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


May 14[edit]

01:35, 14 May 2024 review of submission by TeamChicas[edit]

I need help trying to get our draft submitted and not declined. TeamChicas (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeamChicas. Team accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your draft reads much more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeamChicas: If the username is shared, everyone using it needs to get a new account that unambiguously represents, and is used by, a single person. If it is not shared, the username needs to be changed to one that unambiguously represents a single person. (see WP:U).
As to the draft itself, we do not accept essays; if you are doing this as part of a class project, please contact your instructor and tell them to get in touch with WikiEd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published on a subject, nothing more. It should contain absolutely no argumentation or conclusion, except for summarising the argumentation or conclusions from a single source. (Even comparing arguments or conclusions from different sources is regarded as synthesis and forbidden). An article may say that different sources come to different conclusions, but it may not make any attempt to choose between them or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:57, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Yesiwant2no[edit]

Hi,

I created a wikipage for a friend and former coworker. It was originally rejected in January citing insufficient sources. I have since added several additional sources to show the work of the person profiled. Is there anything else I need to do to get this published?

Thanks! Paul Yesiwant2no (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesiwant2no: firstly, you clearly have a conflict of interest in writing about your friend. This needs to be disclosed. I've posted instructions on your talk page.
The subject appears to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC, but the draft cannot yet be accepted. The biggest problem with it is that most of the information is unreferenced. For privacy etc. reasons, articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.
IMO this would also benefit from some further editing. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles must be written in a precise and concise manner, using factual language and neutral point of view. I would remove all the family photos and the like, as well as removing everything that cannot be supported by a reliable source, as already mentioned.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Hello991[edit]

Can you hightlight the statements that dont have any reliable source? And which sources should be revised? Hello991 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello991. Vaste swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. It is easy to see. Paragraph after paragraph and dish after dish without a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Erin1313[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your assistance regarding an article I have been working on for Wikipedia. Despite my efforts, the article has been repeatedly declined due to concerns about notability and inadequate citations.

I am encountering difficulties in demonstrating this through the references and citations I have provided.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the following points: 

            1.Notability: Could you provide advice on how to better highlight the notability of the subject? Are there specific types of sources or particular aspects that I should focus on to strengthen the article's case for notability?
             2.Citations: I am unsure if I am using the appropriate sources and correctly formatting the citations. Could you suggest any reliable sources that are acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and perhaps provide examples of properly formatted citations?

If there are more suitable references or if there are any key sources I might have missed, your recommendations would be invaluable.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I am eager to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I look forward to your feedback and any suggestions you may have.

Best regards, Erin Simpson Erin1313 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erin1313: firstly, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Secondly, you do know that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, right?
That said, and FWIW, in answer to your questions:
  1. For notability, we need to see multiple sources meeting every aspect of the WP:GNG guideline.
  2. Yes, your citations are correctly formatted. There just aren't enough of them to properly support the contents.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your response! I was just wondering if I could still submit another entry to Wikipedia after gathering more extensive sources? Erin1313 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erin1313: if there is evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may ask that to be taken into account, in which case you should make your appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erin1313 Rejection typically means the end of the road for the topic. If something fundamentally changed about it, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. Remember, as DoubleGrazing said, ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Greg Cesear[edit]

There was a title error with the original submission. Original: Improvisation of the Shepherd's Chameleon; corrected to: Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon. One was declined to consider the other in review, however it looks like both have been deleted. Should I resubmit? Greg Cesear (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Cesear: not sure what you mean – what has been deleted? At least Draft:Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon is still there. And pending review, so doesn't need to be resubmitted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did make an edit which may help with the pending review (regarding a Wikipedia source reference). Greg Cesear (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Qcne[edit]

Would be useful to get second eyes on Draft:International_Journal_of_Science_Annals as I have not reviewed many drafts on journals. The WP:NJOURNALS essay is a little unclear, and the current references are all secondary database entries which I am not sure proves notability under criterion #1 and #2.

Also the author accused me of potential discrimination in my decline of this draft, so I just wanted to ensure I haven't made a gross error here. Qcne (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your comments and recommendations (Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)) and given a substantive response. My answers are based on your questions and supported by facts. There is nothing offensive or threatening about my response. My reply is written in strict official form. If you find my recommendation “not to discredit the work of other conscientious reviewers and editors on Wikipedia” a bad tone, then I have nothing more to say to you Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creating editor User:Yurii Melnyk is also an editor of the journal. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Education and Science, International Journal of Science Annals. There are no financial reward for Editors of the IJES, IJSA. These positions are purely voluntary. Absolutely all the contributions for Wikipedia I have made, or will make in the future, are made on a selfless basis and in accordance with the recommendations of Wikipedia. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits in Wikipedia. Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure of the notability, there are clear other issues with the current draft that justify a decline (MOS, references, Promo). As for the accusation, that's sadly not uncommon for PAID/COI editors. Nobody (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "may be considered discriminatory" remark hints at a legal threat, and I would advise the user not to go any further down that path. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yurii Melnyk Please let us just look at first principles. While I have not checked all the references, all those which I have checked show the simple fact that it exists, not that it has inherent notability. On the basis that

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

I would have pushed it back to you as lacking verifiable notability as presented for review. I think any discussion should be about the draft and what needs to be done assuming it can achieve acceptance. I suggest we leave any emotions at the door and deal with the work. Arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin uses energy that woudl be better deployed editing the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Shepreth[edit]

I don't know how to resolve your rejection. How do I find/add required citations Shepreth (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shepreth: the draft is entirely unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:V for an explanation of why this matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nenad_Vorih[edit]

Hello. I edited this text and cannot figure out why the references present so weird. I would also like any feedback on the text/format/etc prior to resubmitting. I appreciate whoever takes the time to take a look and reply :) Thanks so much! MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MorriconeEnnio please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE with care 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks:) I read both pages carefully and made changes. I am curious as to whether you feel there is a verifiability issue with any of the text or references. I included multiple sources for most statements in the text and all of the sources are published.Let me know whether in your opinion there are any outstanding issues.
Thanks again!
Draft:Nenad Vorih MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also i have copies of all of the material i found in research and used as my references. i took photos. i understand many are not published online but that is not a criteria for credibility according to wikipedia policy. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorriconeEnnio You have created an exceptionally complex reference scheme for a small, simple article. It does not welcome the reader in. Readers need to be able to check citations with ease. Since I found it difficult I make no comment upon verification nor upon notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The reference scheme being used is more suited for citing a full bibliography, not individual news articles (where Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once would suffice). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
three of the sources are bibliographies...two are included in books. one was in an art journal...the rest were more news type articles MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bibliography" as in "The article has a dedicated bibliography section and (almost) all the references are to books in that bibliography". As a rule, bibliography sections aren't generally used unless there's a critical mass of books being cited and they need to be referenced multiple times each. For news articles and minimal book cites, the standard reference method will do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jeske. I made the changes to the reference section as you outlined and resubmitted the draft. It was rejected for notability again. That was after adding 2 additional published sources. I am not sure what to do. I read the policy carefully and edited the text to reflect source which demonstrate the person (artist) meets the following requirements of the policy. I note that in addition the artists meets multiple criteria under the policy and only one is required to fulfill notability under the policy.
Vorih is
1) widely cited by peers;
AND
2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;
AND
3) such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

