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 13

[edit]

04:45, 13 July 2024 review of submission by 202.41.10.107

[edit]

The draft was last declined in 2022 and should be reviewed once again because now the actor has attained WP:N with his lead roles in Hero - Gayab Mode On, Ali Baba: Ek Andaaz Andekha. He had a prominent role in Amazon mini TV series Jab We Matched. Also, he is currently doing a lead role in the show. Pukaar - Dil Se Dil Tak. So kindly review the draft once again. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to approach one of the editors who rejected the draft directly: @Scope creep or @Bonadea. But notice that while NACTOR mentions "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" as a criterion for notability, you still need the reliable independent sources.
Before approaching one of those editors, you should go through the long list of citations in the draft, looking at each one critically: does it meet the triple criteria of the golden rule? If not, you should probably remove it, and any information cited to it, unless it is a self-published source in which case it may be allowed to stay if the kind of information it supports it appropriate. For example, the first two citations contain only passing reference to Nigam. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Mamorenor

[edit]

Hello.

As I usually do so, I did a search in Wikipedia about a software component that has been trending within the software development community ( ==> HTMX )

However, I was surprised to find "no entry" related to such software component in the main "English" pages.

Even more surprised I was when I noticed that there is an entry about the HTMX software component in the Czech wikipedia pages.

Therefore, I decided to help the community and write the English version of the HTMX software component.

After registering in Wikipedia and after starting editing of the HTMX article, I was shown the current draft of the HTMX article with many "article submission declined" entries ( x4 ).

I am very familiar and experienced writing technical articles, and after reading the current draft article of "HTMX" I found it to be good enough for submission acceptance.

Nevertheless, I am a true beginner when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. I noticed that the "submission declines" suggest to "ask for help" to get guidance into how to "fix" the article to have its submission accepted.

Can you provide guidance into what is wrong with the current draft so I can contribute to edit and fix it?

Thank you !!! 

Mamorenor (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, writing for Wikipedia is very different from most other forms of writing.
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.
This means, that the first stage in creating an article is to find sources that are wholly unconnected with the subject (or in this case, with the developers of the sofware. Almost nothing written or published by the developers, marketers etc is of any relevance to an article, and nor is anything they say in interviews or press releases. Also unacceptable is anything such as blogs, which are not published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking.
I also observe that your citation number 5, for example, does not mention HTMX once. The sole purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to verify a claim about the subject of the article. If a source does not mention the subject, it is almost always a waste of everybody's time. In copntext, your citation no 5. appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the value of open-source: that makes it advocacy, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Weltall Zero

[edit]

Hello, I need help with three issues regarding the UFO 50 draft page. 1) Two of the references show as broken, even though I can see nothing wrong with them. In fact, some of the references appear as broken and then fix themselves when editing unrelated parts of the page or moving them around, which is quite puzzling. 2) Would the current draft be a reasonable submission for approval? 3) If someone with image upload permissions could upload the game's cover (https://50games.fun/images/logo.jpg) as the article image, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Weltall Zero (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weltall Zero: See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a reference more than once. You basically used reference names but did not assign those names to any of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't seem to be the case. I added names to every source, all of which work correctly, except for these two. They do have matching names in both the reference and the source (I made triple sure that they matched, even copying and pasting them), so I see no reason they wouldn't work. Indeed, they do work when I move things around (but then others break!), which is baffling. I've also double checked for unbalanced brackets, but I can't find any.
I uploaded a screenshot of the relevant code: you can see that the Edge and GamesRadar references are right there in the references section, between the RPS and Day of the Devs ones which work perfectly fine:
https://i.imgur.com/S6fCCDQ.png
I'm honestly at my wit's end here. :D Weltall Zero (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weltall Zero It appears to have been fixed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Victor Schmidt fixed it. Thank you both! <3 Weltall Zero (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 13 July 2024 review of submission by BubbleWombleBee12

[edit]

Hi, can someone Review this article Draft:Buchi Babu Sana please? BubbleWombleBee12 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbleWombleBee12: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, it will be reviewed in due course; please remain patient (it seems it was only submitted two days ago, anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not considered a reliable source and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Adefolarin1

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.

Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.

This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.

This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Adefolarin Adefolarin1 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you are frustrated. This is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article without spending any time learning about Wikipedia and its requirements.
Like many other new editors, you have written your draft BACKWARDS, instead of writing it from what the sources say and nothing else. And when I say "the sources", I mean almost exclusively the indpendent sources. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what Ogunwusi or her colleagues say about her: it is only interested in what people with no connection to her have chosen to publish about her, and that is what you should base the article on.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefolarin1 Please do not go forum shopping. You have also asked this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, and included an image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is a copyright violation. I was going to offer similar advice to that which you have just received, but now have no need to do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, interviews cannot be used to establish notability and blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Adefolarin1; since other people have mentioned the tone, I will focus on the sourcing first, since that is clearly a source of frustration for you. Let's see if I can help break it down a bit. You might already know this, so please bear with me if you do.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject (Ogunwusi) is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very strict. Additionally, since she is a living person, you must also follow the WP:BLP (biographies of living people) rules. One of the most important BLP rules is that every statement that a reasonable person might question must be sourced. And, of course, all your sources must be suitable - they must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of being reliable includes editorial oversight and strict publishing standards; some sites (newspapers, magazines, etc) will publish anything if they are paid, and those sites are not reliable.
Source 1) describes itself as a blog, and blogs are usually not reliable. There are no bylines (writers' names) on their articles and their About Us page doesn't give me much confidence. This probably cannot be used to establish notability, since the source is not reliable.
2) is an interview, which cannot be used for notability (not independent). You can use interviews for some extremely basic facts, like birth date, but not anything that might be challenged.
3) is not really about Ogunwusi; it's about a festival she presided over, and what she said. Unfortunately that means it is also no good to you, because it's not significant coverage and is also not independent.
4) is also not about her, it's about a different festival and more things she said. I'm starting to wish I could attend these festivals, they sound like a lot of fun! But sadly, this source has the same problems as 3).
5) is an interview, which again you cannot use for notability.
You can't write an article with these sources, so your first and biggest hurdle will be to find sources you can use.
Once you have done that, you'll probably need to rewrite the draft completely. Wikipedia articles on people are usually fairly standard: they begin with information about someone's childhood and adolescence, then onto their career and/or their notable accomplishments, then their current personal life, perhaps any controversies they've been involved in, and then their legacy or things people have said about them. The way articles are written is basically a series of facts, so you would be planning to write something like 'Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi was born in [place] in [year, maybe month and day] to [parents]. She has a [degree] from [place]. She owns [business names].' You could include the fact that her official marriage date was postponed and why, with a suitable source. You'll notice that this way of writing is quite different to what you currently have - it's not easy to write in an encyclopedic way, which is one of the reasons we suggest people practice editing other articles before trying to write one.
I hope this has been helpful to you, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. Advised to in future not ask for help at more than one place. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 July 2024 review of submission by SageOst2024

[edit]

No one has re looked over my sources that I redid from the official sites that Vielle and his team created. I have removed the wiki references, and added his profile which proves quite a few of his feats. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these also include independent sources such as Nitro Type comp records and his team history. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024 For anyone to look at your draft you need to submit for further review, please. IT will then be looked at in due course 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see not one of your citations (which are not properly formatted - see WP:REFB - but that is another matter) is published by a reliable publisher. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your draft has no sources whatever.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 13 July 2024 review of submission by MaceMezio

[edit]

