Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


July 21

[edit]

04:09, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Gvbkwikiya

[edit]

I would like to delete the draft and start again. How can I do that? 

Gvbkwikiya (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the draft deletion has already been done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metroboy2011

[edit]

I have put some references in place, put I am not sure, how to implement these. I am very new to this, I believe, the geocache description page is reputable enough as it is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Metroboy2011 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this collection of geocaches that show how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A Fandom wiki is user-editable, so it is not a valid source. The other source you use seems to just document the existence of this collection. You need independent reliable sources like news reports or published books that detail what makes this collection important/significant/influential. Personally, it seems unlikely to me that such sources would exist. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

[edit]

Hello. I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi with reliable references and enough out sources but this page was declined. may I ask you why it was declined even though all the links and references were reliable? Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Metropolisrunner

[edit]

I created a page for Ali Shahmohammadi but it has been declined. May I ask you why even though all the links and refences were true and reliable. Thank you so much Metropolisrunner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolisrunner: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely insufficient referencing and lack of evidence of notability. Please study the decline notice, following all the links therein, which expand on the reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Mildm8nnered

[edit]

I'd like to ask your advice regarding this article, which was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.". I'm trying to understand what I'm missing

The three references I've attached all

1. Dedicate multiple pages or a section to SwiftLint, according to their tables of contents.

2. Are references to published print books, published or distributed through mainstream publishers (Manning, Springer, etc)

3. Are independent of the subject

I'm not sure what I'm missing to meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent criteria.

I'd totally agree that the wording of my link to the references ("It is the most commonly recommended Swift linter") is slightly clumsy, but in terms of the references themselves, can you give me any clue as to what I'm missing? Mildm8nnered (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mildm8nnered You have done a good job documenting the existence of this software and what it does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the topic, more than just telling what it does or other routine information. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

[edit]

Hello! My draft has been declined a few days ago (for a second time). I don't really understand why according to its edit history. The draft had been reviewed back in March and declined by User:DoubleGrazing who told me: "Possibly notable, but the sources cited are not enough to establish this." Furthermore, User:DoubleGrazing kindly explained to me: "We need to see at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary published sources (books, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and that have of their own volition (not 'sponsored' content, advertorial, based on press releases, etc.) provided significant coverage of the subject." So subsequently, I added four new in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources (University of Innsbruck, Austrian newspaper "Die Furche", Austrian newspaper "Der Standard", Austrian national brodcaster ORF) and submitted my draft for a re-review. Then, a few days ago the draft has been declined again but strangely for the same reason as back in March. I asked the reviewer (User:Youknowwhoistheman) for advice but until now they have not come back to me so I don't know what to do now. I would be very glad, if you could help me out here because I'm of the opinion that I did what was required from me and that the draft now meets the required standard. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Takeru Watanabe! I don't speak German, so please forgive me if I miss anything from the sources, but I'll see whether I can work out what's going on for you.
Source 1 (Hell) seems to be discussing the poetry of the winners of the prize in 2004, rather than anything about the prize itself, so this would not be considered significant coverage.
Source 2 (Zeller) looks like a great source - that's one!
Source 3 (Kinzl) - this one is identified as a blog in the URL, and although you've cited an author and university publisher I'm not actually sure how you got that information. It doesn't look much like a reliable, reputable source as presented. Is that definitely the right URL? And perhaps more importantly, is it a blog? Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, so that might be the problem.
Source 4 (OE1) is also a bit of a puzzler since on the surface it looks good, but I also don't see an author listed and I'm not certain how reliable the site is. The reviewer/s may have seen it as unreliable, or at least not been sure whether it was reliable or not - I tend to agree that this source may not be usable without more information (or possibly a reviewer who's very familiar with German sources).
Source 5 (Salto) suffers from the same problem as 1 (Hell) - it seems to focus on the winning poetry from 2024 rather than on the prize itself.
I hope that's at least a bit useful for you, and I will ping @DoubleGrazing and @Youknowwhoistheman for you to see if they have any feedback. As I'm not a reviewer, please take their advice over mine if we have conflicting ideas on sources! Best wishes and happy editing, StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked the two new sources added since I reviewed this, but for refs #1-3 I concur with StartGrammarTime; also to add that #3 is a primary source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:StartGrammarTime! Thank you very much for your answer which is very helpful for me.
Please let me explain what I - in light of your comments - now think about the different sources.
Source 1 (Hell): I used this source in order to verify that 1993 was the year in that the Merano Poetry Prize was established ("Man kann es dem Lyrikpreis Meran nicht hoch genug anrechnen, dass er seit 1993 nun schon zum siebten Mal die Devise "Lyrik im Gespräch" ausgegeben hat"). So, I think it serves this purpose.
Source 3 (Kinzl): This is no private blog but in fact the "iPoint-Archiv der Universität Innsbruck" (https://www.uibk.ac.at/archive/ipoint/blog/_ottereendex.html). Under www.uibk.ac.at/ you find the homepage of the University of Innsbruck. The "blog" is something like the university's internet log archive. The source therefore in my opinion is reliable and also reputable. As for the name Martina Kinzl: I didn't come up with that, it was added automatically so I'm going to remove this detail manually.
Concerning @User:DoubleGrazing's remark (Hi and thanks also to you!), I don't see how the University of Innsbruck is supposed to be a primary source in this context. The students visiting the event might be but they don't give the relevant statement which is: "Dieser Literaturpreis, der 1992 erstmals ausgeschrieben wurde, wird alle zwei Jahre vergeben und ist neben dem Leonce-und-Lena-Preis und dem Christine-Lavant-Preis einer der bedeutendsten und renommiertesten Lyrikpreise im deutschsprachigem Raum. Das Echo der internationalen Presse auf die Preisvergabe ist sehr groß. In diesem Jahr feierte der Meraner Lyrikpreis seine 10. Ausgabe." This statement is made by the Innsbrucker Germanistik-Institut as an institution: an information of a matter of fact.
Source 4 (OE1): Ö1 is part of the Austrian national broadcaster ORF which is the equivalent to the BBC in Great Britain and is broadly considered as the most reliable media source in Austria. The news delivered by ORF are usually not linked to specific authors. The boradcaster itself serves as the source of information.
Source 5 (Salto): This source has been added deliberately at the position "Winners/2024" to verify the names of the three winners in 2024. That's its only purpose.
Okay, I hope could shed some light on my way of thinking about the matter and the reasons for choosing these specific sources.
Please let me finally say something general: I noted that most of the articles about German-language literature prizes lack the required sources, for example even the famous Büchner Prize. I think the reason for that is that in the first place literature prizes can be considered as prestigious without being the topic of feature articles in major newspapers ever. You know what I mean?
Anyway, the Merano Poetry Prize is without doubt a highly prestigious international prize for German-language and I think many people would profit from it having an article in the English Wikipedia.
So, again thanks a lot for your help!
Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Takeru Watanabe! I see where you're coming from with some of those now, thank you for clarifying!
The difficulty you may run into with using 1 (Hell) and 5 (Salto) to support small facts - while totally valid - is that you still need a minimum of three sources that cover the entirety of the subject, and so if one of them seems unsuitable then you've run out of options (since you have five sources, and two are not designed to support the whole subject). My advice would probably be to see if you can find one or two more good sources before your next resubmission, just so you have some backups if a reviewer has the same concerns that DoubleGrazing and I raised. I also wonder whether copy-pasting the background info you have given here for 3 (UoI since we're unsure about the author I guess?) and 4 (OE1) to the draft's talk page would be useful for future reviewers and indeed readers/other editors.
As for the Büchner Prize, alas, the reason is even simpler than you might think - the article is just very, very old, so it was created in the 'wild west' days of Wikipedia, when sources were optional and one-sentence articles were fine. Luckily it's had other interested editors over the years (since 2005!), so it isn't in bad shape compared to some other articles. The standards now are much stricter, because there are millions of old articles that need to be cleaned up and not enough editors to work on them all. There's an entire essay on "what about X?" because of all the sub-standard articles floating around...
Can I just say that I appreciate you not only spotting an article (Büchner Prize) in need of help, but then actually doing something about it? Having really good quality articles on the German-language literature prizes benefits everyone, and I suspect a lot of us don't speak/read German fluently - I sure don't! - so we're not much good with source-checking and adding information.
I'm not sure I can be of much more assistance to you, but I think you're definitely on the right path - so I will wish you happy editing and hope to see you around! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @StartGrammarTime and also thanks again for your kind assistance and for your encouragement. These pieces of information are really helpful to me. Also, I appreciate your idea of providing some background information for future reviewers on my talk page.
I think I have found two more suitable sources in the meantime that meet the requirements and cover the content of the draft in its entirety. So, I'm quite optimistic concerning the next submission of the draft.
In case, you might want to have a look and tell me what you think about the sources, here they are:
Source 6 [now reference 1]: https://www.planetlyrik.de/ferruccio-delle-cave-martin-hanni-hrsg-lyrik-im-gesprach/2010/07/
Source 7 [now reference 2]: https://www.fr.de/kultur/literatur/leitpranken-meran-11684636.html
Hope to see you around, too! Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 21 July 2024 review of submission by Immigrant laborer

[edit]

I'm not sure why this was declined for lack of reliable sources. The article references dedicated pieces from the BBC, New York Times and Variety. Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has little information about what makes the show notable in the special way Wikipedia uses the word. The sources do little more than document the existence of the show. Some professional reviews of the show would probably help a lot.331dot (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lie; I'm worried that we're heading into Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock territory right now.