That he meets these three points under the notability policy should be evident from the text of the article and the references cited to support the text. I am completely at a loss to understand the basis for the rejection or how to address it. Even more sources?? MorriconeEnnio (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks. I also thought it was overkill. The article was refused however respectively for notability and verification. First notability so I added additional references. Then verifiability so I added even more references. I guess i'll resubmit and see what happens. I did not get feedback from the second editor regarding his basis of verifiability. The first issue of notability i presume is resolved. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne at one point you had some really great comments that helped me a lot with editing. I would be curious to know if you have any insights as to how I can proceed in this situation. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @MorriconeEnnio. Easiest thing to do would be to give me three (and only three) sources that each meet the following criteria:
  1. Be independent of each other.
  2. Be independent of Nenad (not interviews or from exhibitions)
  3. Be from reliable places (not random blogs or social media)
If you can't find three sources that meet those, then Nenad might not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Happy to have a look at the sources if you can point me to them though! Qcne (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! no problem.
1. art journal (entire archive available on research portal link provided)
Zivot umjetnosti, 1989, 45/46, str. 146-147 (this has a link online)
Zlatko Perhoč Slike Nenada Voriha. Galerija Nova, 10.–26. ožujka 1988.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/392943
2. book (by German art gallerist/publisher)
Kunstwerk ISBN 3-935094-00-0; pg 643
KunstWerk. Aktuelle Positionen der Bildenden Kunst. Malerei, Objekt, Plastik. Band 1.
by Rubrecht, Leander KunstWerk. Aktuelle Positionen der Bildenden Kunst. Malerei, Objekt, Plastik. Band 1. (TEXT BY : Prof Zvonko Macovic)
3. article (playboy)
Playboy Issue no. 231 2016
RADOVAN VUKOVIĆ PLAYBOY 231 / OCTOBER 2016 p. 17
and there are so many more... MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue may be that most of these sources are not available online however that is not a requirement for notability or verfiability. I can however provide ohots of the source material as well as their google translations. I am not a native croatian speaker either. i was not however asked to do this the article was just declined. I just tried to add jpgs of these sources and i need to confirm that i own the copyright to what is being uploaded and i cant really conform that...of the photos yes. i took the ohotos of the original source material hwoever i am not the owner of the original source material so its messing me up a bit. howver i would be happy to share if you know how thats possible MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I just performed a google search using the term "Nenad Vorih" there are pages and pages of references. That makes me feel like the editor didnt even bother to google the guy before he declined the page. Here is another reference from that google search I didnt even find in my research which was primarily done in libraries.
https://www.enciklopedija.hr/clanak/vorih-nenad MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you soooo much for your help! <3 MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @MorriconeEnnio - firstly please don't upload copyrighted photos! As long as the sources are published they can be accessible offline and you don't have to link to an online photo/URL of them.
The hrcak.srce.hr source, which I can access and have translated into English, looks good. It analysis his work independently. Do the other two offline sources do that? Qcne (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
of course i will not upload copyrighted photos :) MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the hrcak.srce.hr source,was at the early stage of his career. There have only been more works published about him especially his metropolis series as it incorporates a new approach to painting veduta (landcapes). that cycle of paintings (much later in his career) reflects his 'significant contribution'. it is very well covered by articles which can be found online with a simple google search. i just felt the sources i cite in the draft were more scholarly and written by established professionals in either art or journalism and not just pieces about the artist or his exhibitions by randoms (though independent of the artist) which are accessible online. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorriconeEnnio in that case, I think we can probably make an argument that he is notable for inclusion. I'll accept. Qcne (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is AMAZING!!! Many thanks <3 MorriconeEnnio (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 14 May 2024 review of submission by ImVeryBiasedSometimes[edit]

How do I delete it? ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImVeryBiasedSometimes It has been deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Thanks, man! ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid[edit]

Will the reviewer be able to see the edits that I made to this page? Rincemermaid (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted and pending. The reviewer will see the draft as it is now. You are welcome to make further edits as well. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will be adding more information soon. Once I'm able to find the rest of the Fidos Award winners and nominees from over the years. Rincemermaid (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rincemermaid. Adding more winners and nominees will not make one iota of difference to whether the draft is accepted or not. In fact any work at all that you do on the draft other than finding several sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 will be a complete waste of your time.
Please read notability again. ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Californiawriter[edit]

Article creation decline despite credible sources Hello, My article was declined yet I met the criteria for multiple published sources that are: 

-in-depth (I cited New York Times article about the subject, TIME,

-reliable (I cited a case study by the Resource Innovation Institute and the USDA) -secondary (most all sources are secondary) -strictly independent of the subject (I cited a podcast with Dr. Temple Grandin, a feature by CBS Morning Show) 

Californiawriter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Vertical Harvest Farms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter Have you asked the declining reviewer to elaborate? All reviewers must be able to explain their reviews and so so willingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter: Let's have a looksee at your sources, and see how much of them are about the company. Refer to my /Decode page (linked in my signature as "critiques").
This looks like a case of the chaff choking the wheat. Get rid of the bad sources and any content sourced entirely to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 15[edit]

00:04, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65[edit]

I've edited my draft and curious about if it's more appropriate for submission? Altberry65 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The issues raised by the reviewers remain. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65: The issues I raised last time have not been addressed. Continuing to submit a draft without making any effort to address reviewers' concerns will eventually lead to the draft being rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65 also see WP:AUTO and WP:ABOUTME. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Jampowl[edit]

Hi! Can I ask what was lacking in the draft I just made, and how can I make it more neutral? I've also removed the "advertising" sound from my previous draft. Thanks! Jampowl (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jampowl! The first thing that caught my eye was your sources. They do not appear to meet the golden rule: articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. All three criteria must generally be met in a single source, which I do not think you have just yet.
1 The Flame is a UST publication; not independent.
2, 3, 4 are from the main UST site, so not independent.
5 The Varsitarian is also a UST publication, and not independent.
6, 7, 8, 9 are also from the main UST site, and not independent.
It would be a good idea to look for articles in newspapers, magazines, online, etc - there may even be chapters in books written about UST since it is so old.
I also notice that the College is part of a larger organization (UST) that has its own article already. You will need to find sources that are specifically about the College of Information and Computing Sciences, not just about UST, because you must demonstrate that the College is notable by itself and not only because it is part of UST. If there are not enough reliable sources to show this, you may want to consider adding any new information you have found (from reliable, independent sources!) to the main UST article instead. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:31, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pengfeichen403[edit]

I have added references to the draft I submitted, why does it still show no reliable sources? Pengfeichen403 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pengfeichen403: Speaking as someone who can't even assess your sources (incompetent), the text strikes me as written for an audience that's already significantly read into the scientific field in question. Wikipedia's audience is Joe Blow from San Antonio, not necessarily those who're already very familiar with any given topic area. It also reads promotionally, which doesn't help. Regardless of the sourcing, the draft would need to be rewritten significantly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31[edit]

how to post 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. In addition, if the draft is about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTO. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite IMDb, https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/06/9846920/wearing-perfume-at-home-quarantine-psychology is useless for notability (wrong subject), and https://fashionista.com/2020/03/beauty-salon-hair-nails-appointment-pandemic is useless for notability (too sparse). We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Hwang news/scholarly sources that discuss her at length, are written by identifiable authors, and have undergone rigourous editorial processes and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Janand12333[edit]

I have submitted a draft article 7 days ago. I haven't received any notification accepting or rejecting the said article. Kindly help me as to what would have gone wrong. Janand12333 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janand12333: you seem to have created two copies (why?), of which Draft:Anand Ingale is awaiting review, and User:Janand12333/sandbox has been declined as a duplicate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the message at the top of the draft: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Nothing's gone wrong; drafts are manually reviewed by volunteers, and a 7-day turnaround is not guaranteed. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:33, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Grabup[edit]

The draft was submitted 96 days ago and has not received any responses other than comments (also by me). The Hoichoi article was deleted by AfD on 9 April 2023, initiated by @Lordofhunter, and closed by @Seraphimblade:. There was a big discussion that happened last year on the AfD; the majority of the editors said it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Another point is that no new articles were cited; all these citations in the draft were also available at the time of the previous discussion.

The article has now been created by @Akashekhar, an employee of the company, as he also mentioned on the Talk page. Pinging users who commented on the draft; Cl3phact0, Xoak. Also, ping other users who voted in the last AfD, Toddy1, TimothyBlue, HighKing, Oaktree_b.

