji." He said after the special screening of Langha Pho- bia on August 12, the movie will be released in all cinemas in Fiji on September 12. The world premiere of Langha Phobia will be held at the Life Cinema in Nakasi on August 9 which will be officiated by the Minister of Finance Pro- fessor Biman Prasad Mickfir (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about either Fijian news source having no editorial oversight. What I said was that both sources were non-sequiturs - as in, they don't even mention, let alone discuss, Langha Phobia. And Box Office Mojo has been discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and deemed reliable solely for box office figures. Your argument on that is akin to saying we should deprecate The A.V. Club simply because it's owned and operated by an entity we wouldn't consider reliable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

[edit]

00:51, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48

[edit]

it is from the producer's twitter so how is it unreliable? 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the decline reason to be a bit misleading and I understand your confusion. It is perfectly fine to cite the producer's tweets for his working process of the song/his opinions/etc, but it wouldn't be reliable for claims that involve third parties. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more info.
However, your draft still needs independent sources. The producer's own tweets are not independent from the song, and only represents the creator's point of view. See WP:42 for more info. Ca talk to me! 01:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the notability guideline for songs. You must show that this song meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:44, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Hollyshi

[edit]

Based on my current draft, I wonder how I can ensure that the content I draft for a Wikipedia page adheres to academic citation standards, particularly in verifying claims and using reliable sources. Many thanks. Hollyshi (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollyshi: okay, the good news is, this person is almost certainly notable, with a named chair at Columbia, h-index of 70+, etc.
The bad news is, some of the information is inadequately referenced, including the claim of the named chair, which is only backed up by his own CV. (I can provide a list of problems with the referencing, if you'd like, or you can wait for the next reviewer's feedback.)
Moreover, the article is written in a promotional tone, and with oddly non-enyclopaedic expressions throughout. I give just one example:

Morris was born in New York City in 1964 to a family with origins in western Ireland. They later moved “upstate” to the Catskill mountains, near the site of the Woodstock festival. The swirl of subcultures there piqued interests in cultural worldviews. He and his partners at the local public high school were surprise winners of the state debate championships.

I would recommend tigheting up the language and making it more factual and neutral.
Finally, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Yves Martin des Taillades

[edit]

Hi, I would like to know how to edit this article so that it fits Wikipedia's requirements. I think that many people would like to read about Silvi on Wikipedia. Thanks! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yves Martin des Taillades: I assume you know the history of Draft:Silvi Rouskin, since this has been created under a slightly different spelling although the draft and the sources all refer to her as 'Silvi'?
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, these two pages are referring to the same person.
The reasons of the rejection are unclear to me. Could you tell me what's missing? Silvi is a famous professor, most of them have a wikipedia page so that people can know what are their key contributions.
Thanks for your work! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add more references to the article if that's any helpful. If it's just that Silvi isn't famous enough (yet?), we can just wait for her to get a few more awards to re-submit the article? I'll appreciate any sort of guidance on this. Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yves Martin des Taillades: the reason for the rejection (and I'm speculating here, as I wasn't the one who rejected this) was that this has been created at this and other title(s) before, involving various problems with paid editing etc., so the reviewer perhaps felt it wasn't necessary to give this the usual multiple reviews before pulling the plug.
There is no evidence of notability in the draft, not of WP:GNG type, and not WP:NACADEMIC either. I think you need to pass on the message to your friend to forget about having a Wikipedi article for a while, at least until she achieves solid notability (such as a named chair, or membership in a highly selective professional body; awards don't really do the trick, unless they are significant enough to be notable in their own right, and even then it's questionable). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing for the detailed feedback! That's really insightful. I'll pass the message to Silvi. Have a nice day! Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Salimkanbour

[edit]

Hello, my page gets rejected every time, how to solve this issue?