Hey, I just want to know which sources are unreliable or how I make my sources reliable on my article. One reason why I am asking this is cos I have seen from other pages of rides at Thorpe Park with less references than my article. Thank you! MaceMezio (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaceMezio! WP:42, the 'golden rule', might be helpful to you here: your sources need to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. To be reliable, the sources need to have editorial oversight (so not blogs, for example) and be reputable (some newspapers, websites, etc, will publish anything if they are paid to do so, and that is not reliable because they'll say whatever anyone wants them to). With that in mind, let's look at your sources:
1) is Coasterpedia, which is a user-generated source and thus not reliable.
2) is the manufacturer's website, so it's not independent - they'll want to say nice things about their product!
3) is a blog, so probably not reliable.
Looking through Thorpe Park's rides, I actually found one that's been assessed as a Good Article (The Swarm (roller coaster)) - this would be a great one to base your article on, since Good Articles (GAs) have been vetted by the community and we know they are, well, good. Look at the sources it has, and see if you can find similar things for your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply
I have replaced some of the references with new ones, so how do my references/sources look now!
I understand The Swarm has several great references, however I do want to point out, the article for "Flying Fish (roller coaster)" for example has only one reference and I do not see the article needing any other citations.
Thanks! MaceMezio (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @MaceMezio! I'll answer your questions backwards: the reason some articles don't seem to have the same reference quality we're asking of you is because they were created in the old days of Wikipedia, when it was a wild frontier and just about any article could be created with little or no information. Flying Fish was created in 2006! There are millions of articles and nowhere near as many active editors, so these older articles tend to get missed until someone draws attention to them. You are absolutely correct that Flying Fish doesn't have good references, and in fact if I can't find any I'll be nominating it for deletion since the article shouldn't exist without good references. There's a whole essay about this at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Standards are much higher now, and there's no way Flying Fish would be accepted if it was submitted as-is.
Now, back to your draft. Remember you want sources with significant coverage and that are reliable and are independent of the topic. If the reference fails any of those criteria, you can't use it for notability.
1) is a blog, so probably not reliable (no editorial standards, we have no idea of their fact-checking process)
2) is a link to a book that was for sale - was this a mistake? If not, you can't use it unless the book contains a significant amount of information about Quantum specifically - and if it does contain that information specifically, you'd need to cite the book itself as a source rather than a place it could be bought (not significant coverage).
3) is from the manufacturer (not independent).
4) doesn't show any evidence of being a reliable source (no sign of editorial standards, no idea if they fact-check), so it won't help you either (not reliable).
Still no luck, I'm afraid. You are of course welcome to search for more sources, but please do your best to assess them against the WP:42 criteria before using them in your draft - when we give feedback, it's to help you understand what you're looking for, and I think you're at the point where you should be able to work out if a source is any good or not. Just ask yourself whether it meets each of the criteria, and reject it if it fails any of them. It may well be that there simply isn't enough information out there; that happens! Not every coaster, or every building, or every TV series, or every person is notable. Sometimes they become notable in time, and sometimes they vanish into obscurity. This can be a very frustrating discovery when you've been working on a draft, which is why you should have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and try out the advice you find there. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I will leave the article for now since I cannot find any more relevant references atm, every once in a while I will see what I can do about it, tho I don't want my draft deleted since I think I saw after 6 months, it will delete or something?
Btw, I used the book as a reference since I was able to preview it and the page numbers were put in correctly, but yes ig the way it sourced was a mistake.
Think that is all I have to say.
Thank you anyways. MaceMezio (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

[edit]

02:47, 14 July 2024 review of submission by RadioStoryTeller

[edit]

I don't want to run afoul of the COI Guidelines, so I'm now reaching out for help in completing Draft:Secrets_of_Harridge_House. I disagree that this article is not suitable or inappropriate for Wikipedia, in that it isn't sufficiently sourced. There are far more sketchy articles currently available on Wikipedia that the same criticism could be applied to. I ask that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition. Please don't be judgmental, as this is my first excursion into creating articles for Wikipedia. Everyone's got to start somewhere, right? Thank you for your time. I look forward to the next steps in this process. RadioStoryTeller (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioStoryTeller: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll make a few observations in case it helps:
  1. You need to formally disclose your COI, as instructed in the message on your talk page. It isn't enough to say (assuming you're the one who added that) on the draft page "I'm Scott Young, a co-creator and co-writer...", because that won't stay there for very long, and in any case doesn't tell us which user account it refers to.
  2. I don't think anyone is telling you to "stop writing on this article", only that you must disclose your COI before continuing.
  3. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, in case that's what you mean by "ask[ing] that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition"; that is entirely your responsibility.
  4. As for other sketchy articles on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are indeed many problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. All new articles must comply with the currently-applicable policies and guidelines, and that is why we assess drafts in reference to these, and not by comparison to existing articles.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely promotional, no indication of notability and no independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RadioStoryTeller If you would like to help us out, please identify these "sketchy" articles you have seen so action can be taken. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us out, and with millions of articles and only thousands if not hundreds of regular editors, we need help in addressing problematic articles. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:23, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Jan Steinman

[edit]

How to include sound Jan Steinman (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan Steinman: not sure what you mean, exactly, but there are two templates (at least) which could be used, {{Listen}} for sidebar content and {{Audio}} for inline audio.
That said, you don't really need to worry about such nice-to-haves, which don't in any way affect the draft's chances of being accepted. Instead, you should be working towards demonstrating notability, which is a core requirement for publishing, and for which your draft currently shows very little evidence, if any.
BTW, that list of external links in the 'The Neal Gladstone Radio Show' will need to go, as inline external links not allowed in the article main body text, and in any case such a long list is not appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under "To be accepted, a draft should:" the word "notability" does not appear. I have worked hard to satisfy the conditions listed.
Can you provide me with some guidance on "notability?" Jan Steinman (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source that documents his death, and has some coverage of him, you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him and shows how he meets the definition of a notable musician or more broadly a notable person.
The performances section should be removed, it's uncited, and probably should only list performances that merit articles themselves(i.e. like The Eras Tour does for Taylor Swift). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman: the first bullet point under "to be accepted", which reads qualifies for a Wikipedia article, refers to notability, and links to Wikipedia:Notability. And now 331dot has provided you with more specific links to person and musician notability guidelines. Please study those guidelines carefully.
I also need to mention that, as the person has died only a few months ago, this draft almost certainly still comes under our WP:Biographies of living persons policy (see WP:BDP), which requires inline citations to reliable published sources to support any potentially contentious statement and all private personal and family details. Currently most of the draft is unreferenced, and some of the sources cited are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman Additionally, while we have no reason to doubt the permissions given by his widow, we have no evidence of that permission. Without those permissions being recorded there is a strong probability of deletion. It is essential that permission is sent using the instructions present at any file.
At present, with this draft decorated with pictures which are pleasant, but add no value, and recordings which are similar, this is more a tribute page than a biography. Please see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and act accordingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman You have now proven that you can upload sound files.. Ok. However, being able to do something does not mean that you should do it. Wikipedia is not an archive of all of Gladstone's work. This great list will not be acceptable in the article, even if you achieve permission for them. 100% of them have been tagged as requiring permission.
Please give serious thought to our needs for an article, not a memorial, not an archive. If you wish to memorialise him, please get a website. Wikipedia is not a free web host. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I have been trying to advise the editor that we are not a repository for a slew of sound files. Regrettably I have only just checked that the draft is not a copyvio. The great majority is. I have redacted what I have found and requested a cv-revdel. There are two copyright warnings on their user talk page. Since they are in reverse chronological to the acts of copyvio I have decided that the second warning should be treated as if it were their first warning. YMMV.
@Jan Steinman This draft would never have been accepted as written, whether this was a copyright violation or not. WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies as does WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:39, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Anilbudhamagar2022

[edit]

why i could not upload my biography Anilbudhamagar2022 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anilbudhamagar2022: a message was posted on your talk page three months ago explaining why autobiographies are not a good idea. And we take an especially dim view of totally unreferenced, purely promotional autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload your biography to social media or a personal website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1

[edit]

Hi, I am trying to get my page for Aly Brier, the wife of Tommy Nelson approved. The issue I keep running into are that the sources are not considered "reliable."