My questions

  • What is your opinion on this draft?
  • Should it be accepted, deleted, or declined?
GrabUp - Talk 07:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup, As far as notability is concerned, to me, the subject meets notability. Since the last AFD, there's been a good deal of recent coverage of this platform. Even while it was on AFD, I felt it could have been kept if someone introduced some better sources. Note that sources exist in Bengali language as well.
Re the draft, it seems okay-ish, with some minor copy edits it'd be good to go. X (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While checking the AfD I found some experieced editors voted Keep. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only major concern I had when looked at the Draft was the missing COI declaration. This seems to be sorted (though needs a bit tidying). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sourcing is still a concern. The Business Line article is unsigned, The Financial Express is fine, Mint is fine but rather brief coverage, the Telegraph is a staff report of the newspaper (basically unsigned), Variety is fine but also very brief. So one good source, the other I'd count for about half a source... The unsigned articles are typical of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still don't see extensive coverage in RS, and the COI is a concern. I don't think the draft is quite ready for publication. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup notability is still not met. We are again in the same loop as the last year. Please read the last AFD, and add new sources which are not related to launches and announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasise this, I will assess your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques").
None of your sources that I could assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed assessment. It’s amazing. GrabUp - Talk 02:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reiterate, you need to be aware of the criteria for establishing notability depending on the topic subject. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. As per the assessment above, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements or information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Tanhasahu[edit]

I need assistence from fellow editors. I have submitted this page for "Articles for creation" and the submission got declined. I need some assistence with the sources used in this draft. Can anyone please let me me which are the non-reliable sources in this draft? It will help me to develop better understanding about the RS and to improve Wikipedia content. I have also added some new sources which are shown reliable on WP:RPS like INC, Bloomberg, Venture Beat, Fortune, Sydney Morning Herald. Also, I want to know that do I have a list or URL to check reliability of the sources which are not mentioned at WP:RPS. Thank you. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanhasahu: this draft wasn't declined for non-reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources that are reliable, yes, but they also must be entirely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject. See WP:GNG for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I understand it. I have checked most of the sources used in the draft are reliable, independent of the subject and cover the subject significantly. I believe it meets WP:GNG. But, still unable to understand the review process clearly. Sometimes, it seems biased and unclear. Tanhasahu (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tanhasahu You have done a good job of summarizing the routine business activities of the company and documenting what it does. The thing is, that's not what we are looking for. We are primarily looking for a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company. That is coverage which goes beyond merely telling about the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about this company- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
I think you are referring to WP:RSP and not WP:RPS. RSP is a list of sources whose reliability is commonly discussed, it isn't meant as a list of acceptable (and not) sources. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and journalistic standards(i.e. they don't just make stuff up). If you aren't sure if a source has those qualities, you may discuss it at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three(and only three, please) best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this company? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot, I think this statesman article, Bizjournal, Bloomberg, are good sources that talks about company details in depth like founding details, key persons, company services, acquisition, and other details related to the company. Also, this | Independent news article is also reliable and also some other passing mention sources like [1], Morning Herald, Beat. I know, I'm new and can make mistakes to review the reliability of the provided sources that's why I have asked from the reviewer GSS on my talk page message but I got no response, this seems like biting the new editors without telling them where they're wrong. Every experienced person is newbie one day. So, I asked here at help desk so I can also contribute to Wikipedia with right edits. Don't take me wrong here, I am curious about the better and reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. And thanks for taking your time to be here to help the newbie editors like me. Tanhasahu (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those links do not work; the Bizjournal sources just documents a routine business activity; personnel changes are a routine matter. (it may say more, but it is paywalled and I can't read it, paywalled sources may be used, I just can't examine it) 331dot (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the dead links. Readded the correct links here for your check: [2], [3] Tanhasahu (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both routine business activities, this doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Specifically, see WP:ORGTRIV. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with thanks. But, how will differentiate the routine business activity and a geniune news article? Is there anything special that indicate us? I have seen hundrends of company pages with such news articles. It really hard to differentiate the organic news article and routine business activity. Tanhasahu (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely many inappropriate articles about businesses that we just haven't gotten around to addressing yet. Articles like Microsoft or Ford Motor Company don't just tell of the activities of the company, they go into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about those companies. Microsoft has 70% market share and has been highly influential in the technology field. Ford is known for pioneering the assembly line and its economic influence. Those are extreme examples, but the point here is any article about a company must describe what sources say is notable about it. That doesn't normally include things like acquisitions of competitors/businesses in related fields- unless some sort of widely reported record is involved, or extensive legal action is triggered, something like that. Just telling what the company does is not enough to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provided information is easy to understand and I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. One more question, does the same thing apply for the BLP articles? Tanhasahu (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions do not establish notability- the coverage must be significant. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pupujoy[edit]

I dont know what references to add Pupujoy (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pupujoy: just because this mall exists doesn't mean it should be included in a global encyclopaedia; for that, it needs to be notable. Notability means that multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) have written about it at length. Those are the sources you should be summarising, and then citing as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by WhiteCliffsNative[edit]

I need help making this page work, eventually i am doing interviews with blogs and magazines that i can site, then i can back fill data on myself as an artist as my own wiki page that i can link to this page and vice versa WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhiteCliffsNative. I am very sorry to say but your album does not merit a Wikipedia article. Only musicians who meet our strict notability criteria may merit an article.
If, some time in the future, you are written extensively by reputable music journalists a volunteer editor might write an article about you.
In any case, your draft was written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia. It is prohibited to promote on Wikipedia, which is why I have marked it for deletion.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand that reasoning, and if i happen to fulfil those things in the future I will reach out, and hope that I can fit within the appropriate parameters, anyway thanks for letting me understand the criteria, and all the best, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - feel free to come back if you think you merit an article. It may be worth reading WP:TOOSOON too.
Good luck with your music career. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those sentiments, much appreciated and i will use that link as a guide and basically as a soft of goal. Thanks for your time and effort, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Randomuser335S[edit]

I've never done a successful citation attempt on my own before on a wikipedia article. Would like some help with my article, but placeholder citations containing the sources where I intend to place them have been inserted Randomuser335S (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomuser335S Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. If you need handholding after reading and understanding these may I suggest WP:TEAHOUSE will give yiu good results? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just revised the page's citation issues, and now currently awaiting its resubmission. Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Randomuser335S (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Macrae.xmyint6418[edit]

this is for my friend. other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia. why is this rejected? Macrae.xmyint6418 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrae.xmyint6418
  1. It's written completely inappropriately for a neutral online encyclopaedia. We prohibit promotion of any kind.
  2. It's clearly been written by ChatGPT.
  3. It has no reliable independent sources to speak of.
Please, do go ahead and link "other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia" and I will take appropriate action.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 15 May 2024 review of submission by DeadSanz[edit]

Hello! I'm trying to create a page about one of my favorite photographers all time. I don't believe I infringed on anything from a copyright perspective, but was creating this draft prior to going into any of the numerous articles that have been written about him. DeadSanz (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see much of a copyvio, but it was thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 15 May 2024 review of submission by ASL41689[edit]

I do not know how I can get this accepted. I need help. It keeps getting rejected ASL41689 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ASL41689 It has been declined prior to being rejected.
Only a total rewrite based only on reference material will give this a chance of acceptance. You have written a short magazine article, an essay, not a Wikipedia article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that this user copy-pasted the contents of the draft into mainspace after it was rejected. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this multiple times with only using the specific references I have sourced. So I am not following what I am doing wrong. ASL41689 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASL41689 The draft was declined four times, before being rejected, for a reason. The draft got little to no improvement between declines. (e.g. [4][5]) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then how can I improve it because all I get is vagueness and no specific direction.... ASL41689 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have received specific instructions above. #01:35, 14 May 2024 review of submission by TeamChicas. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you connected to ASLhistoryGHKU in any way? I noticed the similar usernames and a similar draft awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi Rather than start a full sockpuppetry investigation I have issued the good faith warning to each account, referencing the other. While others may disagree, I feel that the behaviour exhibited, while below the standard we expect, does not (yet) require the use of formal sanctions. Anyone disagreeing with me and having strong feelings may obviously initiate an SPI at any time they feel it to be justified. Certainly the appearance of more accounts editing in this area would trigger one.
@ASL41689, @ASLhistoryGHKU, we are unconcerned if you are genuinely different editors. If you are the same, please select one account and abandon. the other, ideally declaring what you have done on the user page and the talk page of the abandoned account.
@ASL41689 Please read and understand HELP:YFA, then read this essay, one of many that give a process for article construction. Start from first principles and follow the process. Only write in your own words, not close paraphrasing what appears in the references, which do not need to be online. Do this using the wizard at WP:AFC and submit it for review when ready.
Please remember we do not need editorial. We need dull-but-worthy prose, flat prose, with no opinions expressed unless they are in the references.
I hope these instructions are the help you seek. I apologise if you found any previous guidance tp be confusing or difficult to follow 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASL41689 I mean, of course, that you should create an entirely new draft, starting from the references. Do not simply re-create the draft that has been rejected. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's some sort of an editathon or similar going on:
Could explain what otherwise might look like puppetry? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I think you may be correct. The challenge is that these editors will be disappointed unless they write in the correct manner. WikiEd seems only to handle the USA, but "ASL" suggests American Sign Language, thus it may be covered by WikiEd.
I'm never sure how to involve them. LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Ian (Wiki Ed), is this one of your programmes? If so I believe the tutor needs guidance for the students to succeed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't one of our classes, but we'd be happy to provide assistance if it is a class and the instructor contacts us. Thanks for directing them our way. If you are able to figure out the course and institution, we can also try proactively reaching out, but I couldn't see any reference to one. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a post at EDUN. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 15 May 2024 review of submission by LemurLiterature[edit]