From the Variety source: 

Beginning in November, the show was an immediate hit, topping the ratings throughout its 12-week run. The final episode was watched by 1.5 million viewers, which equals 25% of the population.

- Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case part of the problem was a paywalled source (NYT), I've added an archive link for that one and also removed the external link in the text (since current policy is not to put them in the body of the article, and that's another small change that may help). To my not-super-experienced eyes you have good sources; I wonder whether adding information about why the show was created in the first place and perhaps a section on how it was received would improve the draft further? I know you do have a little bit about the reception of the show in the lede, but it's only a sentence and I'm positive there must be more.
I can see you've been around here for a lot longer than I have, @Immigrant laborer, but have you been hanging around in the article creation feedback/info pages? New articles are expected to be pretty darn good right off the bat, and I get the sense that much more is being asked of new articles now than it was even a few years ago. The problem with three sources is that if even one is inaccessible or unsuitable in some way, there's no backup.
If you'd like a volunteer, I'm now very interested in this show so I'd be happy to go digging for more sources if that would help you. Right now I'm not super coherent thanks to chronic pain nonsense, but I might even try my hand at a paragraph or two when my thoughts line up properly if you don't mind. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @StartGrammarTime! I will see if I can find more sources in Hebrew, perhaps. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Immigrant laborer! If I find anything I'll take it to the draft talk page, that way we're not overlapping work. I can't read Hebrew but I can be very persistent in looking for English-language sources at least! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Egov.Press

[edit]
Constant spam/promotion target by a blocked user/users. And no, these sources don't demonstrate notability. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good afternoon. I ask you to consider restoring the article about the petition site Egov.Press, since authoritative sources have appeared that prove the importance of the resource.

https://kaztag.kz/en/news/problems-with-access-to-the-popular-petition-site-alash-online-began-in-kazakhstan

https://press.kz/novosti/vkazahstane-zablokirovali-nezavisimiy-sayt-dlya-petitsiy-alash-online-iz-za-petitsii

https://newtimes.kz/obshchestvo/188824-kazakhstantsy-ispytyvaiut-trudnosti-s-dostupom-na-sait-petitsii-alash-online

https://zonakz.net/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-peticij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazaxstane/

https://time.kz/news/society/2024/05/27/problemy-s-dostupom-na-populyarnyj-sajt-petitsij-alash-online-nachalis-v-kazahstane 176.64.31.9 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you'll need to speak to the rejecting editor directly, @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the submit template so it can be re-submitted, I don't read Russian so can't assess the new sources and will recuse myself from reviewing again. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:42, 21 July 2024 review of submission by DFP32301

[edit]

How do I include primary-source images taken on location at the flight-line during the Operation? DFP32301 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DFP32301: You don't. (Or, more specifically, the images will do nothing for the draft. Assuming they were done by an American government or military agent in the course of their duties, they are public-domain.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Party article

[edit]

why was my draft declined? the sources I used are from university presses, the national library of Israel and teh isdrael democracy forum, all credible! The article for Mizrachi (political party), a party from this same tiem period, literally has ZERO citations and is still up... Rh0809 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Advanced
@Rh0809: please link to your draft, so we don't have to go hunting for it.
A university press isn't a source, it's a publisher; something they publish is a source. But in this case that source is cited with very little detail to indicate what it is, and what information in the draft it supports (giving the page range as "p 38-100" is also too broad to be useful). It's also not clear, to me at least, what the last source is. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification. Non-English sources are also acceptable, but it would be helpful for the benefit of all reviewers, and not just those who happen to read the language in question, if some information on the source was provided in English, possibly even a brief translation of the salient point you're wishing to rely on.
There are any number of problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. I agree that the Mizrachi (political party) article is unreferenced, and I have now tagged it as such; thank you for flagging that up. You're of course more than welcome to improve that article, or to begin deletion proceedings should you so wish.
One last point: please do not simply resubmit a draft without at least attempting to address the decline reasons. If you disagree with the review, you could just publish the article yourself, since you have the sufficient permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

[edit]

09:10, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

[edit]

Unclear as to where the sourcing issues are for this declined submission. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: you asked a very similar question here a couple of days ago, are you just repeating that question, or is there something you specifically wish to ask (and if so, what exactly)? Also, please don't start a new thread each time, just add to the existing one while it remains on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last post was addressing notability concerns in the article, which appear now to have been fixed. The new reason the declining the post was improper sourcing not notability. So I am asking what what are the examples of improper sourcing that need to be addressed. I recognise that certain sources used are not completely indpendent in certain cases (galleries in collaboration with VH), but in those cases they are used purely to describe an event occuring, such as an exhibition, not to evaulate its success or notability. This was deemed okay in a livechat with an editor. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Courtesy ping: SafariScribe – anything you can share? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia, there are many unsourced claims in your draft, and they are significant to meet WP:NCORP. Also remove the excessive peacock/advertorial/promotional terms. Let's take a look at "Venetian Heritage has funded over 70 restoration projects [1], 30 publications and organized over 35 exhibitions." The "35 exhibitions" isn't sourced. Same as "Venetian Heritage is a non-profit organization based in Venice and New York focused on the promotion and preservation of the art and architecture of Venice and the nations of the former Republic of Venice. It organizes and financially supports restoration and conservation projects in Venice, curates exhibitions worldwide and funds publications and research projects." I will strike like the above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still claims that it was not written in neutral tone. Please could you show where you think it should be edited, thanks. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Sienitoe

[edit]

Requesting assistance editing the submitted draft for Tini Lam Yuen. The reason provided: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I'm new to Wiki and appreciate any helpful feedback or guidance on how to best address the review decision. Thank you. Sienitoe (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tini Inu Lam Yuen
@Sienitoe: at least half of the content is unreferenced. While someone who died nearly 30 years ago isn't subject to our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP), we still need to know where the information is coming from. You need to cite the sources, so that reviewers (and later, readers) can verify them if needed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought most of it was already referenced. Could you provide an example @DoubleGrazing thank you! Sienitoe (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sienitoe: I would have thought it's fairly easy to find unreferenced information there, given that eight paragraphs are entirely without citations. But as an example, the final section which contains private personal information – where did that come from? What about his date of birth? Or the family details in the 'Education' section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Grantuk1996

[edit]

I submitted an article with the above title on June 20th using the AFC submitting wizard. It said that the article is waiting to review and can take up to 4 months. Is this correct? As I've heard some articles are getting reviewed a lot quicker than that. Am I able to re-submit a different way to get it reviewed quicker? Grantuk1996 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantuk1996: yes, it is true, we have c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take anything up to three months or so. And yes, some drafts are reviewed much quicker than that, as the system isn't a queue, it's a pool. And no, there isn't another way to submit for a faster review.
What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.
Also, have you previously edited this or other drafts under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One way you could perhaps help the reviewers would be to cut down on the WP:REFBOMBING: we don't need to see 45 sources, most of which don't contribute towards notability; we need to see max. 4-5 sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard as required by WP:NCORP. One way to get rid of a large number of useless sources would be to remove the entire 'Prizes and awards' section, which is promotional and provides no encyclopaedic value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wabbit98

[edit]

Why am I being picked on? Wabbit98 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wabbit98, no one is picking on you. You simply haven't proven notability under WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this school seems to be defunct, I would look at it instead as a historical landmark included in the NRHP, which should make it notable per WP:GEOFEAT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I agree, so have accepted. FYI @SafariScribe Qcne (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, @Qcne, and @Wabbit98, I know the school, even as a defunct one is notable by appearing in the list, but i was a bit confused that the link doesn't point anywhere. It seems to be fixed now, and I love the acceptance; that I wanted to fix before accepting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67

[edit]

My submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Sources I have included are all reliable as far as I can tell - how can I get around this issue? MasterOfNone67 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterOfNone67: which set of sources are we talking about? You've referenced five sources via inline citations, which creates the customery footnotes at the bottom. You've then listed a number of external links under the heading 'References', without citing them anywhere, so it's difficult to know what information, if any, they are there to support. Perhaps you could clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wasif Raza1

[edit]

I would like to inuqire, why arent we discussing it, as this company has over 1000 visitors daily across its website as well as retail store. 