Since her work primarily consists of short films, the coverage is not as easily available as that for feature films. Can you please let me know which websites are causing this holdup when someone goes to review the page or provide suggestions for alternative websites I can used for sources that are considered appropriate?

Thank you for your time, I greatly appreciate it. Slasher2point1 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slasher2point1 For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Check your references against these tough criteria. No references which pass? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering, but again, can you please provide examples of secondary websites that would be approved (2 or 3 websites would be a great starting point)? It's easier if I know what websites are approved and then look up that information there vs. continuously going back and forth between the WP pages and updating the citations only to have it be rejected again Slasher2point1 (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Uryder23

[edit]

I’m working on my first Wikipedia page, doing the editing while incorporating input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person.

One of these people (Joe) is an artist, and has offered two related images to make them part of the page. He’s not active on Wikipedia and his technical skills are not strong, so he has asked me to upload the image files. I’ve explained the Commons license to Joe, and he is OK with the terms. But the upload process wants me to claim that I own the work, which I do not.

Do you have any suggestions about how to proceed? If Joe sends me an email documenting his agreement to the CC license, is there some way to use the email to comply with the rules about image uploads?

Thanks Tom Edds 

Uryder23 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uryder23 Images and technicalities about them, should be discussed on Wikimedia Commons. To save you some trouble please read c:COM:VRT and follow the processes outlined there, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tom. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into a task that may cause you considerable frustration.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..
Note that "input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person", other than helping you identify independent sources about Breeze, are of little value, and may even be a hindrance. 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.
In fact, if you know people associated with Breeze, you may even have a conflict of interest in writing this - this does not prevent you from doing it, but it can make it even harder, as it is likely to make it hard for you to judge whether your text is sufficiently neutral. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat

[edit]

Minor incident submitted the draft for review and may not be notable enough to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lucas Pat. Indeed, the draft was rejected as not being notable enough for an article. Did you have a question about the rejection? Qcne (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Minor incident is rejected, not declined submission. But you need to add references or reliable sources for incidents to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, that is why it was rejected. I still am not clear if you had a question about the draft, though? Qcne (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Clearly add more reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review, not "non-clear" submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Pat I do not understand what you mean, you are the one who submitted this draft? Why are you telling me to add reliable sources and submit the draft for review? As it has been rejected, it will not be considered. Qcne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne will help you add reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review but the submission is rejected because topic is not notable enough to accept submission, not to decline submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are saying, @Lucas Pat. Please re-phrase. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat Is English your primary language? It seems like you are using a translator or AI to communicate with us. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Yes. Is Portuguese the second language? Lucas Pat (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat You should edit the Portugese Wikipedia if you cannot communicate with us without using a translator.
Você deve editar a Wikipédia em português se não conseguir se comunicar conosco sem usar um tradutor. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Joao Rocha likes Portuguese-language Wikipedia because the submission is rejected and the topic is not notable. Lucas Pat (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese Wikipedia is blocked from editing for 3 days because of vandalism. Lucas Pat (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend waiting until your block has ended, and continuing there. Qcne (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Yes. Impossible to edit in Portuguese Wikipedia but possible in English Wikipedia until July 17. Lucas Pat (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the language skills to edit the English Wikipedia, please wait until the 17th July. Qcne (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne They are blocked for vandalism on the Portuguese WP 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Bdavid1b00

[edit]

The article has been rejected multiple times. I have referenced enough sources 

Bdavid1b00 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdavid1b00 there is no indication this person meets our notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the way forward? Bdavid1b00 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try and prove notability by following the instructions at the link above. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Nono19192

[edit]

I received feedback that the article needs to be written in a neutral tone of voice. I'd love to get some specific pointers on how to improve the article for it to be approved. Can you please advise what kind of images I am allowed to use in the article? Many thanks in advance Nono19192 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nono19192. I will highlight below a list of unacceptable words/phrases. Wikipedia must be written in a strictly neutral point of view.
  1. been synonymous with elegance, creativity and floral art for over a century
  2. Through its rich heritage, Lachaume has served and continues to serve a distinguished clientele,
  3. securing its status as an institution of Parisian sophistication
  4. visionary florist
  5. gained recognition for its timeless, elegant and refined style
  6. highlighting his passion for elevating floristry to a form of art.
  7. where it continued to prosper, attracting a clientele including European royalty, cultural icons and renown fashion designers
  8. beginning a new chapter while maintaining its classic decor and commitment to timeless elegance
  9. illustrating how passion, craftsmanship, and creativity can create a legacy in floral art
To be blunt, the draft needs deleting and re-writing from scratch. In it's current form it seems to exist only to promote and advertise the business. This is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Please carefully study both WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
Do you, by any chance, have a connection to Lachaume? It seems hard to believe an uninterested bystander would write about a business in such a promotional way. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 14 July 2024 review of submission by 39.58.232.226

[edit]

War 2 39.58.232.226 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Qcne (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

[edit]

09:24, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Айке Керимбекова

[edit]

Hello! I am not able to add an article to the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. What can I do? Айке Керимбекова (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Айке Керимбекова: I don't know, but in any case there's nothing we can do to help with that here on the English-language Wikipedia; the two are completely separate projects. You need to go to https://ky.wikipedia.org/ and enquire there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Ok. Thanks. 91.247.59.70 (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 15 July 2024 review of submission by BasicScientist4487

[edit]

This submission was rejected on the basis of being "not adequately supported by reliable sources".

However, the draft uses both primary and secondary sources, which from my reading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, in combination, meet the requirements for both reliability and notability.

I would be grateful for any specific guidance on which sources in particular need to be removed/revised in order for this draft to be accepted. BasicScientist4487 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BasicScientist4487! Let's see if we can work out what your difficulty is.
My immediate first suggestion will be to remove any sources that come from the Centre - anything from its website, any interviews given by staff/founder/etc, any articles or papers published by employees. Your sources must be independent, so anything connected to the Centre is immediately useless for your purposes. Having looked at your first few sources, this includes anything published by their parent organization/s. I will skip these in my quick source analysis.
Your sources must comply with WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coveragein reliable sources that are independent of the topic. 'Reliable' also means sources must have editorial oversight and be published by a reputable place. Sources have to meet all three criteria to be acceptable. With that in mind, let's have a look!
5) is the first source not connected to the Centre, and it's actually not about the Centre; it draws upon studies done by the Centre, which is not the same thing. I note also that there's a disclosure that the author of the piece has a close connection to the Centre, so it would not be usable in any case. (not significant coverage; not independent)
6) is only a mention in a list (not significant coverage).
8) is also not about the Centre (not significant coverage).
9) is a mention, and it turns out the Centre is named as a sponsor (not significant coverage, not independent).
13) looks like a data analysis; I can't access it, but I would be extremely surprised if it was about the Centre (not significant coverage).
15) sounds very much like all the information has come directly from the Centre; it's very promotional. Even without the interview, I think this would fail 'reliable source' as well as the obvious one. (not independent)
19) isn't about the Centre (not significant coverage).
All the other sources are connected to the Centre in one way or another. Unfortunately, this means that you don't have any usable sources.
You need at least three good sources for an article to be accepted. If you can only find one or two, it might be worthwhile putting that information into the articles of the parent organizations - but you do need at least one source to even mention it in the parent organizations' page. Although I am sure this is disappointing news, I hope it helps you in your search for sources. If you do find them, your next step is going to be to start all over again, and only write in the draft what you find in the sources - have a look at WP:BACKWARDS for more information.
Regardless of your next step, I wish you good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is hugely helpful and much appreciated! Thank you. BasicScientist4487 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome @BasicScientist4487! Another thing to consider, if you're having trouble finding good sources - it might just be WP:TOOSOON. I know the Centre is five years old, but sometimes it takes time for things to get rolling, and I suspect that there will be more coverage in the next few years as their research projects and associated papers start being published. If there's not anything around at the moment, you can just sit on the draft and make a minor edit every six months (so it doesn't get deleted) while waiting for the Centre to become notable. And of course there are literally millions of articles that could use your help in the meantime! You write neutrally, fluently, and clearly, which is something we always need more of - if there are other subjects that interest you, I think your assistance editing articles about them would be very welcome. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Naksha M S