Hi there. My draft was declined for lack of reliable sources. I know the Bandcamp citations were removed by the reviewer (and I understand Bandcamp isn't reliable, so my apologies for the mistake). I'm unsure which of my citations I can keep? A few of my sources are reviews or interviews with the band, which I understand might not be the best quality, and my guess is that my Guardian source is okay. Apologies for the likely simple question.

And a brief follow up - if it turns out that very few of my sources are unreliable, would the draft be deleted for lack of notability due to lack of sources? I ask because the band's third album actually has an article (If I Don't Make It, I Love U) which serves as its redirect at the moment, which meets notability criteria.

Thank you so much for your help! This is my first article so I apologise for my errors. LemurLiterature (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LemurLiterature The problem that you have is that you need to demonstrate that the band passes WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Carolynpethick[edit]

I can resubmit my draft Carolynpethick (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolynpethick yes, you can, but please don't until the draft is improved. First of all, the draft is about yourself. See WP:AUTO; the draft is in a promotional tone right now, with phrases such as renowned keynote speaker in Australia and passion for justice and her commitment. Secondly, see WP:AUTHOR, which the draft currently does not meet. We cannot cite Soudcloud as a source, especially when it's a podcast recorded by yourself. We also cannot cite a YouTube video uploaded by yourself. The book is also written by you. We need independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carolynpethick, statements like Carolyn’s journey is nothing short of remarkable are the exact opposite of how a neutral encyclopedia article should be written. Self-promotion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please be aware that 99.9% of people who try to write autobiographies on Wikipedia end up failing, having wasted their time and the time of Wikipedia's volunteer reviewers as well. Since it is clear that you have no idea how an acceptable Wikipedia needs to be written, I suggest that you spend your time promoting yourself on other websites where self-promotion is welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedia terms, if you were it would need a complete re-write in neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 16[edit]

Pandit Ayush Gaur[edit]

Pandit Ayush Gaur is an investigative journalist who is mainly known for his abilities in Joint operations and special covert operations. He has headed SITs, special investigation team with big media brands like tv today, inx media, news express, live india and others. He is also an advocate registered with Uttrakhand Highcourt. Ptayushgaur (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptayushgaur, do you have a question about an Articles for creation draft? Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your presumed autobiography User:Ptayushgaur/sandbox is poorly written, hagiographic tone, poorly sourced and has no evidence of passing the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Oskar Meurer[edit]

This wikipedia article has een aproved of both of the parents of all the kids and oskar meurer, we are not leaking any of the personal information but names and birth year and ofcourse his story wich all has been aproved by the parents Oskar Meurer (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oskar Meurer I have requested the supression of the content of this draft for this twice now. Please do not write about yourself further, it is a really bad idea to freely give out so much personal information onto the internet. That is very dangerous. You are not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Please do not write another draft. Qcne (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you are not Oskar, you shouldn't be using his name as your username. Your account should be operated by a single person who does not give access to others.
Approval of the subject or their parents is not required- but this is not social media. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Please see your first article.
Please consider very carefully if you want to be doing this at all, see this page for more information. It may be unwise to post that much personal information about Oskar. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not any more personal information than there is about other people here Oskar Meurer (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oskar Meurer: The problem is you're writing about minors, which means we have to treat any sort of personally-identifying information as extremely concerning for the sake of their safety. There is a world of difference between writing about a minor and writing about an adult in terms of what should and should not be in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Jessie GYU8[edit]

Hello, I'm Jessie GYU8, I uploaded the draft of Asiahorse. And had been rejected. Sorry for taking your time, can you tell me what information can be added to my draft to improve its professionalism and reliability? Because in the process of writing, I gave up some references that can prove its popularity in order to avoid violating the rules of the Wikipedia platform, I would like to confirm with you which links can be introduced into the Wikipedia page? Jessie GYU8 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it is the end of the road for this draft, at least for now. If you can address the concerns of the reviewers, you need to first appeal to the last reviewer directly.
I see that you claim that you personally created the logo of the company, is that the case? You have also made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution; this means that competitors could hypothetically take your logo and use it for commercial purposes and your company would not be entitled to any money from the commercial use of its own logo. Do you really want to do that? 331dot (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an article about an Iraqi writer a week ago. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and review it[edit]

I have added an article about an Iraqi writer a week ago. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and review it 37.236.214.18 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an article about an Iraqi writer a week ago. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and review it[edit]

I have added an article about an Iraqi writer a week ago. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and review it Memoplss (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Memoplss Could you link to that article? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it has not been approved. Draft link Draft:Abdullah Shuaib Memoplss (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Memoplss Did you see the note "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,676 pending submissions waiting for review" ? Qcne (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Digitalstories[edit]

Please help me to improve Dr. Blossom Kochhar's Wikipedia Digitalstories (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalstories: sorry, we don't get involved in editing here at the help desk; that's very much your job. If you have specific questions about the AfC review process, you may ask those here, or general editing questions at the Teahouse or Help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Digitalstories your draft is written inappropriately. Please read WP:NPOV. Every statement must also have an in-line citations. Please read WP:VERIFY and then WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 16 May 2024 review of submission by 71.31.70.166[edit]

This draft has been declined because the reviewer says it does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Just a basic Google search shows that Valentina Gomez is the most-covered 2024 Missouri secretary of state candidate in the race, so this doesn't make sense. What exactly is the Wikipedia definition of the phrase "significant coverage"? 71.31.70.166 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we don't go hunting for sources. Either they are cited in the draft (indeed, the draft should be based on sources that meet the WP:GNG standard), or they don't exist as far as the review process is concerned. We have currently nearly 2,700 pending drafts in the system, and don't have the bandwidth to start doing research on all of them.
Secondly, campaign publicity in most cases confers no notability on unelected candidates.
The concept of significant coverage is described at WP:SIGCOV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. I will edit this draft article and try again. PeaRidge62 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I am pleased to say that every source in the draft is an independent source, as I have removed all material from the draft that comes from a non-independent source. PeaRidge62 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Geniusparmatma Saraswat[edit]

i have edited full my article if there is any edit please le me know ill try to all change it with the community guidlines. Geniusparmatma Saraswat (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geniusparmatma Saraswat: this draft has been deleted as promotional.
What is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not a promotional i have collected a relevant information about the company then i have posted it if there is any things that have to change please let me know Geniusparmatma Saraswat (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geniusparmatma Saraswat Your draft has been deleted as blatant advertising 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Geniusparmatma Saraswat[edit]

i have edited full my article if there is any edit please le me know ill try to all change it with the community guidlines. Sorry for Inconvienence. Geniusparmatma Saraswat (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geniusparmatma Saraswat it was pure WP:SPAM so it has been deleted. Qcne (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have fully edited it according to my relevant information if there is anything to edit please let me know ill try to solve every single deatiled information. Geniusparmatma Saraswat (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pure spam, @Geniusparmatma Saraswat. Qcne (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Loleshwarz[edit]