Wasif Raza1 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasif Raza1: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence that the subject is notable; furthermore, it is pure advertising, and for that reason I have just requested speedy deletion. Please note that any sort of promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

[edit]

Hello! How long will the review of this proposal take? Kamila Fomin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation process is very backlogged right now. There are almost 3000 submissions awaiting review. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few months. There is no "queue"; submissions are reviewed in no particular order. C F A 💬 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also take out all the peacock language. Who says the films are "acclaimed"? (No article should ever use such evaluative language, unless it is directly quoting a reliable independnet source).
You should look at every one of your sources critically: does it meet all three of the criteria in 42? If it doesn't, what is it doing there? ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: if you want to avoid a quick decline, you should reference the draft appropriately; currently the first three sections are virtually unsupported – where does all that information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Ratbabyjones

[edit]

I am respectfully requesting a specific example of what is NOT in an encyclopedic tone and/or what in this article constitutes a peacock term. All information is factual and cited. I would also appreciate some clarification about why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on a lack of "independent, reliable, published sources," as there are multiple references to LA Times coverage specific to Bermudez and spanning multiple decades. Thank you for any help you are able to provide. Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratbabyjones: The draft is mostly a curriculum vitae. A little more prose will go a very long way here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned more prose will be considered non-neutral or peacocking. Any advice? Ratbabyjones (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratbabyjones: Keep It Simple. Stick strictly to summarising what the sources explicitly say, do not extrapolate or editorialise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Coolelvin2

[edit]

Don't edit Wikipedia regularly so I need help developing this article. I like Sydney Parrish and think she deserves a page. Coolelvin2 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolelvin2: you need to cite your sources (where you got all this information), and you also need to show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

[edit]

Hello WikiProject Help,

I need to make a small edit to my submitted draft and want to know if it'll change my position on the waiting list so far. Also, is there a limit on how many times I should resubmit a draft for review?

Best, Wynee Wyneep (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wyneep:
You're welcome to continue editing your draft while you wait for a review. The draft has no 'position', as the system is not a queue, but rather a pool.
In theory at least, you can keep submitting as many times as you like, as long as you're making meaningful improvements in response to reviewer comments. It's normaly only when it looks like the draft isn't developing any further, or there's no realistic prospect of acceptance, that it will be rejected outright.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Why did you disclose a conflict of interest (COI) on your user page, and then delete that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an accident. I thought I had to if I took a photo of the person I'm writing about. But I was able to get Wikimedia Commons permission. So that's why I deleted it. Wyneep (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Melodata

[edit]

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional basketball players wiki pages. I don’t understand. This is a well known professional athlete Melodata (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melodata: whether or not the sources are reliable, they in any case don't establish notability per the general WP:GNG guideline. Personally, I would have declined for that reason, rather. And I don't see anything there that would obviously satisfy either WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Melodata: As of February 2023 top-level play no longer guarantees notability; there are still a lot of basketball articles that were written under the old guideline that have yet to be re-examined yet. You need to have non-routine sources that discuss the player. Statlines and profiles will not cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Shinaimm

[edit]

Hi, this page waits for a long time. Emily is a famous journalist in Israel and also appear in media around the world. Can you please review her page again? It waits for a lot of months... Shinaimm (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinaimm the draft has been reviewed and declined again by CFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 71.224.206.35

[edit]

Hello - I submitted a biography article and it was declined for not having adequate sources. I included scholarly articles and would love more guidance to ensure I include the necessary materials to get this approved. Please advise. Thank you! 71.224.206.35 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to an in-depth third-party source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Elekesabel

[edit]

I'm wondering why the submission was declined. What is missing and how could I improve the page?

Clayton R. Paul is a highly esteemed scientist, highly notable in his scientific field, author of numerous publications and books.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Here it says that for an academic "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".

For context: I'm a researcher at the Northeastern University, Network Science Institute. We are working on a project, which aims to understand the differences between Human-curated encyclopedias and Machine-created knowledge. As part of this project we plan to upload 100 articles of notable scientist to Wikipedia in the following weeks. Our goal is to understand how can we influence the visibility of marginalized groups, both on human-curated and machine-created knowledge bases.

We would love to receive feedback on the feasibility of our plans and how would you recommend approaching the articles.

Ábel Elekes, PhD Elekesabel (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elekesabel: WP:NACADEMIC is actually the criteria you need to meet, not the stricter NPERSON. Read over NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Thank you! I'm wondering how the person in the draft is not meeting the criteria? He has clearly made huge contribution to his scientific field. Elekesabel (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does not make this clear. You write "Clayton R. Paul was a globally recognized expert in electromagnetic compatibility", but don't say who gives this recognition or what specifically led to it. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Hi, thank you for your answer! How would I be able to show this in your opinion? Dr. Paul had several papers with thousands of citations, however I tried to reference scientific sites, but it seemed not possible. Most of the highly cited scientists, such as Dr. Paul, does not have a dedicated Google Scholar page, but if you search his name the publications appear.
Also, he received several awards, I'm not sure if the awards do not have a dedicated website, how should I reference them, other than sources similar to the current references?
In general scientists have very vague coverage on the internet, other than the scientific websites. However, in our opinion they should be present on Wikipedia, since they made huge contributions to society. We conducted an analysis showing that the coverage of scientists on Wikipedia is heavily declining compared to other fields of notabilities, such as athletes or cultural figures. This is one of the reasons we are doing this intervention. Elekesabel (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"?
Please see the WP:NACADEMIC page and scroll down to the header "Specific criteria notes". This explains what is being looked for to satisfy either of the first two criteria. In short, you need to show that Paul's work is extensively cited in other scholarly/academic publications, or summarize reviews of Paul's work. If he was given an award, there should be some documentation somewhere about why he was given the award. You wrote "Throughout his career, Paul received numerous accolades, reflecting his influence and contributions to engineering", but you don't say what those accolades are or what his influence/contributions were that led to the awards. Sources do not have to be online, they just need to be publicly accessible.(i.e. not something in a private collection inaccessible to the public) 331dot (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you for your answer!
'We' are the research team working on the project.
Regarding Dr. Paul's contribution and awards: in the references provided it is clearly stated that he received these awards and he has these accolades. How else should I be able to reference this if the specific award has no other dedicated website? Aren't these references the ideal 'secondary' sources?
Most scientists would have similar online presence as Dr. Paul. If you Google them you would find their publications, books and possibly their profile on their current and former university affiliations. But usually not much more, since science in general are not newsworthy and publicized. A lot of the scientists does not even have profiles on major scientific data sources, like google scholar or researchgate.
However, if I can't reference the scientific profiles, or their current affiliation page, how should I be able to create their page that can get accepted?
All the scientist we aim to upload are great scientists with significant scientific contributions, having publications with thousands of citations. We manually curated the list and created these descriptions.
Do you think it is not possible to get these articles, like Dr. Paul's, on Wikipedia at all, because they don't appear on enough websites?
Thank you! Elekesabel (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I again stress that sources do not have to be online.
Note that as stated in the guideline, "For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source." If you're saying that the sources you've already given document the awards he was given, again, that's not clear in the draft. You did write "Paul was the only two-time recipient of the IEEE EMC Society's Richard Stoddard Award for Outstanding Performance, a testament to his exceptional impact on the field", but don't say what that impact is.
WP:NACADEMIC is actually a pretty loose guideline when compared to other notability guidelines, precisely because scientists and researchers aren't usually getting coverage in the news or similar.
I'm sure that Paul has done a lot, but as a lay person reading the draft, it's not clear to me what exactly Paul has done other than he wrote a lot of papers. You said "His work focused on modeling and quantifying interference in cabling systems, laying the groundwork for contemporary EMC practices" but don't say why that's important or who considers it so(such as through Paul's work being cited in other academic publications). 331dot (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elekesabel! Rather than comment on your draft, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that you may be interested in a similar (established almost a decade ago, still very active) project: Women In Red (WIR). You may know that on Wikipedia articles occasionally have red links, which indicates that someone thinks the subject of that link could be notable and that there ought to be an article about them. WIR's goal is to create articles for as many redlinked women as possible, hence the name. Biographies of women are vastly underrepresented, and their work has been going on for a very long time, so it may be useful for you to contact them and combine forces (or get some data, which they also collect). I can only imagine how few female scientists have biographies, if both women and scientists are underrepresented!
Best of luck with your project, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Achehawaii