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. Salimkanbour (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimkanbour There are, in addition, sections without any referencing. We require citations for facts you state. The tone is of a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia article. We require flat, neutral, "dull-but-worthy" prose. My advice is to cut, cut, and cut again. Lose anything where you have no reference 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 146.255.74.38

[edit]

Is a list of publications considered relevant for an article about an organisation? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, Wikipedia articles should not be seen as comprehensive logs of a person or organisation's output and other doings; so on that basis, I would say probably not relevant. If you do intend to include some, keep it to the most noteworthy items only, and even then it would be good to see some context, not just a list for its own sake. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined because it needs a comprehensive rewrite to lose the magazine style phraseology. I have said so in my decline 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to reveal which of the sources are consider unreliable or dependent? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't start a new thread, just add to the exiting one.)
It's not necessarily the case that any particular source is unreliable. It's more (as I see it, at any rate) a case of there being a lot of unreferenced narrative, which suggests a source other than an independent third party. An example:

The historical context of the views of the ACC was the ever closer and wider European political cooperation, particularly as this process condensed in EU institutions and in the continuous EU enlargements in the decades after the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Whose view does this represent? When the source isn't cited, it becomes Wikipedia's view, which isn't appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, very helpful. I was (at least I) was looking in a complete different direction to try and figure out what was the problem of this article. 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, very helpful 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sampaul1710

[edit]

how to get it approved Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampaul1710: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why is it rejected? all the information is true and given with citations Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said the information is not true. Much of the draft is unsourced and it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article that neutrally summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about her, showing how she is a notable actress as Wikipedia defines it. The awards described do not contribute to notability as they do not have articles themselves(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award). 331dot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Root Equus

[edit]

I need help in identifying which parts of the article need citing. Thank you. Root Equus (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Root Equus: see WP:MINREF. Basically, whenever a reader might challenge or even wonder if something is really true, or what source a statement is based on, there should be the source cited next to it. This is especially important in articles on living people (WP:BLP). Also, all private personal and family details, such as DOB, must be clearly supported by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sarajmartin24

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for reviewing our submission. We understand that the article was declined due to the following reasons:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." "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." We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have made further adjustments to the article to ensure it is written in a neutral and academic tone. We have also ensured that the references used are from external, reputable sources such as Forbes, Cinco Días, Bolsamanía, FUNDS PEOPLE, Invertia, and Corresponsables—all of which are well-established and reliable media outlets that have covered the event in depth.

We are unsure what additional steps are required to meet the criteria for reliable sources, as the current references are from recognized and reputable media organizations that provide independent coverage of the event. Could you please provide us with more specific guidance on why these sources are not considered adequate?

We would greatly appreciate more detailed feedback on how we can further improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Sarajmartin24 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarajmartin24: this draft has a dozen paragraphs of content, only three of which are referenced – where is the rest of the information coming from? And, not to put too fine a point on it, how do we know any of it is true? That's why referencing is required, so that the information can be verified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wp.ramesh wiki

[edit]

Hi can anyone tell me Which changes actually done in this page. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wp.ramesh wiki: did you read the decline notice and the accompanying comments? You need to cite sources (that actually work) which show that the subject is notable, either per the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also need to disclose your conflict of interest regarding this film (the same way as you've already done on your talk page regarding another subject). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

[edit]

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

[edit]

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@清风与明月: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it?" Other users can edit this draft, not just you, if that's what you meant.
But if, as you say, adequate sources don't exist, then this film is probably not notable enough for the draft to be accepted. Regardless of who edits it, and how "capable" they are; it's not possible to magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that maybe other people will see it and become interested and continue to edit and improve this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@清风与明月: yes, that is a possibility, at least in theory, because drafts are publicly available on the internet. In practice, however, very few people will come across a draft, since it doesn't show up in any searches (within or without Wikipedia), isn't linked to from other articles, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but there's enough people who treat their draft as a sacred cow that we're generally unwilling to edit another's draft. It's not worth torquing off the draft author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want others to work on it, to pass this process you need to demonstrate notability, even if the article is not 100% complete. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013

[edit]