[edit]

Why is the article not getting approved Naksha M S (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naksha M S. There is no indication you are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do? ,What should I do to publish the article? Naksha M S (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naksha M S: you shouldn't; you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, per WP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try some sort of social media or blogging platform. In any case, Draft:Naksha Saran has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Aundreplayer

[edit]

this is a new project Aundreplayer (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(indeffed) Qcne (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Naksha M S

[edit]

I'm not able to understand the problem with the article and moreover, I'm not able to understand the overall process Naksha M S (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naksha M S you are not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, therefore you cannot have an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naksha M S: please do not start multiple threads, thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Unnamelessness

[edit]

This revision was interestingly rejected by NegativeMP1 with a rationale of WP:TOOSOON. However, the title has been officially announced, with enough WP:RS being added to cover the topic. That being said WP:N is estabilished, and the article passes WP:GNG. This is not like the old revision, which was rejected by SafariScribe. The whole passage has been structured to improve the quality, and is enough to guarantee a START status. According to the AFC reviewing workflow, I see no reasons why this should be declined. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will accept it once the redirect has been deleted. Qcne (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I looked at the recent rejection reasons and immediately thought that the article was going to be in the same place and not much would have changed in two days, and I was also hesitant about going against another reviewers opinion. I guess the article is fine. λ NegativeMP1 16:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 15 July 2024 review of submission by V. Karlstedt

[edit]

Hi, wondering if you have time to check if the page looks good before it gets reviewed? V. Karlstedt (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@V. Karlstedt: you're asking us to review it before it gets reviewed? We don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk, but you'll get one when a reviewer happens to pick it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I just rejected it, if you think content like "Docklands became a sustainable, mega-club and the wet dream of each and every party kid." you clearly have no chance here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why not?
It is written (copied) from news article.
And that's not all that's on the page (one sentence) V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt Which means you have violated copyright. It is wise not to repeat that error. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six images have been uploaded after Swedish Wikipedia's one image.
The picture from the Swedish side: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_(nattklubb)
from 2002 has been refined on the English (my) site. Check it out! V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt: not sure why you're mentioning that, but just to say that images have no bearing on a draft's acceptance prospects. And in any case this draft has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 123creativeuser

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia-Team, I have trouble to successfully upload the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Could you explain this further? Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article.

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Best wishes 123creativeuser 

123creativeuser (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: the sources are all primary, meaning that they cannot satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Your other option is to demonstrate notability by WP:ARTIST, by producing reliable and clear evidence of how they meet one or more of the four criteria listed there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! Where do I demonstrate the notability by WP:ARTIST? Jeewi Lee meets the criteria 4 b) (been a substantial part of a significant exhibition) and 4 d) (been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums). Do I need to state this anywhere? I believe this information has already been made clear in the article. I linked sources from institutions, where Jeewi Lee had exhibitions / articles written about her. Do they not count as secondary sources? What would a secondary source be? 123creativeuser (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: if you want to rely for notability on the person meeting ARTIST 4d, then you mention that their works have been included in the permanent collection museums (obviously specifying these by name), and cite reliable sources to support that statement.
Note that being part of an exhibition at a museum is not the same as being included in the museum's permanent collection. And more generally, be aware that the ARTIST guideline is quite onerous, and draft authors typically underestimate what is being required. I'm not saying it's impossible to meet that guideline, but it is far from a given.
Secondary sources are defined at WP:SECONDARY. They typically include newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes. Organisations' websites are almost invariably primary sources, even if they are 'third party' relative to the subject itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you show where she has work "within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" I can't see this? Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123creativeuser Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, thanks 331dot (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 15 July 2024 review of submission by V. Karlstedt

[edit]

Can you explain what is not approved on the page? V. Karlstedt (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is written totally inappropriately for an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V. Karlstedt: please don't start multiple threads, it makes it difficult to track the dialogue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 123creativeuser

[edit]

Hello,

I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Could you explain this further? Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article.

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Thank you in advance!

Best wishes 123creativeuser 

123creativeuser (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@123creativeuser: please don't start multiple threads, if you have further comments or questions just add them to the one you already started. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123creativeuser You have done a nice job of documenting her work, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about Lee and what makes her important/significant/influential, either as a notable artist or a notable person more broadly. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:32, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Pizpa

[edit]


Article put up for AfC: Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct_During_Disagreement

Hi, thanks for reviewing my AfC Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement. However, I'm confused at the justification for the decline. What I wrote is an essay with advice on Wikipedia editing, similar to e.g. WP:EDITDISC. If you review that essay, you will not see any citations of external sources. Is it possible for me to have my essay reviewed by the same standard that WP:EDITDISC was?

Sorry I'm struggling with the form :) Pizpa (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizpa: Wikipedia essays are not published as articles. They are published instead in the Wikipedia: or User: namespaces. See WP:ESSAY for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Sorry for the misfire :) Pizpa (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Black11films

[edit]

Did you see the articles? They cover him greatly? Especially number 3. Try look it again please. Black11films (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black11films: the first source is IMDb, which is basically useless, and the last one just announces the film premiere. The other two (which are only really one, as it's the same publication) aren't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some more, try look at it now.
I hope it's better now. Black11films (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to disclose your clear conflict of interest, Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting yourself or your YouTube videos. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black11films: no, it really is no better, unfortunately. The sources still don't show that he is notable, and you still aren't supporting the content with inline citations. You shouldn't just write what you want, and then tag on a few sources that may or may not verify some of it. You should summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about the person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, but you guys are really not trying to help dough. I will not go further with this article and you have demotivated me to help Wikipedia will future insights. Thank you again. Black11films (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since your only "insights" are to promote yourself and your videos, it is no great loss to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 15 July 2024 review of submission by Tallstop99

[edit]