[edit]

I want to make sure this is published as a scholarly article Achehawaii (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Achehawaii: The draft as written is promotional and three of its sources are to an organisation he's part of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 22 July 2024 review of submission by 72.92.37.34

[edit]

What does this need to become a page? The company has seemed to have developed a lot of games. 72.92.37.34 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need in-depth coverage about the company not just a list of their games and some of the source cited make no mention of Altron so not useful. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 22 July 2024 review of submission by Funcionais

[edit]

Can someone explain me why the request for the creation of this article was declined? Funcionais (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcionais: For want of sources, primarily. Your sources are a profile of the journal (too sparse) and the organisation that created the journal. Nothing that really explains how the outlet meets WP:NJOURNAL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano WP:NJOURNAL is not a recognized guideline so general guideline is what is used. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano The SCImago source does show that, which is why I am puzzled. The journal ranking is second quartile, which means it has above median citations. If you search on google scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+Quarterly+Journal+of+Finance&btnG=&oq=the+) you can find papers published by this journal with hundreds of citations, but I can't include that in the article because it doesn't feel appropriate. Any suggestions? Funcionais (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

[edit]

Why Last drop article declined ?

[edit]

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional film wiki pages. I don’t understand.(https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Last_Drop) Fantasy 45 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fantasy 45: You're conflating the outlet that published those sources with the context of those sources. And the fact is, the more in-depth sources are generally more about the filmmaker than the film itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me?

[edit]

I'm not sure how to address this.

There is an Ashlee Bond.

She is quite often routinely called Ashley Bond.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

But there is already a wp article with someone with that name (who averages zero article views per day). So I can't request a redirect from Ashlee Bond to Ashley Bond.

Would appreciate any help. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:DDA7:B97A:4B36:9255 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I think what you are looking for here is some kind of disambiguation - so one would be Ashley Bond (rugby player), and the other Ashley Bond (show jumping rider), or something along those lines. In the meantime, there was already a redirect ('if you are looking for...') on the rugby player's page, and I have added the same to the rider's page so hopefully that will also help. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the rider is the one who attracts overwhelmingly the most views, should it go to her? And does the dab work in any case with a redirect? And can I create the dab myself as an IP? Many thanks. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:303D:2C0D:7B3D:DA7F (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:26, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

[edit]

I revised the sources more than 5 times, and I am not sure which sources exactly are not reliable, and which ones I need to change. Kamila Fomin (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: it's not necessarily that the sources aren't reliable, but that they don't adequately support the contents. As I said yesterday (did you read any of the answers?), there are entirely unreferenced sections in this draft, which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person. In fact, all the sources only support his works, not any of the biographical content.
And when I say 'support', I'm being generous. Eg. source #11 just points to Yahoo movie news portal, which supports nothing in this draft. Similarly, #14 points to the home page of a website, and I can't see Druhora even being mentioned anywhere on that page. There may well be other examples like this. When you say you went through the sources "more than 5 times", I'm wondering how you missed these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin I have left a comment in the draft.
Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Also please recognise that you have written what you want to say and are not scratching around for references. This is WP:BACKWARDS which you need to read. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Ahmadghader

[edit]

hello dear, can you advise me about my topic, what i can edit to accept it and publish it. Ahmadghader (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmadghader the draft has been rejected, so please don't attempt to resubmit it, like you did here. A single interview doesn't establish notablilty. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 118.210.162.3

[edit]

For some reason, my draft was REJECTED, so, I'm wandering if you can do anything about it. 

118.210.162.3 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - your draft was rejected as Nocti is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask for it to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted and suppressed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:41, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

[edit]


Hello, my draft was rejected for supposedly not having enough reliable sources, but I disagree with this assessment. Some of the sources are wikilinked and are major news sources or encyclopedias in South Korea, and others are local newspapers for Jeju Province, including 헤드라인제주 ("Headline Jeju"), Jeju Ilbo [ko], and 뉴스제주 ("News Jeju"). Plenty of local newspapers are relied on for local features in English-speaking countries; feel like language bias may have a role here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tagging reviewer 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been accepted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:58, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107

[edit]


Draft was rejected for supposedly not demonstrating notability. Same reviewer of my other draft just above. These references in the article in particular are major South Korean newspapers and their entire articles are solely about the website in question:

There are also other smaller South Korean newspapers (all of which reliable and wikilinked when possible) in the article. Please give it a look with machine translation to verify. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tag again 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@104.232.119.107, I have accepted your draft since I have no doubt of notability. Declining was because the English translations uses "Shared Yard" as a commonname but it's different with your title. Is there any input for that or I would go ahead and rename to Shared Yard? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing "shared yard"? If you plug the website's name into google translate then that shows up, but when I search that name on google all I see is YouTubers who've probably used google translate instead of searching official or common names for the website. Here's a document from the Korea Copyright Commission that uses the current spelling. And the domain name for the website is "gongu.copyright.or.kr" 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 76.148.28.254

[edit]

I have submitted the article multiple times, adding sources each time, and I have not gotten the article approved. I have waited over a week for this review, while my previous submissions were reviewed within a single day. Do you have any ideas for how I can have my article approved and have it be reviewed more quickly? Thank you. 76.148.28.254 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're TumulousStorm97?).
You most recently submitted this draft ten days ago. As it says on the top of the page, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,721 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.
No, there is no way to expedite reviews. Is there a particular reason why you're in a hurry? Note that Wikipedia is not edited to any deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone would like a speedy review, can you tell us why you should get one over everyone else who has a draft submitted? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Zaccwm

[edit]

This article has been declined a number of times by various people with apparently a templated reason. Seldon Farmer was a recipient of a British Honour the OBE and as such would appear to meet the Biography requirement for notability i.e. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) There were many more references from around the world but reviewers requested I remove references as there were too many.

I do not appear to be able to get the balance right, the fact that people are still citing him 40 years after his death seems to suggest that he was notable, and indeed this was confirmed by Roger Statham, author of The Golden Age of Probation: Mission V Market and in Harding, John; Page, Martin; Whiting, Adrian; Cannings, Jim (April 2024). "A Slice of Probation History: The story of Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer". ARCOIP: The Association of Retired Chief Officers and Inspectors of Probation Newsletter: 9–16. Any specific guidance for the article would be helpful to enable it to be published and others to contribute as they see fit. Many thanks Zaccwm (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you resubmit with no edits since the previous decline then you're likely to see the same result.
An OBE is generally not considered sufficient on its own to signify notability for a Wikipedia article (see for example, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016#MBE). You therefore need to demonstrate notability with references that show significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (WP:NBASIC). Do you have three or four sources that meet these criteria (not written by the subject of the article, and not just a passing mention)? Mgp28 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Andrewkoper

[edit]

I made a Wikipedia page for a soccer team in Detroit. The soccer team has been around 15 years and has been published online previously (I have four citations). I summitted the page for review, but a reviewer declined the submission. This seems like it is a legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about. Is there a way to have another reviewer review the draft who could decide the page is good and publish it? Andrewkoper (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewkoper: it is a "legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about", if it can be shown to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. For sports teams/clubs, this means citing multiple (3+) sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and that have provided significant coverage directly of the subject. Of the sources cited in your draft, the radio piece (IPR) looks like it could meet this standard, but it alone isn't enough, you need a couple more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewkoper Do you want to wait for a reviewer who will tell you what you want to hear, or who will tell you the right thing? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 23 July 2024 review of submission by WS at Worthington Steel

[edit]

Requesting further information for why this page was declined. Pop-up said because of unreliable sources, but the sources used were independent and credible. WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WS at Worthington Steel: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
I cannot assess the print sources (copy required), but the sources I can assess are all unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! A quick question -- to my knowledge, the Columbus Dispatch article was not routine coverage. How are articles determined routine coverage or not? WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WS at Worthington Steel: See WP:CORPDEPTH. The Columbus Dispatch story is considered routine because it is business news which would have been reported on as a matter of course (in this case, spinning off a new business unit). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

[edit]

Hello I want to publish this Mitesh Narigara's article, What What thing i need to complete this article ? Please guide me for this article.