I can't submit the draft for review, because the catch comes again after its entered. Can anybody help? 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could submit this for you, but then I'd have to decline it for lack of notability, so there seems little point.
We need to see significant coverage of this organisation, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. At the moment this draft cites at most one such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of programmes English Series (Malaysian premiere) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wynnsantiy: it won't be automatically deleted for six months, but I can't guarantee that no one will request deletion earlier.
Was it you who created all those drafts on the Malaysian premieres of various US television shows, which I rejected? They were largely copied from the main articles on the respective shows, with only the Malaysian broadcast information added. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I for one don't see the need for such articles, otherwise we could potentially end up on 200 variations on the theme for every TV show that has ever been shown internationally. If you wish to add the Malaysian broadcast details to the main article, that might still not be a very good idea, but it would be better at least.
I also don't see why we would need a list like this, of who shows what on Malaysian TV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide, or a repository of indiscriminate information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot Saranghaeyo On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. And please don't post a new thread for every one of those TV show articles I mentioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 3 September 2024 review of submission by DzHaruna

[edit]

The article rejected and I want help on how I can improve it to be accepted according to Wikipedia standards DzHaruna (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected" means that the reviewer believes that this cannot be made into an acceptable article, usually because adequate sources simply do not exist to estabish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you beieve that you have several sources which are all three of reliable (eg not social media), independent (not written, published, or commissioned by Gusau or his associates, and not based on his words) and contain significant coverage of him (not just a passing mention), then you should approach the rejecting reviewr SafariScribe. But I advise you not to bother them unless you are 100% sure that you have adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Look at all your sources critically according to WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 3 September 2024 review of submission by OldPolandUpdates

[edit]

Several Wikipedia articles exist for Polish cathedrals of this size and age. Can you help me understand what makes this one insignificant? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OldPolandUpdates: we don't assess drafts on the basis of whether articles exist on comparable topics. A draft has to stand on its own two legs, meeting all relevant policies and guidelines. This one was first declined twice for insufficient referencing, and then a further three times for lack of evidence of notability, before being finally rejected. That's not saying the subject is "insignificant", just that the sources cited don't justify its inclusion in the encyclopaedia. That's my reading of it, at least; I'm pinging the rejecting reviewer Courtesy ping: SafariScribe in case they have anything more to add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. I worded my original question in that way because the article rejection stated, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." So, the subject was indeed considered to be not notable.
The core references establishing the existence and features of this cathedral are all academic or from literature. My NYT source was deemed to be a passing reference, but I have kept it in because it mostly describes an aspect of the history of the cathedral and is not used to fundamentally establish the existence of the cathedral. Should I remove that source and the corresponding history?
For this draft, I also used relevant sources that appear on other published cathedral articles ("Die polnischen Kathedralen"). Does the rejection of this article have implications for all articles that use that particular source?
I am new to this process, so I heavily appreciate any response. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldPolandUpdates: apologies, I will try to explain better, without using unnecessary jargon.
'Notability' in the Wikipedia context means 'worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia' (my words, but more or less accurate). Given that Wikipedia's role is to summarise what reliable sources have previously published about a subject, it follows that if such sources don't exist, or they aren't enough to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, then it isn't possible to publish an article on the subject.
There are some exceptions to WP:GNG. The one applicable to buildings is WP:NGEO for geographical features, which among other things contains the provision WP:GEOFEAT whereby buildings covered by official heritage protection/registration are automatically assumed notable. Might this apply to the cathedral in question, do you know?
Aside from all that, I actually think, for what it's worth, that a cathedral is likely to be more or less inherently notable, for its status in the hierarchy of religious buildings, not to mention its historical status as an obvious focal point of urban society, cityscape, etc. For that reason, I probably wouldn't have rejected this draft myself, even if I might have declined it for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Snrizvi

[edit]

I re-submitted with recommended edits and updates. have not heard back. Snrizvi (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snrizvi: this draft has only been submitted once. It was declined shortly afterwards, following which you have made a couple of edits, but have not resubmitted it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I clicked "resubmit" button under the first objection light blue wondow. Should I resubmit as fresh new article ? Please guide. Snrizvi (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi Just press the blue Resubmit button and wait while the system does it. The waiting is important. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi: The content of this draft falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). This reads more like a research essay than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand " contentious" and "research essay". This topic is been a current issue and have effected 7% population of Pakistan. Political party representing these 7% people of Pakistan has been talking about it. This party is being mentioned in Wikipedia. I have linked it. When you say "research" what do you mean by it ? How it can be wikipedia article? Earlier other gentleman mentioned "tone" and "independant" references. I have made it totally neutral with realiable academc refernces to support the content. What's stopping it to get published. Do not understand Snrizvi (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should consist of neutrally-written summaries of what reliable sources say. It should not contain any argumentation or conclusions, with the possible exception of summaries of arguments and conclusions wholly contained within one of the sources. (It could contain several of these, but should not contain any kind of synthesis or comparison between the sources). ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 3 :CTOP|September 2024 (UTC)
The draft reads like an essay, not like an encyclopedia article. I had to read several paragraphs into it to even begin to understand what "Matruka Sindh" even means. An encyclopedia article identifies and describes the topic from the first sentence without a meandering lead-in. As for a contentious topic, that applies to all coverage on Wikipedia of the ongoing and historical conflicts between India and Pakistan. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Ailintom