If I remove the citations/references to the Rumph websites, will that be enough to get this extremely influential and important artist a page on Wikipedia? Tallstop99 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallstop99: if you remove them, the draft will be almost completely unreferenced. So no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. So does leaving them help or hurt my case? Tallstop99 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tallstop99. Removing his website leaves three sources:
  1. starwars.com obviously not independent, but does give a good overview of Jim Rumph.
  2. people.com doesn't mention him at all.
  3. ebay auction, cannot be used to establish notability.
So, no, unfortunately not yet. We'd need usually a minimum of three reliable independent sources that have significant coverage of Jim Rumph. These could be books, magazine articles, newspapers- all that give commentary, analysis, discussion, etc. Qcne (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
2. people.com doesn't mention his name, but does show his work on the source I gave in the Draft. His work was also featured on the cover of People, but I can't seem to find this cover online other than here. Do these not count?
3. That ebay auction was for a physical copy of an issue of LA Times West magazine, which has a big write up on him. I cannot find an online version of that magazine, but I do have a physical copy of it. Can I use that as a reference? If so, how do I do so?
TIA Tallstop99 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For source 2: we'd need some kind of text, commentary, analysis, discussion, etc. A photo of his work doesn't establish notability.
For source 3, please cite the magazine with a full reference (like, 'Casual Horror. The Usual Knight. Rumph.', John Riley, date, LA Times West Issue xyz). Sources do not have to be online but we do need a full reference so that a reader can find the source in a library or archive if they so wish. A random ebay auction doesn't allow the reader to check the content.
Two or three more sources of the calibre of that LA Times West article would actually likely prove that Jim meets the notability threshold, and would make the draft acceptable.
Hope that helps, happy to have another look if you can find some more sources. You can ping me on my user talk page. Qcne (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the reply.
For #2, one more question. You say "some kind of text" is needed. Does his published work count? He was a published author and cartoonist in Comix Book #4 and Cops 'N Dopers comic books.
3) I will do that, thanks.
For more sources, would an article about him in Monster Land magazine qualify? Or an ad in Playboy magazine?
Obviously, I wouldn't reference therumph.com for my official draft, just checking if these count. Tallstop99 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Tallstop99. His own published work can be used sparingly, as it is a primary source. Unfortunately primary sources do not count towards notability.
The Monster Land source seems good. The Playboy ad would be considered a primary source again, so can't be used to establish notability.
One other issue with the draft to point out is the tone- even if we can prove notability it'll never be accepted with the current language used throughout. You have to write formally, neutrally, as if you are doing an autopsy. Qcne (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the feedback. I will work on the changes and resubmit. Tallstop99 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know on my user talk page if you'd like me to take a look before you do :) Qcne (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 15 July 2024 review of submission by ALFI THOMAS

[edit]

Are you a fight master .are you studying lakshya Most people feel very good about themselves when they are able to extend assistance to others. You're allowing others to feel those rewarding emotions whenever you request a hand from them 

ALFI THOMAS (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then.
Did you have an actual question in mind that you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing They may or may not, but CSD U5 and G11 may trigger one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ALFI THOMAS: This looks like an attempt at a resume; we don't host those and have zero use for them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 15 July 2024 review of submission by TraciAlexis88

[edit]

Hi, my submission was declined by Safari Scribe for references. I am hoping to get help on how to better cite the references as I believe this person should be included in Wikipedia. Appreciate any help you can offer. TraciAlexis88 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TraciAlexis88 You need to prove, if it is provable, that she passes WP:FILMMAKER, or WP:NACTOR by dint of researching and finding excellent references.
Like many new editors you have approached this WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, find your references, and create the draft in your own words from what they say.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TraciAlexis88 Decorating it with a picture in breach of copyright was also not a good idea. It has been nominated for deletion on Commons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of this feedback! Very helpful will review all of the links you provided TraciAlexis88 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 15 July 2024 review of submission by 75.174.215.150

[edit]

What state was Richard Sheldon Barr disbarred from? 

75.174.215.150 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which state was Richard Sheldon Barr disbarred from and when? 75.174.215.150 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor, I think that might be a question for either Google or the Reference Desk - this board is for questions about writing draft articles. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I need your opinion on the draft WP:NPRODUCER.

[edit]

Hi guys! I would appreciate your opinion on an article for creation.The full discussion is here. Thank you.

User talk:Qcne#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

For the WP:producer - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
It says he has served as a talent producer and booker for all 5 seasons of Kelly Clarkson, producing music part in every episode. If we add the links to credits, do you think it could be an option? Considering receiving an Emmy for it- as the recognition of his work on that. J2009j (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Hm. I am actually not sure. It might be worth asking on the WP:AFCHD, you can link to this discussion, to get some input from other reviewers. I don't have much experience with WP:NPRODUCER.
He definately doesn't meet WP:NACTOR yet and there isn't evidence for meeting the more general WP:NPERSON criteria, but that criterion #3 is debatable, so I think a second opinion might be useful. Qcne (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J2009j (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

[edit]

07:11, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Yara Jenkins

[edit]

My subject is a fairly new celebrity. There is not going to be a whole lot of coverage on him right now. Yara Jenkins (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Jenkins Please disclose your connection with this person, see conflict of interest. You claim that you took the image of him.
If there is no significant coverage about him in independent reliable sources, there cannot be an article about him on Wikipedia. This typically does not happen with a person until the person has "already arrived" in terms of celebrity, not a new or "up and coming" celebrity. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Metalzoneuae

[edit]

How can I change this article so that it is not an advertisement but rather an information article. please provide with sections that I should remove and add? Metalzoneuae (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by 103.102.117.13

[edit]

Why is my draft rejected ? 103.102.117.13 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly given by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The draft has now been deleted as promotional. It seems like you are writing about yourself- that is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. You should learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the most diffficult task here, creating a new article. Your draft was completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Maxim13124

[edit]

I wanted to create an Article about myself, but I dont have any Sources like Newspapers, because I am only known on Social Media like Instagram or Discord. What can I do, so my Wikipedia Article gets accepted ? Maxim13124 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim13124: you should not be writing about yourself at all; see WP:AUTOBIO. And by the sound of it, you're not notable enough to have an article published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

[edit]

Hi there, I am editing my sandbox article as per the comments provided by the wiki editors. I'd like to change my article to a BIO:Academic but am unsure how to do this. I have already restructured the article to match a BIO:Academic template. Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. What is "BIO:Academic template"?
Or are you saying you would like to show that this person is notable according to the notability guideline for academics? If so, then there is nothing you need to change or restructure; you just need to provide evidence that they meet one of the eight criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, currently it fails the WP:BLP which is my error. I would like to rewrite as WP:NACADEMIC article. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am adding references for an academic bio. We have more primary references than secondary. I am wondering other than a literature review of the academics works, what other sources are considered secondary and are appropriate to a career academic? Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't start a new thread, just add to your earlier one. (I've merged your two threads.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leemhwiki12: BLP is our policy for articles on living people, which among other things sets referencing standards which are stricter than for most other topics. It is not a notability guideline.
Notability (which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia) is in most cases established according to the general WP:GNG guideline. With some topics there are special guidelines, in the case of scientists/academics, the WP:ACADEMIC guideline. You only need to meet one guideline: GNG is fairly clear-cut, so if you can find sufficient secondary sources to meet that, it's the easiest one to go for. If such sources don't exist, then ACADEMIC is probably your only option, but meeting it requires significant career achievements, meaning that only a small fraction of the world's academics are likely to meet it.
Does this help clarify things? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate your help. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Dt12345673838

[edit]