Thank you Regards BtimesLive BtimesLive (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BtimesLive: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Eleanorguy

[edit]

Page entry has been turned down. Would like to talk to someone live. Eleanorguy (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleanorguy We are all alive but there is no live chat here.
Please look at your references. The majority do not even mention Broom Factory. One whcih does is simply a performance listing. I think three are about Broom Factory.
This is your roadmap. Please read the big pink decline notice and see what is required for referencing. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE and implement what they say. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

[edit]

We need help for article publish, We already added sources on the article. BtimesLive (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly for the better; the sources they added were all payola. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Jjarchivist

[edit]

I have a physical newscutting of an obituary in The Times (London) dated 16 February 1996. Is there any copy of this online and how can I use this as a reference? Jjarchivist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjarchivist: You don't, at least not directly. You cite it as an offline source with {{cite news}}, providing the paper name, paper edition, article name, article byline, and the page(s) it ran on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Queremalense

[edit]

This is my first article and I'm somewhat puzzled by the recurring reasons for it's dismissal re reliable and notability.

After consulting this article [10], I believe the draft article indeed satisfies the notability criteria. Similarly, there are several third party references by a mixture of national newspapers (Japan Times), specialist music publications (The Wire), and other independent music specialists (Boomkat).

I would value additional opinions and advice since the same reason for dismissal has occurred twice.

My motivation in creating the article stems from how prominent they have become in the past decade in the Japanese and European experimental music scene, as evidenced by the references I have given, despite the relative lack of coverage in english. I don't speak Japanese and so therefore can't research or link Japanese info and references in creating this page. I'm particularly interested in creating this article so that a Japanese version might next be created and they could mutually support one another as reference articles by sharing links to references that non-Japanese speakers might not find. Queremalense (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Queremalense! The good news is that sources and notability go hand-in-hand, so if you can solve one of those problems you can solve both. Let's go over your sources and see what's holding you back.
The first thing to keep in mind is that to establish notability, each source you use must meet all the criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule'. Articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). So here we go!
Source 1, Japan Times, looked promising but unfortunately is an interview (not independent).
Source 2, Bandcamp, is a place to listen to their music rather than containing information about them (not significant coverage, not a reliable source).
Source 3 and 5, Boomkat, are trying to sell you their album (not a reliable source).
I can't assess source 4 and 8 as it's offline and I don't have access. It looks like the same source quoted twice, which is fine, but if it's an acceptable source that only counts as one - you need a minimum of three. Let's assume for now that this source is good.
Source 6, ZDB, is selling tickets for a performance (not a reliable source).
Source 7, gnration, is also selling tickets (not a reliable source).
Sadly, none of the sources I can access are usable. What you need is someone writing about the band who, like you, is not connected to them in any way and is just interested in them. It may be that you do need Japanese-language sources, which is frustrating - we do have translators who may be willing to help, if you can find some sources you think look promising. Google translate should be able to give you an idea of whether any Japanese-language sources are suitable and what they're saying, and you could then ask for a translator to check whether the information you're citing them for is accurate to what the source says.
I hope that's been helpful. Best wishes and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response.
To discuss source 1 more and the status of interviews as reliable sources (something I'd like to be clear on if I continue on Wikipedia), if not also about research methodology: on the question of determining when, in this case, a band formed, there are situations where a researcher will rely on an original interview of a primary source / subject to determine certain facts. The assumption is that as an academic or reputable journalist following best practice, one must fact check or verify however possible. In many cases there will be no reliable independent objective source to check e.g. a birth certificate of a band, rather, one has to interview or collate other sources, all of which might not be seen as reliable in the Wikipedian definition, but which, on the whole, can be presented as robust, critically independent, and reliable i.e. a researcher establishes a wider context to prove otherwise unreliable claims.
Put more simply, sometimes all you can do is ask the person for a fact only they know, and they might not even be sure (e.g. when a band formed: at a gig, in the studio, at a meeting, in their head as an idea years before any of the above), but as a researcher you then have to build a critical context to prove or disprove their statement.
Hopefully this is not too anal, but what I mean with this point is that if one dismisses interviews as wholly unreliable, this assumes that the substance of said article has not itself been researched, verified, and judged accurated by the interview author, in this case a writer for Japan Times, a reputable journalistic outfit. My reading of it leads me to believe with confidence that the writer has check the facts provided by the subject, and on the referenced point in question, about when the band formed.
I can think of many interviews where the authorial voice is very much with the interviewer rather than interviewee, and where the former is making some kind of critique of the latter. And so, I question whether articles that contain a mixture of both interview content and original prose should be dismissed in such contexts, because often, in cases where interviewers maintain a critical distance from their subjects, they demonstrate an independent reliability e.g. fact checking, or explaining the interviewees comments when they might be false, misleading, or inaccurate.
I share all this coming from an academic background myself, and in which I find there is often more grey than black and white with these types of epistemological issues.
Still, I'll try to look into Japanese sources using web translate tools in case there are any easy finds of further reliable sources. Queremalense (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Queremalense, you did raise a point that I should have mentioned but forgot - my apologies. You are absolutely correct that some information can only really be known by the people involved, and we do accept that kind of basic information (birthdate, partner's name, band creation) from interviews. However, the interview cannot contribute to notability. So you can certainly use the interview as a reference for the band's birthdate, as it were, but it's generally ruled out as a source that will establish that they are in fact notable.
It's possible that if you have an interview that has clearly done fact checking and is prepared to call out false or misleading information, that might be usable as a reliable source. It would probably need a consensus of editors, though - perhaps on WikiProject Music or failing that at Requests for Comment - because you are likely to run into the same problem from another angle, namely that the interviewer might be biased against the subject rather than biased towards them. I'm sure this situation would have come up before in Wikipedia's history but don't know where to even start looking. The Teahouse or Help Desk might be able to find some examples if you're interested in that path.
Thanks for pointing that out, and best of luck with the source hunt! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]

00:17, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Banjo Bilby

[edit]

Hi there, I have added lots of references from academic journals and gov websites, however, it keeps getting rejected on the grounds of referencing. Can I gets some tips and help please? Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banjo Bilby: Anything from Arid Recovery's own website is useless for notability and can only be used for uncontroversial claims (connexion to subject). Anything from Australia's government as a whole is also useless for notability by dint of being government sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arid Recovery website I get. The government pages are species profiles from the EPBC act, which is weird to ignore. Thanks for the help though. Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:25, 24 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek guidance regarding an article I have been attempting to submit to Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, my submissions have not been approved. I would like to emphasize that I have:

Carefully reviewed and followed Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Included numerous third-party references to support the article's content. Provided citations from reputable publishers to ensure the information's credibility. Made multiple revisions based on previous feedback (if applicable).

At this point, I feel I have exhausted my options for further edits without additional guidance. I would greatly appreciate your insights on:

Specific areas of the article that still require improvement. Any particular concerns about the current content or structure. Suggestions for additional sources or types of references that would strengthen the article. Any other steps I can take to meet Wikipedia's standards for publication.