[edit]

Dear community. Many thanks for the feedback. I was tempted to think that the topic of the article meets criterion 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: the person was elected full professor (distinguished professorships and named chairs are not common in Germany) at a major German research university (U15 member), as confirmed by a university webpage referenced in the draft in question, and being the only professor of Egyptology in Mainz the person is thus considered a chair of Egyptology (Lehrstuhlinhaber in German). Does this not qualify for criterion 5? Ailintom (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ailintom I agree. Accepted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Davetheirishguy

[edit]

I do not understand how a wholly subjective understanding of what constitutes "signifigant" mentioning allows someone to simply delete a submission, I am an experienced veteran journalist, these citations are from purely editorial, journalistic content published by legitimate, respected 3rd party outlets. Where or who do I seek for recourse? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davetheirishguy: If you're here to relitigate the Articles for Deletion discussion then WP:Deletion review is that-a-way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: As to your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Of the sources I can assess, one is borderline and the rest are useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely clear what makes this person notable in Wikipedia terms? Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the 3 articles you can't access are actually the ones that contain the actual journalism. question - is there a simple way to post unwalled versions? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704204304574543462129137096?st=fbpdwtr9aa7b9lv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is still walled, and my comment about it being unlikely to be about Hogg stands given the headline. But I will note that if those three sources are "the ones that contain the actual journalism" then we have a more significant problem here with source assessment, given how much chaff there is relative to the potential wheat. Again, pretty much every source I could assess was unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. Paywalled sources are acceptable, and it is conceivable that those three will clinch notability for Hogg. Jeske (who was not the reviewer who declined it) is giving you his estimation of your sources, without going in to look at those.
But now that you have posted an open link to it, I can see that, as Jeske suspected, it does not contain in-depth discussion of Hogg. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, now that I have a more clearer understanding of what is meant by notability I will try to source additonal info that is appropriate for usage here. I knoe it exists, I just have to put the time/effort to locate it then rewrite the entry and resubmit. Question: how long until it is "permanently" deleted? Davetheirishguy (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: Drafts are deleted as abandoned six months from the last edit made to the draft, regardless of who made the edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this so I'm using this to teach myself these ways. Davetheirishguy (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is "permanently deleted" here; even if the draft is deleted, it can be recovered via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Adipratamaa25

[edit]

because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adipratamaa25: That means it needs to be rewritten from scratch without plagiarising content from elsewhere on the web. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you rewrite it without getting a violation Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

[edit]

01:43, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

[edit]

Why can't it be published? What are the requirements for passing the review? Also what do I need to do? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Chettri Sikkim, this draft appears to be an autobiography. Please be aware that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and self-promotion is not permitted. Your references are to articles that you have written which are of zero value in establishing notability. Otherwise, every aspiring journalist who has had half a dozen articles published would be notable, which is ridiculous. What would be required are multiple references to reliable sources completely independent of you that devote significant coverage to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

[edit]

I have made changes, and changed the article to a neutral point of view. upon submitting and reviewing, the changes were not made. the changes I took time to do, did not register when I clicked resubmit. what to do? Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

[edit]