We would like to formally request guidance on how we could format the wiki page of Loleshwarz Page for the publication to be released to the general public on the internet legally & smoothly following Wikipedia guidelines & standards. It would be helpful if you provide a sample template to accompany for further assistance on guidance. Loleshwarz (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Loleshwarz, you cannot use his name as your username and must change it immediately; please do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
Your account should only be used by a single person who gives no one else access. If you work for or are otherwise compensated by him, the Terms of Use require you to disclose that, see the paid editing policy. Please also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google cannot be used to source anything, neither can IMDb. The topic does not appear to be in any way notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the draft is hopelessly promotional.
is a versatile artist and entrepreneur acclaimed for his contributions. Which wholly independent commentator has described him as "versatile"? Such evaluative language should never, ever, appear in an article in Wikipedia's voice.
Similarly with "acclaimed", "notable", "renowned", "widespread recognition". Unless you are directly quoting (and attributing) a wholly independent reliable source, all such promotional language should be removed. ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Promanowski[edit]

I'm Slavic and Polish. Can you tell me why you have declined my article about Slavic Commonwealth ? What is your background that gives you a superiority to declaim an article about Slavic Commonwealth to Slavic person ? Promanowski (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Promanowski "Do you know who I am" seldom works. You know why it was rejected, as evidenced by your vocal complaint. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Promanowski: Drop the attitude or you will regret it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MADEUP @Promanowski. Qcne (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that claiming that we Slavic people are "made up" people ? Interesting. Adolf Hitler was also claiming that. You are one of his collogues ? (followers) Promanowski (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BATTLEGROUND is not an appropriate behaviour, Promanowski. Pull your horns in and consider starting again, this time with humility and courtesy 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are declining a right to existence to Slavic people on Wikipedia. What's next ? Jews ? Promanowski (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can choose to continue behaving in an unacceptable manner and face the consequences. None of this furthers your ill stated argument, Promanowski. I am thinking the consequences will be reasonably swift 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Promanowski: You are playing with fire by making these sorts of comments within a contentious topic. Drop the attitude or risk being sanctioned. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Promanowski: I wouldn't pursue that 'Adolf Hitler' line of insinuations any further, if I were you, or you may find yourself sanctioned pretty swiftly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sancionet for what ? For trying to claim my right to existence ? Promanowski (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, for using ethnically-charged and aggressive comments in a topic area that has a history of ethno-political conflicts and thus has more administrator attention and less leeway for misbehaviour than usual. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously ? Who are you people. You denying my right right to existence and at the same time you are threatening me for doing nothing. This is what the nazis did. Promanowski (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Promanowski: The only thing we are denying you is your entitlement to be an ass to everyone who's trying to explain things to you or otherwise telling you that your current behaviour is unacceptable and very likely to get you blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Jmelki[edit]

Hello, I created a page for "Jad Melki" and it was rejected three times. Each time, i addressed the comments noted for the rejection, and each time I get new comments that have nothing to do with the previous comments. In addition, I get emails that seem to be from the reviewers that propose to help me in return for a fee. This is starting to feel like a scam. Can you please help? Jmelki (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, not one of the current citations meets the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and substantial coverage described in the golden rule: most of them are not independent of Melki, and some don't mention him at all.
With no sources that meet those criteria, you have not established that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; and until you have done that, there is no point writing so much as one word of a draft.
Yours is the common, almost universal, experience of people who attempt the challenging task of writing an article when they have not spent time learning the required skills. I always advise new editors to spend several months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles - by the time they understand about verifiability, neutral point of view, independence of sources, and notability, they will have enough knowledge and understanding to read your first article - and also enough knowledge and understanding to see why trying to write an autobiography on Wikipedia is usually a waste of everybody's time. (And yes, I know you've been around since 2009, but with 19 edits in your history, you are a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jmelki. Scammers watch this noticeboard and other such noticeboards looking for victims. Please read WP:SCAM and ignore any such emails. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 16 May 2024 review of submission by Maggalomaniac[edit]

I would like to add reference sources. Can you help? Maggalomaniac (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggalomaniac The draft has been rejected and will usually not be considered further. Also, what is your relationship with Altberry65? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maggalomaniac: Mind linking the sources you intend to use, right below this reply? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 17[edit]

02:26, 17 May 2024 review of submission by Sarvadas01[edit]

All the references given how to do it properly> Sarvadas01 (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvadas01, nothing written by Mishra himself helps to establish his notability. LinkedIn is not a reliable source. The YouTube channel is not a reliable source. Medium is not a reliable source. What is required is significant coverage of Mishra in several reliable sources that are entirely independent of Mishra. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 17 May 2024 review of submission by MaribelCasey178[edit]

Is it okay? MaribelCasey178 (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaribelCasey178: "is it okay?" Well, no, it's not.
When your draft (such as it is) gets declined for lack of notability and lack of referencing, you do not simply resubmit it; that is unhelpful, as well as rather annoying. You address the decline reasons.
In any case, a single sentence stating that someone is an actor and model (plus another sentence stating what they're not) is not a viable article draft, it is not even a viable stub of a draft.
Develop the draft further and add evidence of notability, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and I'll consider reverting my rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steps to create an article successfully.
  1. Find several sources each of which is reliable, wholly indepedent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42 for more detail).
  2. If you cannot find at least three such source, give up on this subject. Any further time you spend on it will be waste.
  3. If you can find them, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say. Wikipedia has no interest in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows) about the subject: it is only interested in what reliable sources say.
ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 17 May 2024 review of submission by MorriconeEnnio[edit]

I received a notability rejection for my article Draft: Nenad Vorih. I read the policy carefully and edited the text to reflect source which demonstrate the person (artist) meets the following requirements of the policy. I note that in addition the artists meets multiple criteria under the policy and only one is required to fulfill notability under the policy. Vorih is 1) widely cited by peers; AND 2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; AND 3) such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews


That he meets these three points under the notability policy should be evident from the text of the article and the references cited to support the text. I am completely at a loss to understand the basis for the rejection or how to address it. Even more sources?? MorriconeEnnio (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MorriconeEnnio Note that it was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
More sources will not necessarily help, unless they provide information not currently present. Keep in mind that what is completely clear to you may not be to others. If you feel that the reviewer missed something, please discuss it with them. Several of your sources are in different languages that reviewers likely do not know. It's okay to use such references, but you may need to help us understand what they say. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your clarification! That indeed may be the issue. I did reply to the decliner. Perhaps he will respond so I can clarify his concerns. Much appreciation for your response. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 17 May 2024 review of submission by Masterstrock1[edit]

Kindly suggest / correct me how can I submitted as per your guidelines and if you can correct my article, then please do. Masterstrock1 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterstrock1 This draft has been declined twice with reasons given. Please explain where you do not understand what has been explained to you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterstrock1 I have rejected your draft, it will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterstrock1: Your sources are, in order, Apple Music/iTunes, Gaana, a lyrics site, and a music video on Youtube. None of them are any good as sources. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review sources that discuss the subject at length, have identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous fact-checking and similar editorial processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 17 May 2024 review of submission by Creole Pepper[edit]

I edited what was suggested. Please advise on any other corrections. thanks Creole Pepper (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Creole Pepper Start again from scratch without copyright violations or promotional language. This has been deleted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 17 May 2024 review of submission by MJJdeG[edit]

I need a helping hand. It's getting too complex for me. MJJdeG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically would you like help with? We're not really here to be co-editors, but we can answer your questions.
What is your association with this school or its director? You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 17 May 2024 review of submission by DerekE9831[edit]

Hello! I'd like to ask for an additional set of eyes to take a look at the Draft:Trevor David Rhone. I think Rhone's research on 2 dimensional magnetic materials has had a  significant impact in his field, and he also received recognition from the American Institute of Physics and the National Society of Black Physicists. I think he satisfies notability for the first and possibly second notability criteria for academics, but any additional feedback is appreciated. DerekE9831 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

05:16, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Mrjubs[edit]