Your expertise and advice would be invaluable in helping me understand how to proceed. I am committed to contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia and am eager to learn from your feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to improve my submission. CymaSonic (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, using AI for guidance might not be effective, and it seems AI may have been used to write your draft, making it read promotional. Additionally, your draft lacks proper citations to reliable sources. Ignoring the decline notice, which includes reasons for the decline, is not advisable as it contains valuable information to help improve your draft. Please review it thoroughly and seek guidance before resubmitting. Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @SafariScribe ,
Thank you for your prompt feedback on my draft. I appreciate your time and would like to address the points you raised:
  1. Use of AI: I want to clarify that I did not use AI to write the draft. My process involved organic Google searches to find existing resources, which I then verified individually. The guidance I followed came from Wikipedia's own guidelines.
  2. Citations and reliable sources: I understand your concern about proper citations. I'm currently investigating official links for the awards mentioned. For the career section, particularly regarding McKinsey (internship) and Itochu Corporation, I found it challenging to locate third-party articles due to the relatively minor nature of these positions in the subject's overall career.
  3. Promotional tone: I apologize if the draft came across as promotional. This was not my intention, and I will work on maintaining a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.
  4. Previous decline notices: I assure you that I have been carefully reading all feedback. If I've missed any crucial points, I sincerely apologize and would greatly appreciate if you could highlight them again.
Based on your feedback, I propose the following changes:
  1. Remove the career section that lacks strong third-party references.
  2. Focus on the awards and recent speaking engagements, ensuring each has verifiable sources.
  3. Revise the entire draft to ensure a neutral tone and compliance with Wikipedia's standards.
Would this approach be more suitable? I'm committed to improving this draft and would greatly appreciate any additional guidance you can provide.
Thank you for your patience and assistance in this process. CymaSonic (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CymaSonic: I have a couple of suggestions. The first is covered by the advice at WP:BACKWARDS. When you create a draft, each sentence should be based on what a source says. That way, you do not end up with content that is not apparently based on any source. Minor positions in a person's career that are not covered by secondary sources can safely be omitted from the draft.
I'd also like to point out the policy at WP:TRADEMARK to support removal of the TM and R symbols you've included in your draft. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback and advice on my draft article about Natsuyo N. Lipschutz. I greatly appreciate the time you took to review my submission and provide such constructive guidance.
I understand the importance of following the WP:BACKWARDS approach and will revise my draft accordingly, ensuring that each sentence is based on reliable secondary sources. I will also remove all trademark symbols as per the WP:TRADEMARK policy.
Your advice has been invaluable, and I plan to thoroughly revise the article based on your suggestions. I will focus on collecting reliable secondary sources and rebuilding the content from there.
Thank you again for your assistance. 47.16.14.168 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Tamsragow

[edit]

My draft has been rejected twice due to unreliable sources, but I believe the issue is that the sources are in another language. Is this usually a problem or will I be able to get the draft approved with these sources? Tamsragow (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft 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.
Sources do not need to be in English as long as they meet all other criteria for being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in other languages are acceptable, if there are no equally good English ones. It often takes longer for a draft with non-English sources to get reviewed, because it will wait for a reviewer who can either read that language or is prepared to put them through a translator and review them.
However, if a reviewer has reviewed the draft, they will have looked at the sources in one of those ways, and concluded that they are inadequate.
Note that while the message say "reliable sources", there are three separate criteria that sources must meet - reliability, independence, and significant coverage; and it is often one of the others: see the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you so much for responding. The sources I used are secondary and primary sources about the subject and the article was reviewed rather quickly despite the majority of the sources being in Hebrew (this makes me think that those reviewing do not understand the language). The majority of these exact sources were used in a Wikipedia article about the same subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia page and were accepted as entirely reliable. Are there different standards for the English one? Tamsragow (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, the sources were 100% checked by someone who understands the language even though they were once checked within 3 days? I just want to be sure. Tamsragow (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedia editors! I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you find the website "nil.org.il" to be unreliable because many of my sources come from this website as it is the website for the National Archive of Israel, so many old news articles can only be found there. Was this the issue with my draft or were the sources found on this website reliable?
The sources included, https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/hadashot/1987/05/07/01/article/141?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wiki.x.io&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/mar/1990/12/17/01/article/256?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wiki.x.io&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/ahr/1950/05/09/01/article/29?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wiki.x.io&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
and
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1964/05/22/01/article/158?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wiki.x.io&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut.
Additional sources were www.gov.il which is a statement from the Israeli government. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/roots_1996_1/he/roots-1996-1.pdf
Was there an issue with these specific sources?
Please let me know! I really appreciate your time. Tamsragow (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NLI is not the source of these, but merely where they are to be found. The first is published by Hadashot, and the second by Maariv, and they should be cited with title, author, publisher (the newspaper), date, page number, and (optionally, for reader convenience) links to the NLI archive. Their reliability depends on that of the newspapers, possibly with other considerations as well, not on NLI. Since they are scans, Google translate won't work on the content, so I don't know how readily reviewers will be able to evaluate them (my Hebrew is pretty weak).
Statements from goverments are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Nor do any sources which do not meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! thank you so much for looking into my sources. Within the draft I wrote all of my sources are cited properly in the way that you described above (I just happened to describe them poorly in writing here), yet I am still having my draft declined due to "unreliable sources". Two reviews have been completed over the course of three days which have each had the same result. This makes me think that they are not being looked at properly, especially after being informed by two different Wikipedia reviewers that it takes a long time to look over sources such as these. I am just very confused as to which sources on my article draft are considered unreliable and would really appreciate some assistance. Please let me know! Tamsragow (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that the only people who can answer that question is the particular editors who did the review. You are welcome to ask them for clarification, either here, (pinging them) or on their user talk pages. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you please answer the above question regarding the sources on my draft? I am just looking to understand which sources in my draft are considered unreliable and why. I would really appreciate the assistance! Thanks so much. Tamsragow (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow: while waiting for SafariScribe to answer your specific question, I can meanwhile tell you that the draft is very sparsely referenced, with a lot of content unsupported by citations. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation supporting it, and also end in a citation, and that's only enough where a) the paragraph is short, and b) the one source genuinely supports everything in the paragraph. In general, it would be best to support every material statement and anything potentially contentious, as well as all biographical details, so that it is clear to the reader where the information comes from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow, when we say that a draft is not properly sourced, it just doesn't imply that your citations are unreliable, it can as well mean that some sections lack sufficient sources. Specifically, your draft has a promotional tone that needs to be revised. Focus on essential information, like his surfing career, and remove unnecessary details. Please add sources to support the sections on mostly, the "Early life and education" and "Legal studies and lifeguard training". I am baffled that the statement "Topsea died at age 77" isn't sourced. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 24 July 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

[edit]

This article was immediately declined due to supposably lack of resources and references. However, there are plenty of references in the article, noting the subject by name, and extensively. The subject also has an article in Hebrew. Also, There are old magazines from the 80's which are not online, but I have referred to one of them in the article. would it be good to refer to more of them? עומר תשבי (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: "plenty of references" isn't the point, it's the quality we look for, not quantity; 30 flaky sources will not establish notability, whereas 3 solid ones may well do. I've not done a source analysis, but I did notice that there are several sources cited which contribute nothing towards notability.
Whether there exists an article on this subject in the Hebrew-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is entirely separate and acceptance into one language version does not guarantee acceptance into others.
And yes, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise are up to the required standards in terms of reliability etc. See WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I will add offline (notable) sources. Second, these are not flaky sources: This are prominent Israeli news websites, websites of academic institutions, etc. I think that If you would analyze these sources, you will see that not only they directly refer to the subject, but that there are notable sources. עומר תשבי (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source, if it is going to contribute to establishing that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, must meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, as explained at WP:42. Looking through your list of citations, I several that are obviously not independent, such as patents, and lists of boards of governors. In some cases there can be value to using such sources, but generally, they add absolutely nothing to an article. If an independent sources discusses that somebody has a patent, that is great. If not independent source does so, why should we be interested in it? Ditto appearances on boards of directors?
Then the Times of Israel article says very little about Ziv-Av, except to quote him: so, do the degree that it has significant coverage, it is not independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the Hebrew references, they meet the criteria. Iv'e edited the article, added offline sources, and polished it more. עומר תשבי (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Belarusgap

[edit]

Hej, I made English translation of the Belarusian-approved page http://be.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0. So why the English page should be different one when it comes to sources? Also, many Belarusian Wikipedia articles include facebook and instagram links- why is this allowed? Best regards, Ludmila Belarusgap (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belarusgap: the Belarusian and English Wikipedias are completely separate project, and what is acceptable on one, may not be on the other. Any article accepted here must comply with our policies and guidelines, and the English-language Wikipedia has probably the strictest requirements in terms of notability and verifiability of any language version.
Specifically, social media, such as Facebook and IG, is user-generated, and as such not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I just feel that it gets too complicated. Belarusgap (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Mateo radovan

[edit]

Hi, can you please tell me what do I need to change, its pointless for me to keep changing and you keep declining everything I change. SatelitteChange 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateo radovan: you need to show that this subject is notable, by citing sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 24 July 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) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I have wrote anything about myself lol, and also everything I could find on the internet is already cited. SatelitteChange 13:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 24 July 2024 review of submission by 151.69.99.82

[edit]

We are trying to get this published but keep having it declined. The only external reference we have available is a newspaper article with his obituary. Will this work? 