The reason I was rejected is that this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. So what do I need to do next? How can I pass the review? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do at this point rejection is the end of the road for a draft. You were deemed not to meet the criteria for inclusion to a global encyclopedia on notable topics. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it meet the standard? Some of the content included in Wikipedia is very ordinary, but it is included. Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen answered it above and three editors answered in the reviews of the draft. Wikipedia goes by WP:NOTABILITY and you have provided no sources that indicate that the subject of this article (presumably you) passes either the general notability guideline WP:GNG or the more specific one WP:AUTHOR. Just having published articles does not establish notability, and even if it did, there are serious questions about the sources; the first one is a letter to editor, the last one appears to be your blog, and I'm unconvinced that Storify has a reputation as being a verifiable, reliable source (and at least two of them Storify has a disclaimer about their involvement). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do I need to provide more proof to flesh out my content? Also, if Storify cannot be used as proof. but I also use Sikkim Express as proof in my content? are both media outlets not allowed to serve as proof? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing that you can do is go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist and abandon this effort. Almost all people who attempt to write about themselves on Wikipedia do not succeed. This is why it is highly discouraged(though not absolutely forbidden), see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article by you can not be used to support your claim to notability, so it's not a usable source. For there to be an article about you, there must be independent, reliable sources, writing about you in detail. Not things written by you or passing mentions of your name. To have an article about you on Wikipedia, your best course of action is to continue to advance in your career, and should you become notable enough, sure someone will eventually write an article about you. Publicizing your work in your growing career is suitable for social media, not for here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:49, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

[edit]

how can I have the biography be approved. I have changed it to a neutral point of view, I have added reliable sources. I just do not get why it can't be submitted? 

Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every sentence is peppered with fawning praise.
"esteemed incumbent Governor of Camarines"
"where his leadership was marked by notable achievements and accolades"
"Governor Padilla remains steadfast in his commitment to effecting positive change"
"He is a father of three wonderful kids and a loving husband"
That's just a very small sample, and all inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. now I get it. Thanks. I will rephrase everything and recreate it. Bulawan Museo (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

my draft received following revert:- This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. 

 Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where and how to put a subject that qualifies for a Wikipedia article Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 4 September 2024 review of submission by CreativeWikiWorks

[edit]

Please have a look if every sufficient for submission. Thank you CreativeWikiWorks (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 4 September 2024 review of submission by SwimmersSocial

[edit]

Hi i have just used the assistance of AI to finish and clean up the page but i have also spoken to the Jon (the perosn its about) and he has given statements and said it is all good and all correct 

SwimmersSocial (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate and all entirely unsourced. Please disclose your conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SwimmersSocial: with all due respect, whether 'Jon' approves of what you've written doesn't matter; we need to see everything clearly supported by reliable and independent published sources. In fact, the entire draft should consist of a summary of such sources' coverage of this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

What is the current status of my page draft. Is there anything else that I have to do Adwivedi78 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The status is indicated at the top of the draft; it was declined. Please read that message, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

How get my draft article approved 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

[edit]

Draft declined citing "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference" 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from starting a new entry for each question. That's four you've opened up in the space fo a few hours.
To answer your questions, no, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. To get your draft article approved, as you were told by the reviewer, you have to demonstrate notability (WP:N) using reliable sources (WP:RS) that cover the subject in detail. The Wikipedia sources are inappropriate and several other sources do not appear to be published by an author working under serious editorial oversight. Most of the remaining sources only briefly mention the subject and do not cover the subject in detail. You should trim the article to only include the sources that appear useful under WP:RS and the article to only things covered by those sources. There's quite a bit that appears to be your opinion, or at least unsourced opinion, such as "highly appreciated," "very important role," and "very promising." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by B.MorganUK

[edit]

I believe there may have been a misunderstanding or oversight in your decision to decline my article.

1 - My article has 20 references properly cited using Wikipedia's visual editor. These 20 resources are independent, non-commercial, and published resources.

2 - While I appreciate your input, I believe that "Remittances to Pakistan", just like existing similar Wikipedia pages such as Remittances to Nepal, Remittances to Bangladesh, Remittances to India, etc., warrant a standalone article for several reasons:

Scope and Depth: Remittances are a significant economic driver for Pakistan, constituting a substantial portion of its GDP. Given the topic's importance and complexity, a dedicated article can provide a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Clarity and Organization: A standalone article allows for a clearer and more organized presentation of the topic. It can delve into specific aspects of remittance flows, such as sources, recipients, and their impact on various sectors of the Pakistani economy.