Wiki project Mrjubs (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project classification tags Mrjubs (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjubs do you have a question about a particular submission? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki project classification tags Mrjubs (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 18 May 2024 review of submission by 103.101.117.181[edit]

tell us our mistake 103.101.117.181 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will usually not be considered further. After reading it, I'm honestly confused, as I cannot identify the subject of the article. The entire thing lacks inline citations, it's not in a WP:NPOV (with sentences like Ghosis are still discriminating against them, not giving Kamarias equal respect.), and contains links to irrelevant articles. The draft would need a complete re-write to meet standards. Also, who's 'us'? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Hanrytheo[edit]

what should l do for my article to be proved ? Hanrytheo (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanrytheo The draft is entirely unsourced and has been declined. Please read Help:Your first article. Also, is the draft about yourself? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanrytheo: We need at least one in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Moses news/scholarly article that discusses him at length, has identifiable authors, and is subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking for every single claim the draft makes that could reasonably be challenged. We also do not accept hagiographical content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 18 May 2024 review of submission by ObscuredHeart[edit]

Look, I know my page isn't major but I would love to use it to play a joke on my friends and I would appreicate if it could be accepted. What can I do to make it more reliable. ObscuredHeart (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ObscuredHeart: Wikipedia isn't here for you to play jokes on your friends.
If you wish to create an article on a neologism, you would need to show that it has been not only used but discussed in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
As it stands, this draft is little more than a dictionary definition, rather than a viable encyclopaedia article, and effectively unreferenced at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please play jokes on your friends elsewhere. We don't have articles in a global encyclopedia of human knowledge as jokes on people. There's a role for humor(pages like WP:BROTHER) but not as you are using it. Would you place a fake book on a shelf at the Library of Congress or your local library as a joke? If you did, the librarian would throw it away. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is very prestigous talk for a website that allows anyone to edit its pages. At a library, you can't edit a book without being a reputable author but for some reason Wikipedia allows it so this comparison is silly. Secondly life is to have fun, plently of people have fun at a local library — are children story times not fun. Why can't I have fun here? ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. If you want to have fun, you can play a video game. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuantly, I can't submit a new word on a video game. When you come up with one let me know and I'll play it.
A bunch of snobs for people editing a website known for its unreliabilty. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... for something reliable, have you tried emailing Merriam-Webster and telling them to add 'Radify'? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ObscuredHeart: obviously you must do what you must do, but be warned that if you're not here to build an encyclopaedia, you may find your editing privileges restricted or even removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do what I must do if people don't accept my page! ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that Wikipedia is " a website known for its unreliability" yet you want to add poorly sourced content...oh the irony. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't my point proven? Yes its ironic (A+ for that dude), but I'm not saying it is neccersarily bad. I'm just saying its odd that it can hold such a reputation, but somehow everyone is being rude about me doing the exact thing this website is known for. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ObscuredHeart: The reason we're taking offence at your wanting to use Wikipedia to play a joke is because, regardless of its reliability, we take Wikipedia's mission of being an encyclopaedia dead seriously, in part because people will often look at Wikipedia if they want quick information on a given subject that isn't filtered through whatever political nonsense or misinformation that populates social media. We actually put in the effort to make Wikipedia as accurate and as unbiased as we can, but it is (and always has been) an uphill battle. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ObscuredHeart if you know of any unreliable articles, point them out and we can fix them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys I just found out about Wiktionary. Would my word be able be entered there?
I'm sorry for being petty, I know it's silly to argue on the internet about a made up word with strangers. ObscuredHeart (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. I believe the answer to your question would be no. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Azure Campus[edit]

I used reference and followed format from articles about colleges with similar notability in Goa,someone of them only had one citation such as MES College,Don Bosco College of Engineering Fatorda and St Xavier's College Mapusa Azure Campus (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further.
Not one of your references meets the triple criterion of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the college (see WP:42).
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Without such sources, there is literally nothing that can go into an article. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Sarvadas01[edit]

all the neutral source given Sarvadas01 (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Amigurumi Book[edit]

What is wrong? Amigurumi Book (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message at the top of your draft telling you why it was rejected. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Sarvadas01[edit]

Need to edit and resubmit Sarvadas01 (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvadas01 Rejected means that resubission is not possible absent a fundamental change to the draft that addresses the concerns of the reviewers.
No one "needs" to do anything here. What is the source of your need?
You took a picture of this man in his office; what is your connection with him? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Exuperantia[edit]

I added sources from the NY Times, Newsday, and several other trustworthy sources, all completely secondary and referring to the subject in great detail, yet my submission is still declined. I feel like I am missing something, and would like to know the thought process behind this decline, so I can actually fix the problem more effectively. Thank you. Exuperantia (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exuperantia: okay, well now that you've resubmitted the draft, you will get an assessment and possible feedback when a reviewer picks it up. In the meantime, is there anything you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Newsday considered a viable source? Regarding Long Island, Newsday is the primary source of newspaper/online blog for the Island. I just want to make sure that it is, if not, then I completely understand why it was declined. As far as my research has gone, I think they are pretty accurate, but strictly from a Wikipedian perspective, are they? Exuperantia (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Exuperantia I'm not aware of any clear consensus one way or another about the reliability or otherwise of Newsday at WP:RSP. It boils down to how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they employ. You describing it as a 'blog' doesn't sound too promising, but perhaps their editorial content is more reliable then their blogs. It is very local, though, so probably has limited use at best for establishing global notability, given that the more local a publication, the lower its news threshold usually is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the reply. Nice to know what criteria I can use for my research and sources more clearly, (editorial oversight and fact-checking) I used the wrong word, they are not a blog, they are a news source. Here is there website:Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday As per my research: they are undergone with a fair amount of editorial oversight and verification. I am not sure about global notability, but Teatro Yerbabruja, the company with the mentioned sources from Newsday, is based on Long Island and coverage is fairly strictly on the Island. Exuperantia (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 18 May 2024 review of submission by MackoGqn[edit]

Hello there, I need some assistance and review of submission alright? It has been declined and I need some feedback and support on how to support the article with relevant references, that is the only problem I have. MackoGqn (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the reviewers comment "Biography section is largely unsourced" you need to provide the sources you used for this content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 18 May 2024 review of submission by Munam123[edit]

I faced error in submission of my New article kindly help me Munam123 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munam123 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. What was the nature of the error? 331dot (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that before you worry about submitting it, you need to improve the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 19[edit]

00:14, 19 May 2024 review of submission by 104.172.224.182[edit]

My draft was declined because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." But I cited everything with published magazine links. Can you please tell me why that is not sufficient?

Thank you,

Jen 104.172.224.182 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory inspection shows that your magazine references consist mainly of PR pieces and Press Releases which are useless in establishing WP:NCORP. Please read HELP:YFA, WP:REFB, and WP:CITE.
The text is promotional. Had I reviewed it that would have been a second decline reason.
You have work to do 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I (who reviewed it) missed that part. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSMention269 Every one of us misses things. It's part of human frailty, and is no bad thing in the global scheme of things, if there is a global scheme of things, that is. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 19 May 2024 review of submission by Edenroberts4w[edit]

i have attached all reasonable verifiable sources and links to my afticle. yet it was rejected citing no verifiable sources ,. why ? how i get it right ? Edenroberts4w (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edenroberts4w: You cannot just slap a list of references on the end of the article and call it good in an article about a living person. There is also the matter that all the coverage appears to be about his struggles getting clueless educational authorities to comply with a law and that the article is hagiographical in tone (for which I will be tagging it for speedy deletion shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edenroberts4w no Declined I have just declined this with rationale. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've deleted it. Jéské Couriano is right. This draft was hopelessly over the top with an advertising tone. The gushingly positive commentary is more appropriate for an autobiography or advertising piece, neither of which we allow here. This is an encyclopedia, NOT an advertising platform. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft I think that makes perfect sense. I did have to look up hagiographical. I tend to use WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 19 May 2024 review of submission by Li-reg[edit]

Hi, I think that due to many sources being in Hebrew or Israeli sources, the review wasnt possible bu I have added more sources and also this man has a wiki page in Hebrew and German so I need to understand what's wrong or how to help it get approved... Li-reg (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Li-reg. IMDb is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB. Amazon sells almost everything and being mentioned on Amazon is of no value. Several of the sources are clearly not independent. Which sources are reliable, entirely independent of Freidenberg, and devote significant coverage to him? The quality of the sources is vastly more important than the quantity. As for the Hebrew and German Wikipedias, they are entirely independent of the English Wikipedia, and each project sets its own standards. English Wikipedia tends to be quite stringent. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for replying! What about the other sources? I.e ynet, docaviv, universities... I placed a few more... Li-reg (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 20[edit]