151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all you have is a single source, you will find it all but impossible to establish that the subject is notable.
If the obit is reliable (meaning, written by a professional journalist or subject-matter expert, and published in a reliable secondary source such as major newspaper), it probably is good enough for verifying the information, but note that not all obits are like that, some are written by a personal acquaintance or relative of the deceased, etc. In any case, a single source isn't ideal for verifying an entire article.
Did all the information in this draft really come from that one source, then? If so, I hope you didn't directly translate or even too closely paraphrase what it said, because that could violate the source's copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we send you a copy of the article. I do not know the journalist. The newspaper is a major one here yes ofcourse. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


We are not really sure how to have this published, Vidal and Pino Silvestre are household names in Italy. It is like asking a Japanese person if Sony or Toyota exist. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a household name, you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to establish they are a notable person. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with using these prefered pronouns? We are comfortable using We/Us/Ours. Do you have an issue with this? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of asking about our pronouns maybe you can be practical and explain how "we" can reference. Do we have to upload articles? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, usually "we" refers to plural and Wikipedia accounts can only be used by a single person. If your chosen singular pronouns are "we/us/ours" that's fine, but it's normal for us to ask that. Qcne (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sources do not need to exist online and they don't have to be in English, but the draft has to make it clear which bit of information is verified by which source. Assuming that you are User:Artico13 (please remember to log in!), there is more information on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it isn't the same as Sony or Toyota, because plenty of sources exist on those, both for notability and verifiability purposes. Whereas you're saying all you have a single source. Ergo, it's not a comparable situation at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using Toyota or Sony as examples highlights how universally recognized these brands are in Japan, similar to how Italian brands Vidal and Pino Silvestre are well-known in Italy. If you were to stop a Japanese person on the street and mention Toyota or Sony, they would immediately recognize these brands due to their prominence in everyday life. The same goes for Italians with Vidal and Pino Silvestre. In fact, if you were to walk into any supermarket in Italy, you would find Vidal and Pino Silvestre products readily available.
The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company that holds a similar status, albeit on a local level and not comparing global financial power. This is a service not only to Italy and Venice but to the general public. We need to add articles to the reference section, is this what you are requesting? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company". In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. That is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the response given above about the same draft. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like ”widely recognized as one of the most famous cosmetic brands in Italy, synonymous with quality and tradition” is ridiculous in an encyclopaedia WP:TNT is required here and a complete re-write in a dry neutral tone referring only to what independent, reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by IqbalHossain

[edit]

Korvi Rakshand received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2023. He also received several international awards. And many international news media wrote on his works. So, why the submission request decline? which points should be improved? I need instructions. Thanks in advance. --- IqbalHossain (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IqbalHossain: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 July 2024 review of submission by TRTGUSA

[edit]

Why was my article rejected? TRTGUSA (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRTGUSA: It was rejected and will not be considered further because you wrote an advert for TRTG. We have zero tolerance for being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

[edit]

I have added some references and removed the peackcok words. The tone seems netural now. Artico13 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13: No, it doesn't. Your sourcing is also poor. What is your connexion to Vidal or his estate? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, really helpful. I don't know how to source properly. I am not trying to promote the company as someone suggested in bad faith as it no longer exists and there is no connection as the person is deceased. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're thinking there's a connexion to the subject here is because the draft is promotional. One doesn't "accidentally" write a promotional article like this. You might also notice that I specifically asked what your connexion was to Vidal or his estate. As to your sources, your second source 404s out and your third source doesn't really discuss Lino Vitale specifically in any real depth, being instead about the Pino Silvestre brand. Your first source - the print version of your second source, it seems - is missing required bibiographical information (byline, page numbers). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artico13: please don't open a new thread, just add to the exiting one. You now have three threads on this page. And please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa

[edit]

I want to know why the publication has been denied. I consider the citation to be legitimate. It is on the website of a reference in operations research. What is needed for publication to be possible? Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for declining is in the grey boxes the submission is NOT adequately supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the single reference is a passing mention and contributes nothing to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

[edit]

02:23, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC

[edit]


Extended content

English Series On 2 is an English series drama slot that airs at 8.00 - 9.00 pm, Friday - Sunday, on TV2.

2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste the entire draft here. I've collapsed it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC

[edit]

Don't let Waxworker was removed & delete at Draft:List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia). Waxworker Please open from the lock on List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia) 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what, if anything, you're asking, but there already exists an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing (and other interested editors), I believe the IP is upset because editor Waxworker removed unsourced content that they wanted included in the article. The article is semi-protected for persistent disruptive editing so they cannot re-add the unsourced content. Definitely a novel way of approaching the situation. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly your deciphering skills are more advanced than mine... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, I spent most of my career working with academics in the medical field...if you thought doctors' tendency to abbreviate in awful handwriting was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Aruns012

[edit]

Why The Page Has Been Removed Aruns012 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruns012: the page hasn't been removed (whatever that means); this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion, as non-notable and promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 4everbg

[edit]

I am doing something wrong with the citations, but I cannot understand what. I add citation sources, I have References at the bottom, yet I am not citing properly and any help is welcomed :) 4everbg (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4everbg the citations are proper, but you'll need to add more. As your draft is about a living person, we need citations for all statements. Currently the entire "Personal life" and parts of the "Early life and education" sections are unsourced. It is also unclear how she meets our notability guidelines for people. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! 4everbg (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Ouill

[edit]

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the rejection. The page Notability_(academics) says that for academics, secondary sources on their bibliography are may not exist (this would typically be the case for a person who died when internet was in its early stages), and are typically not required. Instead, it must be clear that the contribution of the academic to their field should be significant. Here the academic had 2 different special volumes dedicated to his memory shortly after his death, with well-known international experts in 2 different fields contributing to the volume. This is really a clear, concrete sign of the impact of the researcher.

I haven't mentioned in the article that he was an editor of Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, one of the top journals in combinatorics, during several years and until his death. Should I add it ? I don't have an online reference for that (the journal does not record his former editors), but editors appear on the cover of all physical volumes so it is easy to check if your have access to the physical volumes. Ouill (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouill: I think it's debatable whether those memorial publications are enough proof that he meets WP:NACADEMIC #1; perhaps, perhaps not. Therefore, if he was the chief editor of the journal you mention, then it is certainly worth including in the draft, as that sounds like it would directly satisfy NACADEMIC #8. We do need to see evidence of that, though; it isn't enough to say that evidence can be found somewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by BlueRoses13

[edit]

Hello editors,

On July 7, my draft for Linda Rabbitt was rejected:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Linda_Rabbitt

The same day, on my Talk page, I asked the responding editor to clarify his objections, while I provided additional support, at length. He did not respond:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:BlueRoses13#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Linda_Rabbitt_(July_6)

On July 17, I followed-up with the editor on his Talk page. On July 18, he said they'd get back to me:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe#Can_you_help_me_understand_why_you_rejected_my_draft_for_Linda_Rabbitt?

It is now July 25, and I haven't heard back.

I'm reluctant to ping this editor again; I don't want to be a pest, especially since he is super busy elsewhere:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/SafariScribe

Yet I remain in the dark and eager to contribute. Any chance another editor can take a look? I'd be grateful for your take.

Thank you kindly.

Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft 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.
If the other editor is busy, they will likely get around to you when they can. Please be patient.
You have basically summarized Linda's resume, and not independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of her, detailing what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines it. That she runs a large company isn't sufficient- you need to have sources that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about her. Does she run the company with a unique business strategy? Had a particular personal influence on the construction industry in the Washington area? Something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Many thanks for your speedy reply and for clarifying the difference between "declined" and "rejected"; I was unaware of this distinction.
As to Linda's importance, here are 3 quotes that clarify her notability — I think the first speaks directly to your question as to whether she's influenced the construction industry:
1. She is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow).
2. She is ”one of the most influential people in Washington area business” (The Washington Post).
3. She is “one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian).
Does this help?
Thank you again.
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueRoses13, you aren't covered in the dark and I am sorry for not following up. My analysis for declining the draft was that, while she owns a company, her style and biography shouldn't be inherited only from being the CEO and founder of it—Rand. Entrepreneurs are sometimes difficult to establish notability, but here's a helpful analysis to help you further. Don't think that the personal life and background offers notability. No, everyone can be educated even in a notable school and get a publication for that. Your interest should be a) Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand b) Being the CEO can be notable but not an assurance. Is their any unique way she handles the industry?—independent evidence of sources—lacking promo and advertorial contents c) Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines d) Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand e) When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies. These are my analysis and another editor can object or suggest otherwise. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. I’m most grateful for the time you took to identify these specifics. Let me see if I can respond.
a. Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand
I think she satisfies WP:BIO for two reasons.
First, she is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow). Specifically, she's one of the only female CEOs in the construction industry (The Washington Post), and the company she founded and runs is D.C.'s largest, woman-owned construction contractor (The Washington Post).
Second, she is "one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian). The Washington Post calls her “one of the most influential." Specifically, she’s served on the boards of — and, in some cases, chaired — what are generally regarded as the two most influential business groups in the nation’s capitol: the Federal City Council and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. And she chaired one of 12 regional banks (Richmond) which make up the Federal Reserve System.
c. Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines
Yes indeed! In 2016, Linda, her philosophy, and her success were profiled in a Harvard Business School case study. HBS case studies are big deals.
Similarly, the Washington Post profiled her success in both 1998 and 2002.
Another profile comes from the Washington Business Journal (Peter Kaplan, “In a hard-hat world, she’s a success by anyone’s standards,” Washington Business Journal, December 16-22, 1994, page 18). This one is not online, but I can share a PDF if you’d like.
d. Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand
Check out this article in the New York Times that highlights Linda's role in financing an executive education program, at George Washington University, to teach women how to be corporate board members. See also this profile in the New York Times that tells Linda's life story.
e. When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies.
Yes, she’s served on the boards of directors of — and in some cases chaired — entities that each have their own Wikipedia pages:
-Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
-Willis Towers Watson
-Children's National Medical Center
-The Economic Club of Washington, D.C.
Also, she's been the president of the Washington chapters of Commercial Real Estate Women and the International Women's Forum.
Finally, she's received various recognitions from entities that each have their own Wikipedia page:
-In 2016, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans named her “lifetime member.”
-In 2008, the nonprofit youth organization, Junior Achievement, inducted her into the Washington Business Hall of Fame.
-In 2012, the National Association of Corporate Directors named her a Director of the Year.
-In 2018, Commercial Real Estate Women gave her the inaugural Joseph Stettinius Jr. Leadership Award, which recognizes a leader in the real estate business.
I've incorporated the above details (with the exception of the last 4 recognitions) in Linda's draft. What do you think?
Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artistdrdebasis

[edit]

I am a new Wikipedia editor and asking help for publish the said article. I could not understand the problems. Please help for further processing. Artistdrdebasis (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistdrdebasis: your draft is completely unreferenced, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable.
Also, note that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Anshley Raggoo

[edit]

What should I do for Wikipedia Users has access to this information? Anshley Raggoo (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshley Raggoo: This draft has been rejected, is awaiting speedy deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion, and will not be considered further. What is your connexion to Spine Footwear? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, "spine footwear" sounds horribly uncomfortable and a tad macabre. --bonadea contributions talk 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artlin2

[edit]

Regarding review for submission. Aside from Instagram, please note and check under References on the draft page "Chitra Ramanathan" for verifying different publications by different art-related and art industry sources, including interviews and biographies written on the artist. Artlin2 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and press releases do not contribute to notability, as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define conflict of interest is, and secondly what would define independent sources for this article's re-submission by Geoffrey Lane. The subject of the article will not be re-submitting it, and so who would be? Artlin2 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artlin2, you can find more info about conflicts of interest at the page linked on your draft: WP:COI. In short, if you personally know Ramanathan, you are likely to have a conflict of interest. We are asking, basically - how do you know her?
Independent sources are sources that have been created without any connection to the subject. For example, an interview is not independent because the interviewer has spoken directly to the subject. On the other hand, a book about the Tudor dynasty is definitely independent as the author is writing solely because of their interest in the topic.
Does that help at all? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

[edit]

The English Series On 2 slot is shown every Friday - Sunday, at 8:00 pm. 

2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, please stop creating and submitting drafts related to this topic [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
We know you want to add programs to List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia), but this is not the way to do it. You are wasting your own time as well as the time of volunteer reviewers. Please use the talk page of the article to request the edits you want, and remember to provide reliable sources. If you continue submitting drafts like this, you are likely to be blocked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Xuexi8823

[edit]

I've written it repeatedly. But my writings were always rejected. I used reliable secondary sources as much as possible. I am really confused that reviews always just demand so-called reliable secondary sources', but they don't mention which quote or part had problems. It would be helpful if you pointed them out. Thank you in advance. Xuexi8823 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

[edit]

04:16, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Asyrofazman

[edit]

I good person Asyrofazman (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman, I am sure you're a wonderful person, but you are not notable by Wikipedia standards - and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9

[edit]

tell me where i done mistake 

2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please log into one of your accounts and ask again? This whole thing is getting a bit silly, with multiple drafts, multiple user accounts, etc., and we need to start sorting out this mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

[edit]

Yes 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SONYBIJI/sandbox

[edit]

hi its my first article .can you tell me my mistake in this article SONYBIJI (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SONYBIJI: assuming you mean User:SONYBIJI/sandbox, this was previously declined and subsequently deleted as promotional, and this time declined as blank.
What is your relationship with this 'Centre for Research on Cyber Intelligence and Digital Forensics (CRCIDF)'? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος

[edit]

Hi there please guide me so i can understand the issues that came up with the article i wrote so i can fix them because i cannot understand where is the problem. Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered this on my talk page. Please don't ask in many places, it just causes extra work and confusion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Arafatislamontor

[edit]

Why my bio data was rejected? and how can i add myself on wikipedia? Arafatislamontor (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your 'bio data'(that's a weird way of saying autobiography) was deleted because it was pure self-promotion.
  2. You don't. You are likely not notable, and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Mtrexm

[edit]

Hello, I'm hoping to clarify why this draft was declined. I cited several peer-reviewed publications. Is it just a formatting issue? Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtrexm: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates it or (failing that) removed outright. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so even things like where they went to school? I see several spots in the beginning now that could use citations if that is the case. Thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even things like where they went to school, their birthday and where they were born, etc. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, I will fix it. I really appreciate the help. Mtrexm (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Scholar.me.Squad

[edit]

Hello, with regard to my article's appearance seeming more like an advertisement than encyclopedia content, I am doing my best to model it from existing Wikipedia pages, such as this one here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/ClearanceJobs You'll note the similar style, similar citations, etc. I am happy to work on this article of mine more and do my very best to bring better scholarship to the article. I am trying to create a page that shows in an informative way the work of this business and how it is solving for a unique Department of Defense need, much the same way ClearanceJobs Wikipedia page shows how it does the same for the broader intelligence community. Please guide me so I can improve and meet standards of Wikipedia.

Most Kindly, Anthony Niles Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware in citing other articles to justify yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
Your main issue is that you have no sources other than the company website. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want to know what the company says about itself, we want to know others say about it.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

[edit]

Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman

[edit]

Wan Muhammas Asyrof Bin Wan Azman is birth at 28 June 2006.Wan Muhammad Asyrof is a political figure at PAS(Parti Islam Semalaysia).Her mother is named Maziah binti Majid and his father is named Wan Azman Bin Wan Yusoff.He now lived at Kampung Alur Mak Bah 23000,Dungun,Terengganu,Malaysia. Asyrofazman (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

[edit]

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1236901552"