Accessibility and Relevance: A dedicated article on remittances makes it easier for readers interested in this particular subject to find the information they need. It also enhances the relevance of Pakistan's economic data and analysis within the broader context of global remittance flows.

Given the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to reconsider my article for publication as a separate Wikipedia article. I will continue to enhance its content and scope over time. Thank you! B.MorganUK (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.MorganUK: I don't think there was any misunderstanding, at least not on the reviewer's part. There are several paragraphs entirely without any referencing - where is all that info coming from? And note that MRC Pakistan and Statista are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for highlighting exactly what issue caused that decision. I considered the highlighted resources as official and authoritative. Also, I didn't exactly know that we have to cite references for each and every passage. I'll improve my article accordingly and resubmit it for publishing today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@B.MorganUK: strictly speaking, you don't have to support every single statement with a reference. You do, however, have to support every statement that someone might challenge or question, and given that you cannot predict what someone might challenge, in reality everything (beyond self-evident 'sky is blue' type statements) must be referenced. Also, everything you say should come from a reliable source, so why not tell us what that source is; what's the harm in that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I agree 100% - that's understandable and logical. I'll ensure this all in my next edit today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 2seriouslyblah

[edit]

I have rewritten this article a couple of times but the draft still hasn't been approved. I'm not sure how I can edit the text to have a more neutral point of view as I have already rewritten it and added more citations and took out any language that could sound even remotely close to not neutral. Any help/edits are welcome and appreciated! 2seriouslyblah (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2seriouslyblah: you don't happen to work in marketing, by any chance, do you? ;) (No, don't answer that.)
This draft still has a lot of hyperbole, such as "dedicated", "fundamental linkages", etc., as well as just corporate jargon like "WFD operates under a set of guiding principles, emphasizing the importance of innovative design, accessibility, scalability, data-driven insights, strategic collaborations, and user feedback to enhance digital health solutions." That may all be factually true and correct, but it needs to be said in a more factual manner. Aim for 'dry to the point of boring', rather than 'buzzword bingo'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2seriouslyblah, your draft reads much more like marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Consider this wording: Utilizing digital technologies, WFD strives to disseminate comprehensible information and connect individuals with pertinent resources is just wordy blather that seems to mean that they have some computers and a website. Write concisely, directly and neutrally, eliminating any trace of promotional content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jack Tarre

[edit]

I'm seeking help moving this article to the Article space. I'm a new, first time writer for Wiki. I penned this piece in March of this year and have done extensive editing to remove any extraneous info and to tighten up the references. It was rejected yesterday and I can't see what needs to be done at this point. Thank you in advance! JT Jack Tarre (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Tarre: this draft has been declined, and you wish to override that and publish it regardless? While that is indeed your right, given that your account is autoconfirmed, it's not necessarily advisable. We don't decline drafts for the fun of it, there is invariably a justification. And just because you don't see what needs improving seems to me like a poor reason to go against the reviewers' feedback. But if you wish to move this into the main article space, that is your prerogative: you do that from 'Tools' menu > 'Move', and then in the dialog box that opens, changing the name space from Draft to (Article) and saving it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that bypassing the review process means you accept any consequences that arise as a result of that, including deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely reply. I'm not interested in ignoring and overriding the standard Wiki process of approval. I would like to follow the rules and get the best, most accurate article published. At this point it seems to be the sources that are the sticking point. My thinking here is to remove all the sources except the two newspapers, the one TV news program, and the online news/entertainment zine.
Your thoughts on this, please? Suggestions greatly appreciated! Jack Tarre (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
While that is probably not what you want to hear, my experience is that when a new editor plunges straight into trying to create an article, they usually have a frustrating time, partly because they can't understand the feedback they are getting.
If you had just taken up tennis, would you enter a major competition? And if you did, and experts told you why you were not being successful, would you expect to understand their explanation? ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:38, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Emmatrax

[edit]

you have rejected my article saying it is in an essay format so can i get the article format 

Emmatrax (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: Maybe you're talking about a different draft? The sandbox was declined as having no content what-so-ever (i.e. blank). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: As I mentioned at your user talk page, your draft appears to be original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Twentyone1111