Please help me get this accepted, help me what to change or add. please Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dt12345673838: you need to show that the person is notable; see the advice in the decline notice.
I noticed that you've uploaded both photos as your own work. Did you actually take these yourself? If so, what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the decision regarding the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia. I believe Mr. Salkow meets Wikipedia's notability criteria due to his significant contributions as the founder of Ellies Holdings, a prominent figure in the broadcasting technology sector in South Africa. Mr. Salkow's entrepreneurial achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources. These sources highlight his role in founding and leading Ellies Holdings, which has been a cornerstone in South Africa's broadcasting industry. I have compiled a list of reputable sources that provide detailed coverage of Mr. Salkow's career and contributions. I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision and the inclusion of Elliot Salkow in the Wikipedia article, accurately reflecting his pivotal role in the company's history and the broader industry. Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to your response. Best regards,
- Firstly he has a wikipedia article about his business- HE the CEO is bigger then the business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellies_Holdings - Secondly search him up Thirdly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12pJxdKSqMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykglp4i95vk Dt12345673838 Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: it's not our job as reviewers to "search him up". We assess drafts based on the evidence provided therein. You say that his "achievements and impact on the industry are well-documented in several reliable and independent sources" – then you need to cite those sources in your draft. (In fact, you should base your draft on summary of those sources, citing each one against the information it has provided.)
Whether an article exists on the business this person founded/owned/managed has nothing to do with whether an article on the person can be published. Each subject must establish its own notability, as notability is not inherited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
family Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? As I am lost? Dt12345673838 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 I hope this does not seem patronising, but "the work" is what you should do. You want the draft accepted, so do the work as advised. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing The files are up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons as copyright violations 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was just offended by @DoubleGrazingsaying "notability is not inherited". As we know Elliot Salkow worked very hard from selling mirrors from his car to becoming the top 10 wealthiest person in tech in South Africa. So we know that notability is not inherited. But I will include more articles, thanks for the feedback. I have submitted a new draft. Thanks all. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: I wasn't saying that he inherited (or not) anything, or that he didn't work hard. I was saying that notability, in the Wikipedia context, is not transferred by association from one subject to another; see WP:NOTINHERITED. In other words, even if the business in question is notable, this confers no notability on the individual. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Ok. Sorry. Thank you for helping me. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been delated. Sorry, they must have been sent out by other family memebers to websites writing articles about him. Sorry again. Dt12345673838 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My draft got rejected again. I know it’s not your job to do research. But I have like 8 links on him. Cited everything. I need some help or guidance please 101.173.103.69 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're Dt12345673838?).
The sources do not provide significant coverage of Salkow. Most make only passing mentions, and/or cover his business rather than him. One doesn't even mention him, and one returns 'page not found'. The only one that discusses him more extensively is the TechCentral piece, but it is a first-person account by someone who knew him, so it isn't secondary, and possibly also not entirely independent and/or reliable; in any case, it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
For every source you want to cite, examine it critically against the three criteria in WP:42: only if it meets all three will it contribute at all to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838 you may follow the process at c:COM:VRT to seek to have the pictures restored. The copyright owner must licence the files correctly for Wikimedia Foundation to be able to use them.
Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego

[edit]

I was told that I should try and direct this to the namespace myself, but I'm unsure of how to do that. This article has over 22,000 bytes so it is clearly notable enough. I'm just not exactly sure how to replace the redirect with this article. Shmego (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego I think you need to have conversations with S0091 and/or Hurricane Noah. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam

[edit]

I was wondering why this article was ruled not relevant enough for Wikipedia as there is over 100k people who consider themselves to be members or citizens of this nation. Mquashiesam (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mquashiesam Perhaps you should ask the reviewer who rejected it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do Mquashiesam (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Aasiea

[edit]

I would like to publish an image of Mahgul Ali, the same one that was recently removed due to licensing. After looking at the image use policy, the image provided would be categorized as "Own Work" because it is a photograph provided by the family. Do we need to have a copyright on the image before uploading it again? Aasiea (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aasiea: That is not how this works, at all. As far as images are concerned, the copyright to the image lies with the person who originally took it (or commissioned it), not with whoever happens to own the physical image or an image file. Also, images do not help a draft a whit; your problem is you have no content other than references and an infobox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. There will be more content uploaded soon! However, is there some guidance you can give with photos. Can we commission the photo? Aasiea (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aasiea! What you need to do is either take the photo yourself (in which case you own the copyright to it, because you created it), or get the copyright for it. If you think you might be able to commission a photo, you should tell the photographer that you need to own the copyright to it - they may ask for more money than usual, since if the photo is yours they can't use or sell it unless there is a contract between you specifying otherwise. Discuss this directly with whoever is going to take the photograph.
Something very important is that if you upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which I think is what you plan to do, you are giving up that copyright. Everything on Commons is available for anyone to do whatever they want with, as long as they give attribution (say where it came from). So if someone wants to edit the photo and use it somewhere else, even if it's negative and might harm the reputation of the person in the photo, they can do that and there is nothing you can do about it. Make sure you don't care about that before you upload! Have a look at this page on Commons for more information. I hope that helps! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 16 July 2024 review of submission by Mquashiesam

[edit]

There is currently a group of over 70 people who are looking for micronation inclusion in Wikipedia "WikiProject Micronations" There are also many micronations already included in Wikipedia. Yet this one is being treated as not notable Mquashiesam (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mquashiesam: We don't cite TikTok (no editorial oversight), and we can only cite YouTube videos that are both created by an outlet we consider to have editorial oversight (such as, say, the BBC) and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. I will say it again: Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Producer

[edit]

Hi guys! Can we approve a draft for a show producer in this case based on this criteria?

I read what you shared. For the WP:producer - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
It says he has served as a talent producer and booker for all 5 seasons of Kelly Clarkson, producing music part in every episode. If we add the links to credits, do you think it could be an option? Considering receiving an Emmy for it- as the recognition of his work on that.

Full discussion here- User talk:Qcne#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

The person produced 104 episodes of the show, and received Emmy for that. He had one acting role, but he obviously does not meet the requirements for the acting category. J2009j (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: can I just clarify what it is you're asking here – are you wanting us to overrule the decline (or rather, series of declines)? And why would we do that? Or are you trying to move the earlier discussion from Qcne's talk page here, and if so what do you want others to contribute to it?
To pick up on your last point, whether this person did 104 episodes, or 1,040, does not establish notability. I also don't think the Emmy does, although I could be wrong on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing sorry, it was my suggestion to ask at the AFCHD. I haven't had much experience with NPRODUCER and wasn't quite sure if the person meets criterion 3, or not. Qcne (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, got it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if we can establish notability by applying point 3. Which is this one : The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
So that is why I added the individual was a producer of major TV show The Kelly Clarkson Show, of all 5 seasons of the show, and was nominated and received Emmy. Does this imply the person meets the criteria 3 or not. As I have seen pages that are quite less developed, with less notable work. I think saying that Emmy does not establish notability is the same as say Oscar does not establish notability. It is the main award, equivalent of Oscar for the television programs, awarded to the top performers for their work. Don't you think so? J2009j (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne what do you think on my reply? I have gather bios of some other similar people- main figures behind the TV shows. I am referring to this part specifically "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Later this - "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Notability of this show is not questionable. J2009j (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j Although I am still wavering, I decided to submit on your behalf and to accept. I feel the wider community, including all who wish who have commented upon and reviewed the draft, should examine this, now, article. I wish it luck despite my wavering. I took the view that it might be borderline. Our job is to accept drafts which we believe have a better than 50% chance of passing an immediate deletion process. Acceptance and wavering are congruent with this. We do not require perfection, we need acceptability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Timtrent. Good outcome, @J2009j! Qcne (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Sometimes the only option is acceptance, even, perhaps esecially, when we are not sure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thank you for your explanations. You can see I made several pages related to film industry recently. I found this particular case interesting as newspapers started using wikipedia as a source and writing press releases about a completely different person. Even some influential magazines, which is funny. J2009j (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j I find that intriguing!
For the acceptance I went back to the terms of reference we are giving as reviewers. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Not major film magazine - Deadline making this mistake 😂. The person is even of a different race. Found this on X https://x.com/AndyBehbakht/status/1799200048313442585 J2009j (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

[edit]

00:50, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BeExcellent2EachOther1988