00:53, 20 May 2024 review of submission by 202.152.137.58[edit]

please help me to fix this article, thanks 202.152.137.58 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your poorly referenced draft is more like a hagiography than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Verifiability and the Neutral point of view are core content policies, and your draft violates both of them. Start over. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:45, 20 May 2024 review of submission by NYSG65[edit]

Hi, I have made several changes and edits accordingly to the Andy Gus wiki page but it was still declined. Can I get some assistance on why and what I need to do to get it published? Thanks! NYSG65 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NYSG65 the draft was not just declined, but rejected, meaning it will usually not be considered further. Like the reviewers said, most, if not all, of the sources are not independent. We cannot cite his own songs as sources, nor can we cite lyrics to the songs. The draft is also promotional in tone, with sentences such as A seasoned multi faceted entrepreneur with various business portfolios in wide array of products and services from a luxury lifestyle brand, creative agency and services, real estate and agriculture. What you "need" to do is a complete rewrite and adding multiple independent sources if you want to have it accepted. Wikipedia is not for promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Karinvanderlaag[edit]

How do i rename this draft as WP: NFILMAKER? Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Karinvanderlaag. I am not sure what you mean. Why do you want to rename your draft? Qcne (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karinvanderlaag: you don't; that would be completely inappropriate article name. In any case, you don't need to worry about renaming it (which is actually done by moving it), because it will be moved to its correct title anyway, if (and I do mean if) the draft is ever accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFILMMAKER is the criteria that your draft needs to pass, (it currently doesn't) click on the link, paid editors are expected to know the very basics of editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the criteria and David Wicht absolutely qualifies. So why does the article keep getting turned down. Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering Double Grazing. As you can tell I am new to this. Being insulted by the other editors is not helping. I thought that I had to re-write the article with a new submission template. I do not understand the notes given to me by Tim Trent but have now been banned from speaking to him ever again because I asked him for advice. I had no idea that this was such a hostile environment. I was asked to write these pages and knew that I would need help. All over the page it says "ask if you need help" but when one asks the help is cryptic and when one doesn't understand one gets insulted by editors like Theroadislong. I don't even know how to tag him or her on this comment, but I hope he sees it. I still do not quite understand what to do. My plan is to remove the filmography completely, cut the article down to the bare bones and keep most of my references. But, I understood that one of the main problems was that the title needed to be Film maker and not just a living person, hence my question? There are many South African producers who have done WAY less than David Wicht and many production companies who have done way less than Film Afrika who are already on Wikipedia, which is very confusing. I have not even started with my draft for Film Afrika, I was starting to get info into a kind of sandbox page with material from their website and was already threatened with deletion because it was "copied" from their website... I hadn't even published it yet!
Please can i get a clear answer as to what to do next for David Wicht's page.
I will deal the Theroadislong in my own time. Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read WP:NFILMMAKER i absolutely think DAVID WICHT qualifies. Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karinvanderlaag: with respect, it does not matter whether you think this subject is notable; it only matters what you can demonstrate through sources. (You, being a paid editor, would argue that he is notable, wouldn't you?)
Paid editing is accepted on Wikipedia, as long as it is appropriately disclosed and does not cross the border into spamming or advertising, but paid editors are largely left to their own devices. After all, why would volunteers, who give up their time freely, use their time for the benefit of those who are being paid for their contributions? I don't ask someone else to do my job for me, why would you?
As for what to do with this draft, it seems to me you've already received plenty of advice, whether you've chosen to take it or not. The main obstacle you need to over come is, you need to show that the subject meets one of our notability guidelines, either the general WP:GNG one, or the special WP:FILMMAKER one. And when I say "show", I don't mean you arguing that he does, I mean you producing acceptable evidence of that as required by these guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: “There are many South African producers who have done WAY less than David Wicht and many production companies who have done way less than Film Afrika who are already on Wikipedia” see other stuff exists. Re: “starting to get info into a kind of sandbox page with material from their website” You cannot copy and paste content here. Re: “I will deal the Theroadislong in my own time” sounds like a threat, please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS.Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I think Wicht will pass WP:NFILMMAKER, but not with the current draft, nor current referencing; the draft completely conceals any notability. WP:TNT is required, which is why I declined it earlier today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Zerobrainer0[edit]

Why can't my biography appear on search like anyone else Zerobrainer0 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerobrainer0 because Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, it is an encyclopaedia of notable topics. You are not notable by our standards, and therefore do not merit an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zerobrainer0: I assume you mean this  Courtesy link: User:Zerobrainer0?
First and foremost, it hasn't been accepted for publication, so it will not show up in searches, or be indexed by third party search engines.
It is also your user page, which you shouldn't have submitted for publication in the first place. See WP:UP for what user pages are, and what you are and aren't allowed to have on them.
Note also that, per WP:AUTOBIO, we strongly discourage users from attempting to write about themselves, other than in line with the aforementioned user page guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Linexrecords[edit]

Hi, I believe my article was correctly edited after so many reviews i corrected all the mistakes and made it perfect. Its notable. if you search the name on google its a notable person and all information was accredited by a news article. Linexrecords (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Linexrecords It has been rejected and will not proceed further. The picture is also a breach of copyright. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok if you disregard the photo, everything else is correct. so allow me to re edit without the picture and publish Linexrecords (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You need to start afresh 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Linexrecords no, it is not, that's why it was rejected: it doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. And no, you did not 'correct all the mistakes' after 4 declines. For example, between the last decline and rejection, there were no improvements. Appearing in Google search results does not mean a topic is notable. And I did search; all that came up were websites published by himself, very little news coverage. A single source used twelve times does not establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you give me an example of a specific area which is not correct so i know for future Linexrecords (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, almost all of it. It's written in a very promotional tone, with sentences such as His lyrics convey messages of peace and positivity, aiming to inspire both his peers and younger listeners. If you really want this draft to be accepted, it would need a complete rewrite. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that comes from an article if you see nothing is elf written but taken from articles so that sentence is from the article. So would i still be wrong to include that? Linexrecords (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple, reliable, independent sources do describe him like that, then sure. But right now, with only one source that doesn't say that, no, don't include anything like that. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has been asked formally about possible paid editing on their talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so is there any possibility to publish a wikepedia page about this indavidual with the current information online
i dont understand what you mean by this 'This editor has been asked formally about possible paid editing on their talk page' Linexrecords (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no, not right now, and likely not anytime soon. You have received 2 warnings on your talk page about paid editing. Please follow the instructions given. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a paid editor, I have started this motive to make wikepedia pages of notable people who need to be recognised on wikipedia. Linexrecords (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... just a quick question, do the people you write about ask you to write about them? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sourcing out people from news articles published etc. i have no conflict of interest or knowing personally of the person hence all infromation is taken from online sources such as the news article used. Linexrecords (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Linexrecords Please respond directly to the question on your talk page, responding here is not useful to you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Linexrecords Read your user talk page, please. Your pattern of editing suggests that you may receive direct or indirect comp0ensation for your edits 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've been templated to death, which isn't helpful. I've left you a note on your page explaining the issue. Our criteria for musicians is really strict. Secretlondon (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i cant see the note where can i get this Linexrecords (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:03, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Muluk muluk[edit]

I am new here, and would appreciate help. I added a page for mathematician Steven Hurder, and it was rejected for, in particular, unclarity of notability. What are necessary and sufficient requirements for scientists to be notable enough for Wikipedia? I have read the generic notability criteria and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons but I did not find anything that discusses scientists, or other people whose works' notability can in some sense be measured. I am not aware of any publications _about_ Hurder as a person, but Hurder has publications in the top level mathematics journals including Annals and Inventiones. From looking at mathematicians currently on Wikipedia, it did not seem that the bar for accomplishments is this high, but perhaps I misunderstand the point, and notability is determined by something else. Muluk muluk (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to clarify, to save my time and the reviewers' time, I don't want to try to "fix" the page, before having a better understanding of whether in fact the person is actually likely to be notable with Wikipedia's definition. Muluk muluk (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muluk muluk I believe the emeritus professorship is likley to pass WP:NPROF, but it requires more work to create text based upon references, and thus more references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did not find that page! This seems much more useful. I'll read the page later and revise if they seem to fit the criteria. Muluk muluk (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Hashemiteauthority[edit]