[edit]

Hi, I used credible sources and corroborated the information where possible. Please assist. Thanks Twentyone1111 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twentyone1111: you may have used some credible sources, but you also have numerous citations of Instagram, which is emphatically not a reliable source, as well as of Amazon, which is a retailer and not arguably a source at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Would it be better to reference the book and the book catalogue number where the information is from, instead of putting the bookstore link? it makes sense. Twentyone1111 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twentyone1111: The books you have mostly cited are two self-published works by closely related authors (Liliane Arnault Berkely and Marie Arnault Berkely). These books are not reliable sources. The draft you have created purports to be about a "Queen of the Royal Wright Family", but there is insufficient context to understand who the Royal Wright Family is. Further investigation shows that there is a John Roper Wright who was created a baronet in 1920. This baronetcy passed to Wright's son William Charles, but then became extinct with William Charles' death. The draft also claims that Dillys is descended from Dinuzulu, the last officially recognized monarch of the Zulu people. Presumably Dillys is now claiming his title, but Instagram and self-published books of questionable scholarship are insufficient sources for Wikipedia to publish such a claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 4 September 2024 review of submission by I have a great knowledge

[edit]

Can someone help me in like creating the introduction and taking out the contents from the references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I have a great knowledge: what do you mean by "taking out the contents from the references"? Are you asking us to summarise the sources for you? That's something you are expected to do, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
When you're citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice on this. And the ISBN number in the last source doesn't seem to work, so I couldn't access it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just straight-up Google the Number without the ISBN and the book will be there, and if you see the calculator, just scroll down until you see a website that has the name "Research Gate" and when you enter, it will say the name of the author and the publisher. However, its in Mizo. And by 'taking out the contents from the references', I meant writing what the sources say about them(the Lusei) I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I have a great knowledge: The onus is on you to do that, and for the record, this falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinental tribes and castes). Note that we cannot trust anything hosted on ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have a great knowledge (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 75.82.0.68

[edit]

Hello, my submission was declined by "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". I'm confused as to how publications like The Los Angeles Times are not reliable? 75.82.0.68 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is reliable, but that piece is an interview, meaning it is not an independent source- a person speaking about themselves. Interviews do not establish notability; they can be used for other purposes, but not that. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we do not judge a source solely by its outlet; we have to read the content of the source as well. And as 331dot says, an interview published in The Los Angeles Times is as useless for notability as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources - and all of those which are to establish notability - must meet all three criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

This is genuine article and the person we are trying to bring in front of the world is the spokesperson of 3rd national party of the biggest democratic country with 1.4 billion population. So please help us to get this done. Jeswanth2 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: this draft has been rejected, as it presents no evidence that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADVOCACY of any kind is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

[edit]

06:09, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Teleprostir

[edit]

Hi guys. Could someone help to fix some issues to approve this page? Teleprostir (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection with him? You took a picture of him at an awards ceremony, so you had access to him. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 5 September 2024 review of submission by CreativeWikiWorks

[edit]

Can some check my draft for approval, earlier it was checked immediately and rejected in speed of light.

Right now it is pending.

Appreciate your cooperation. Thank you CreativeWikiWorks (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. Asking for a review will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 5 September 2024 review of submission by 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:5029:199B:20D:1730

[edit]

I was helping my friend Orysia, write this Wikipedia page. This is my first time writing a page and I'm having trouble with the edits. Is there someone who can direct me in where I went wrong so I can submit it without the risk of it being deleted?

Thank you so much. Steph 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:5029:199B:20D:1730 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You should declare a conflict of interest on your user page(click the link for instructions). Being declined does not result in deletion.
Note that the awards you list in the draft will not contribute towards notability; awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Please read the decline message, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Entreprete

[edit]

I want to create wikipedia page for a organization to give information about it. But I keeps getting declined Entreprete (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Entreprete It is prohibited to promote an organisation on Wikipedia. This agency is not notable enough to merit an article, and the draft will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Entreprete That's because there isn't the slightest hint of notability, let alone any evidence of it. And at least the first draft was pure promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
What is your relationship with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You've crossed the border from mere promotion to spamming. Stop now, or expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 5 September 2024 review of submission by DotCoder

[edit]

Are there enough secondary sources? DotCoder (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DotCoder That is what your next review is for. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Hailneum

[edit]

Hi there,

I am requesting support in updating both the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks and International Neural Network Society pages.