[edit]

What is missing? This is my first time ever setting up a Wikipedia page? What sources are appropriate and which are not? I kind of need a hands-on tutorial from an expert on this and understanding the differences. There's enough sources and he's been in the news enough times to warrant his own Wikipedia page but it's I think a matter of picking the right ones. BeExcellent2EachOther1988 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeExcellent2EachOther1988: what's missing is evidence that he is notable. The sources are mostly about Alternative Baseball, or him talking about something (mostly Alternative Baseball), whereas we need to see significant coverage of him directly. And those sources must meet the WP:GNG notability guideline.
BTW, you've uploaded the photo as your own work. Can you tell us how that came about; how did you happen to be in the House of Representatives to take that photo? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BeExcellent2EachOther1988! Tutorials are something I can do. Let's see if my effort helps you with your draft. There will be quite a few links to click on for more info, so please go ahead and read through them as well. Take your time; there's no deadline and no rush. As long as you make a small edit to your draft every six months, it will remain available for you to work on. You don't need to submit the draft until you are confident you've improved it - and in fact I recommend not submitting it until you've done your best to address the previous reviewers' concerns, because continually submitting drafts with no improvement leads to a rejection and that is the end of the road fo a draft.
Your goal here is to establish that Duncan is [[WP:NOTABLE|notable by Wikipedia standards], which are very strict. Someone might be an amazing person who does great things, but they can still not be notable for Wikipedia. You've got a few pathways for notability, so ideally you'll pick one and sort of tailor the draft towards that. I think for Duncan you'll be using WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines, but there might be something else (like WP:NSPORT) that you think fits better - there will be a whole pile of possiblities at WP:NBIO, which lists various kinds of people who are notable and how you prove a specific person is.
You establish notability by providing suitable sources, which need to fit WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. 'Reliable' requires that a source should have editorial oversight and come from a reputable publisher - most major news sources would count, for this, but a random blog does not.
One more important thing: because you're writing about a living person, you also have to meet WP:BLP, the policies about biographies of living people. That means that everything you write needs to be backed up by a solid source. You can use interviews for very limited facts, like a birth date or partner's name, but not for anything that might be disputed.
DoubleGrazing has mentioned that most of the sources address Alternative Baseball, and my main note was going to be that most of the sources are interviews, which you can't use for notability because they're not independent. If there's no good sources for Duncan himself, you might want to pivot to write a draft for Alternative Baseball instead. Otherwise, go through your sources and discard any that doesn't meet all the criteria of the 'golden rule' - this is probably the most frustrating and disappointing part of writing a draft, honestly, so don't get disheartened - and then look for new ones that do meet all three criteria.
If you're struggling with deciding if a source is okay or not, I'd be happy to look at it in more detail for you. And of course if you have more questions, come back here and someone will pop up to try to help out. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:29, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 105.163.157.109

[edit]

Hello, Kindly let me know why the references on the this draft are not accepted. Please explain as I am not understanding 105.163.157.109 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are FazielahWonderCommsSA, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
It's not that the sources aren't "accepted", it's that they are all primary, and therefore cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. There isn't anything in the draft that would suggest obvious WP:NPROF notability for academics, either.
Also, some of the sources don't verify anything in this draft. For example, the last one merely points to the RSTMH website's home page, which doesn't mention Bediako, let alone say that he has received some sort of award or honour from them.
What is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query at User talk:FazielahWonderCommsSA, please read and respond to it. Note especially the paid-editing part. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 17 July 2024 review of submission by JEbert68

[edit]

My article has been declined several times for not being notable, despite all the reliable and international sources from different areas and several years. I put a lot of work into this and the community keeps deleting this over and over. I cannot get an understandable answer what I have to do to get this online. Can anyone please take a detailled look and explain where the error is and what can be done? Thank you as I am slightly desperate. JEbert68 (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JEbert68 I can see no trace of a review. You have not submitted it for a review. There is a button in the box at the top fr you to submit it. Nothing will happen until you do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I do, they will delete all my work again and again and again. And I cannot understand why. These sources are valid and many. JEbert68 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 Ah, I see now. Your prior attempt was declined as can advert and deleted thus: Draft:Lena Snow (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Notability (people), no real refs) and you then either requested deletion or blanked the page, so it was deleted on 2 May 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in detail. The cited sources are valid, and no advertisement is intended. There are many mentions in publications and exhibitions, this artist exists and is notable internationally. What exactly do I need to provide to you?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 See below. I cannot see what was deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68: User:JEbert68/sandbox/Lena Snow (Artist) was never submitted for review, that I can see at least, whereas Draft:Lena Snow was deleted because that's what you apparently requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please explain in detail which parts or sources or errors did provoke a denial/deletion?
Thank you. JEbert68 (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I wish to approach this from the other end. Please read and understand WP:NARTIST. Your job is to prove that Snow passes it.
Then, remove all flowery text. You have written a lovely magazine article. Now write an article for an encyclopaedia instead. No words like 'famous', no emotional words, nothing. Write in your own words only what is contained in references. Do not write what you want to say and then struggle to find a reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JEbert68 I have checked, at random, three of your sources, two of which do not mention Snow, one of which is a blog. So there is work to do here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Darnathiss

[edit]

Good morning, I have attempted to submit the encyclopedic entry for Enex Technologies several times, but it has been rejected due to issues with the sources of information. I believe that Enex Technologies deserves to be included in the free encyclopedia as it is a highly relevant international Italian company in the industrial refrigeration sector and has received significant media coverage. For instance, major national Italian newspapers such as "Il Corriere della Sera" (the leading national newspaper), "La Repubblica" (the second leading national newspaper), and "Il Sole 24 Ore" (the leading national economic newspaper) have all covered the company. Could you please point out one or two sources among those I have used that are not correct? Thank you very much for your attention and cooperation. Darnathiss (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darnathiss: I'm going to turn this around, and ask you to highlight the three strongest sources in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, as required by the WP:NCORP guideline. Note that this means significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and also no interviews, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, new markets or product announcements, etc.), and no advertorial, sponsored content or other churnalism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, in light of the fact that your entire edit history, both here and on the Italian Wikipedia, have to do with this business, suggesting some sort of relationship. Please read and respond to the query. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Darnathiss! I'll start with recommending you have a look at WP:42, our 'golden rule', which lays out what you need for a suitable source. There are three criteria: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - more information in the WP:42 link. 'Reliable' means you need a source with editorial oversight and reputable publishing standards. Every single source you rely on for notability has to meet all three criteria, which is often what causes problems for new editors. Having a look at your sources, here's what I see:
1) does not mention Enex (not significant coverage).
2) is paywalled, so I can't assess it.
3) is highly promotional and seems to have come straight from the company (not independent).
4) is the same as 3), with an interview from the founder (not independent).
5) is also promotional and only has a paragraph about Enex (not independent, not significant coverage).
6) is also promotional (not independent).
So you might have one source, 2) - I'm not sure if it's usable or not - but you need at least three suitable sources for a draft. DoubleGrazing has given you some excellent advice on what to avoid, and hopefully this analysis will also help you discard sources you can't use. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jdmmpower

[edit]

I want to know how articles are reviewed and allowed to get published and what mistakes can be avoided when publishing articles Jdmmpower (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a draft about a topic that already has an article. If you want to add to the existing article, you may edit that article, or use its talk page to propose edits.
To learn more about the draft submission process(which is usually voluntary), please see Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BlowAtHighDough

[edit]

A new page I was trying to publish was turned down because reliable sources do not adequately support it (exact quote at bottom). Could you give me some guidance on what sources are unreliable? Do I need more references? The field of references for regional sports is a little barren and I feel I have used the majority of sources available. For reference, I used the Wikipedia page for LFA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Fighting_Alliance) as a guide for building this page and sourcing. If you could help me narrow down the next steps to fix the page that would be much appreciated.