Hi I submit this article of best my knowledge and source but still if you think this not please let me know what kind of citation i should provide and which part of the article wasn't reliable thank you Hashemiteauthority (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashemiteauthority: The article as written tries to promote the sect/proselytise. We don't accept promotional content. ("It reads like an advertizement" is almost always a criticism of the writing; sources play very little role in that.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Factsofpolitics[edit]

fixed all the issues Factsofpolitics (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Factsofpolitics. I have rejected the draft and it won't be considered further. Sorry, I do not see how she is notable. If you think you can prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE, let me know. Qcne (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the political landscape, Mahnoor Ahmad is a notable figure. As a first-time candidate, she broke new ground by running in a district that has historically been represented by white men, and she was the first to run as a true Democrat in this district. Her candidacy was not only groundbreaking but also historic, as she would have been the first American Pakistani to serve in Congress if elected. Ahmad plans to run again in 2026 and is poised to continue her impactful campaign. She was recognized as the most competitive challenger, not only in Illinois but also on a national scale. Factsofpolitics (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad was the only candidate in her district to ever run a campaign that was 100% people-funded, without a dime from corporations or special interest groups. Ahmad's commitment to grassroots funding makes her the future of democracy, especially in light of Ro Khanna's proposed bill to ban congressional candidates from accepting money from corporations or special interest groups. Factsofpolitics (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Factsofpolitics: Cut the campaign speeches. What is your connexion to Ahmad's campaign? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Factsofpolitics that's a long pointless speal which does not prove notability. Notability is proved through significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Qcne (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(While WP:NPOL would potentially apply here, simply being a candidate for office doesn't help meet it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Hcdmdigital[edit]

Hi, a couple of years ago I tried to create a page for the asset management Kernow Asset Management (I work with them on their marketing).

It was rejected because it wasn't sufficiently notable - ie did not have enough independent news articles about the company, and also contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia - I think perhaps because I have an affiliation with the company. Now that a couple of years have passed the company has received more independent news coverage and I'm hoping to resubmit. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia, to fit among the asset management companies listed on this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms

If anyone could advise on the application and how I can best go about it to ensure I respect Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, I'd be very grateful. I'm not looking to submit any impartial information, just to have the company listed among its contemporaries (the firm is on the list of external fund managers backed by Norges Bank Investment Management).

Thanks so much in advance. Hcdmdigital (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be 'I'm not looking to submit any biased/non-impartial information'! Hcdmdigital (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hcdmdigital. Thanks for making the paid editing declaration- that is the right thing to do. I would recommend closely reading our notability guidelines on organisations. Can you prove that Kernow Asset Mngmt meets the criteria there? If so, go ahead and create a new draft. I'd be happy to have a look at it before you submit it for review.
Some things to watch:
- do not rely on churnalism or re-gurgitated press releases, they are useless for establishing notability.
- we are not interested in what the company has to say about itself, but instead what other people independent of the company have to say about it.
- watch out for WP:PEACOCK words and have a look at WP:SOLUTIONS too.
- as a marketing professional you are going to have difficulty writing neutrally, as writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for a company. The best advice is to only summarise/paraphrase what those existing reliable independent sources state about the company with absolutely no additions. Pretend it is an autopsy report.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thanks so much for your advice, that's really helpful. Will carefully read the notability guidelines and put up a draft using your notes - will definitely take you up on your offer to review before I submit. Thanks! Hcdmdigital (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me on my Talk Page :) Qcne (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 20 May 2024 review of submission by AlexandreMaximePatrick[edit]

Hi,

please kindly send me why my article is declined? thank you AlexandreMaximePatrick (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons stated in the big boxes at the top of the draft. It has not been demonstrated that he is notable. Along the other reasons of being a bad machine translation and highly promotional in tone. So much so I have tagged it for deletion. If you are going to write about this topic on the English Wikipedia please ensure your English skills are sufficient and read through Wikipedia:YFA. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Edenroberts4w[edit]

how to add pictures to the article ? 

Edenroberts4w (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to add pictures to the draft? Edenroberts4w (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Edenroberts4w. Pictures are not important in the draft stage. What is important is the policy of neutrality and the notability criteria for people.
As you can see your draft has been marked for speedy deletion as it has been written inappropriately. You also have no proper in-line citations. If you start again with the draft, please closely read the above two links and follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edenroberts4w: You don't, and this is still promotional to the point I am tagging it for deletion. Your content is still not properly cited and still primarily on one event (the articles about SeedReaps are of zero help as anything they say about Karthik comes directly from his own mouth). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Dafea23[edit]

I have had an article on a professional female footballer rejected. Despite adding numerous new sources as requested it was again rejected. My issue is that the footballer was then contacted directly on Instagram by a company who knew of the rejection and offered to help with it. This is highly suspicious behaviour, and possibly exploitation and extortion of the system. The company is Gloster media and I suspect they are connected with the reviewers of the wikipedia page. Dafea23 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dafea23: I guarantee you they aren't. It's unfortunately very common for scammers to troll the AfC category for potential marks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-signing to ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Goodfellow12[edit]

I am not able to understand, if my references are less or my citations are not done properly. because doctor who's wiki i'm writing is very famous in india and one of the top nephrologists in India's Capital. Goodfellow12 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodfellow12 They prove that Verma exists. They do not show whether he passes WP:BIO, which you must prove.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please do not upload pictures you find online. They are copyright by someone else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 20 May 2024 review of submission by Rcferdon[edit]

I am being told that my topic does not have reliable sources, but this topic is referenced by the United States Coast Guard. How much more reliable and independent can you get than that?

Please let me know more about what I need to do to get an approval.

Thank you, RC Rcferdon (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcferdon: The Coast Guard cannot help for notability (gov't document). The only usable cite you have is an incomplete one to a book, I wanna say? Use {{cite book}} (we need title, author, year of publication, publisher, page numbers being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcferdon I used to own and run a fishing charter boat. I see this as a WP:DICDEF. I'm not at all sure what one can write about it as an article. I'm happy if you succeed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 20 May 2024 review of submission by YakMeat[edit]

First time trying to submit an article, need help clarifying review. The two notes left on the article are that it reads more like an advertisement, and that the references do not meet the criteria. I agree that the article was written with a non-neutral point of view at points, which I will correct soon, however the second point isn't clear to me. Would the organization in charge of maintaining a park be considered an independent source when reporting on the park? Particularly when reporting objective facts, such as the length of a trail or the number of species seen, would the organization be a fair source? YakMeat (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YakMeat: No, it would not. We do not consider any entity with a significant connexion to the subject to be independent of them. The government sources also do not help for notability. Reference 3 is incomplete (page numbers). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just trying to clarify because I am new to this, but would these sources then have to be removed entirely to qualify the article? Or would they just have to be backed up by further independent sources? I guess my question would be: Would the article be automatically ineligible as long as these sources are listed on the references in any capacity? YakMeat (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly keep the sources you've already got to cite various bits of the article, but what we need is to prove that the park is notable. We do that by seeing significant coverage of the park in multiple (usually at least three) independent reliable published sources.
The only source that comes close to that is the Allendale Historical Society ones - though not sure how reliable they are. The rest of your sources are not independent of the park.
So: two or three sources, all independent, all reliable, all secondary that provide significant coverage. It could be travel magazines or websites giving a review, research articles documenting the flora/fauna, books discussing the history, etc. Qcne (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying! YakMeat (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps I think there's a good start to an article here. I'd be minded to cut down some of the content to make it a little more concise, sticking to the relevant facts. There isn't that much in the way of non-neutral language, but it might be worth reading WP:PEACOCK for words to avoid. Qcne (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think there is enough out there for the article to be warranted, I just needed to know a little more about some of the specifics regarding sourcing but I will continue to work on it. YakMeat (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YakMeat: To answer that, I'll ask you to read over my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques") before you read the following:
What we're looking for is in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly articles that discuss The Celery Farm at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous fact-checking and editorial processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the critiques page is very helpful YakMeat (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1224833055"