I have two additional sources that I would like to include, but I am nervous about the pages being removed. https://cis.ieee.org/committees/history-committee/history/evolution https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4307059

Please advise on how I should proceed.

Thank you in advance for your support. Hailneum (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hailneum The sources you are offering are associated with the organization that puts on the conference. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about the conference, not what those putting it on say about it. If all you have is sources associated with the conference, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Bintyamin20248

[edit]

recommend me the actual template for this article as well as help me to improve this article to get approval. Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to be co-editors. If you want this draft to pass this process, you need to do the work and demonstrate that he is notable. Interviews do not establish notability, nor do awards that don't have articles themselves (like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understood. thank you Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recommend me the actual template for this article as well as help me to improve this article to get approval. i cite this person top newspaper interviews article as well as his organisation newspaper article about his social contribution where his name is mentioned. need to learn more from wikipedia experts for gettinf the approval. thank you 🙏 Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, interviews do not establish notability. We want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 5 September 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

[edit]

Hi Can someone please advise. I am working on this article, and I do believe this person is noteworthy of an article. this artist has had achievements, is pushing boundaries in an arena, or new artistic space. Has notable credits, articles written about them. . in layman's, has more "creds" than a lot of other articles written on artists in same arena. I believe a first article was removed due to not enough information, or references. the second was mine, which I rewrote to follow suit with Wikipedia format. the intent was not to have it look like an advertising, but contain a lot of "emotionally persuasive wording" so I listened to notes, and rewrote. please advise Jana JanaFerrume (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, something that you would not be aware of. You seem to have a connection to this topic, what is it? 331dot (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

[edit]

02:17, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Limmidy

[edit]

To be clear, this is not my article. I recently saw this get moved back into the draft space, resubmitted with no changes, then someone with 10 edits forced it back into the mainspace. This doesn't seem appropriate. Any ideas? Limmidy (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Limmidy: I agree, that move wasn't appropriate, the article looks a bit dodgy, and I reckon something's off with the account who moved it, too. But it's technically NPP's problem now. <switches hats> And with my NPP hat on, let me go deal with... DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:26, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 178.141.180.87

[edit]

Please, help me make my draft approved.

I am writing about a person that lives in Russia and whose scientific career was mostly in russia, so all of my sources are un Russian. Is that okay? What else should I reference to get an approval? Should I add links on the words in the text itself (as a citation) or just put everything in the reference list/ 178.141.180.87 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English; Russian sources are fine, as long as they're otherwise of sufficient standards in terms of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 202.166.196.35

[edit]

I am new to wikipedia and i want to make a new page for Gamvir Bista , who works from 2006 and active till date and very popular in NEPAL for his conceptual music video. So can you please help me to make new page 

202.166.196.35 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get involved in co-editing, if that's what you mean by "helping". We're happy to answer questions about the draft or the review process, if you have any? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Arpitam03

[edit]

Hello, this is regarding references. Would IMDB links constitute as good references? 

Arpitam03 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arpitam03: no, IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tendythexangsw

[edit]

Help me Tendythexangsw (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what help it is that you are seeking, but your draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. In looking at it, I agree.
If you work for this college, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

[edit]

For this Tromanale Event there are three independent reports by different authors in the citation. I do not exactly know which references is not ok. Tromaggot (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for review, so eventually, you will get feedback from a reviewer.
In the meantime, I suggest you carefully review each of your sources against the criteria in 42.
If a source does not contain significant coverage of Tromanale, probably remove it (it is just possible that the source will contribute a significant piece of information for the article, but if the only source of that information is a passing reference, ask yourself whether that information belongs in the article at all).
If a source is not independent of Tromanale, then only uncontroversial factual information may be cited from it - and again, consider whether the information in question is encyclopaedic.
If a source is not reliable, remove it.
Only if a source meets all three criteria will it contribute to establishing notability. The majority of sources you cite should meet these criteria. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1244315497"