"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." BlowAtHighDough (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the sources for Legacy Fighting Alliance are not adequate, because, like many thousands of other articles, it was created before we started being so careful about quality. See other stuff exists.
For your first pass, you need to check each source against the triple criteria in 42. If it is reliable but not independent, or if it is independent but does not contain significant coverage, then it is possible that it can be used to support a basic non-controversial piece of information; but only sources which meet all three criteria count towards establishing notability, and the great majority of an article should be cited to such sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 17 July 2024 review of submission by BJP4KERALAM

[edit]

What is the problem in my article of Draft:Palode santhosh BJP4KERALAM (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Palode Santhosh
@BJP4KERALAM: I couldn't say without reviewing it. The draft was resubmitted c 5 weeks ago and is awaiting a new review. As it says there, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,866 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 17 July 2024 review of submission by 41.217.28.63

[edit]

I submitted the draft above and this remark was made, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Although, I have corrected the second remark for the post to be rewritten formally. However, the sources I provided are the only sources I have, the journals written were not published online. But are in hard copy. From your article on reliable sources, there is no room to have journals that were not published online by a reliable source. so what do I do? 41.217.28.63 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if properly cited. The problem is that you have swathes of unreferenced biographical content, which either needs to get sourced or get removed. Even if you are going for WP:NACADEMIC notability, every claim that a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced to a third-party source that can verify the claim. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be reliable, but they do not adequately support the contents, as approximately half the paragraphs are completely unreferenced, which violates our rules on articles on living people (WP:BLP).
Sources do not need to be online, you can cite offline sources as well, as long as they are otherwise of sufficient quality, and you do so with full bibliographical details; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Anything that cannot be supported by reliable sources must be removed. (One could also then ask... where did you get that information, if not from reliable sources?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I'm writing to request assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta, a is a politician and spokesperson for Aam Aadmi Party.

I've compiled a list of reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Based on these sources, I believe Reena Gupta meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

While I've drafted the article in the Wikipedia sandbox, I'd greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback you could offer to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's standards and is ready for publication.

I'm particularly interested in assistance with the following (if applicable):

Structure and organization: Is the information presented in a clear and concise way? Neutrality: Have I avoided any promotional content or personal opinions? Notability: Do the sources I've provided adequately demonstrate [Personality Name]'s notability? Referencing: Are the citations formatted correctly? Thank you for your time and support. I look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely, Jeswanth Jeswanth2 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your references are not in-line and, looking at the titles of those sources, the likelihood any of them discuss Gupta in any depth is remote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeswanth2: your question, esp. "[Personality Name]'s notability", suggests you're using a chatbot of some sort. We would so much rather hear from you than from an algorithm. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a stretch to call a party spokesperson a politician. Politicians are generally seeking or hold public office. "Party activist" might be better. You've summarized what she's been involved with but not summarized any independent sources that discuss how her work was particularly important or influential. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 17 July 2024 review of submission by Shariq Khan 1

[edit]

I want to create my own Wikipedia page. I made one as well but that got rejected and the reason was the provided information is not notable enough to publish the page. I want to know how i can make a Wikipedia in this situation and if there was some more issues so please let me know about that as well. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not the place to write your autobiography. Please read WP:AB and WP:NBIO before further attempting to publish articles. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 22:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shariq Khan 1 I also think the multiple messages your fellow editors have left on your talk page more than explain why your draft is completely unsuitable. Please read them. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

[edit]

01:26, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Eva Jacinto

[edit]

Hello, I have multiple questions: 1. How can I ask someone to proofread my draft in order to be sure it fits all the requirements? 2. I cannot upload a photo. How can I prove I have permission to upload it? 3. There is an error about soft hyphen which I can’t solve 4. I am interested in translating this page, if it becomes a deputed by wikipedia, to Portuguese and English. I am not finding how to do it 5. Could someone give me a structure or an example of a biographical page that works well?

Sorry for such a long message. Thank you in advance Eva Jacinto 

Eva Jacinto (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva Jacinto: In order:
  1. You do that by submitting it for review. "Pre-reviews" are inherently meaningless. (That being said, we wouldn't even begin to attempt to do this as this draft is in Spanish; the English-language Wikipedia will not accept content written in the Spanish language.)
  2. You don't, because you having permission means absolutely nothing. Permission is needed by the entity hosting the photo, and Wikipedia will never seek or use such permission.
  3. "soft hyphen" is a phrase I have never seen before today, so I have no context for this error.
  4. See WP:Translation. Note that this implies you're translating from the Spanish-language Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org).
  5. Any Good or Featured class biography will work for this, but since we're discussing a living person here (where special rules apply) the closest example would be a Good or Featured BLP. Martin Rundkvist seems a good example.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Soft hyphen is used to indicate where a word should be divided, if it needs to be divided, and will only display then. I come across this in Finnish, where long compound words are common, so the editors insert soft hyphens to indicate possible locations where to divide the word onto two lines. They are invisible, so are hard to detect, but can be found by moving the cursor through the word in question one letter at a time. When you find a location where trying to move the cursor doesn't seem to move it, that's where the soft hyphen is (so in reality, moving the cursor does move it, it just moves it past the invisible hyphen). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your great help.
Still don’t catch how to put a photo. Eva Jacinto (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please forget about photos until you have made a draft that has any chance of being acceptable as an article - which yours does not, because you have written it WP:BACKWARDS. You are in the position of somebody who does not (yet) know anything about how to build a house, but has put up a frame that is about to fall down, and is asking how to install windows.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your didactical answer (even though not encouraging).
I didn’t submit any article, just working on it. I understood that sandbox works as a testing room, a space where we can work slowly. Am I wrong?
Every time I ask things I get a better idea how wikipedia works. It’s almost impossible to read all the articles that wikipedia offers to teach people how to contribute.
Contribution: that is what I am trying to do with a subject that interests to thousands and thousands of people, whom would like to search and find a neutral and clarifying article. I hope you can help me on that.
With such rigorous policies I wonder why there are so many bad articles in wikipedia.
Thank you again Eva Jacinto (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 18 July 2024 review of submission by GokuSS400

[edit]

So I noticed that unlike other modern Kamen Rider series, Gotchard did not have an episode list publicly available on wiki so I tried to submit one. However I'm told that the page doesn't have enough reliable sources (45), and that all of the sources being from the same source/place is not enough and thus the page requires more. In this specific case all sources are from the Japanese tv network TV Asashi, which is the network that Kamen Rider airs on. However I've looked at all the pages for the other Reiwa Era Kamen Rider shows and each of their episode list pages without exception cite only from Tv Asashi. So I'm confused here as to why there seems to be different standards, and what I should look for to improve this article, especially given the series is very near to its end. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GokuSS400 You have made a common mistake for inexperienced users in that you based what you wrote on other articles; that is not usually a good idea, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles have the same issues as your draft and you would be unaware of that as an inexperienced user.(you've had an account since 2009 but only have 42 edits). It's more likely that these other episode lists should be removed, not more added.
As this is a volunteer project, people do what they can when they can; we try our best to be consistent, but we are only as good as the people who choose to help and choose to be familiar with relevant standards. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yes you answered the first half of the issue (regarding why the other articles can get away with this...sort of), but you did not answer the core part of the issue of the fact that more sources are being asked for. There are ultimately a couple issues with that request. First of all you're not going to get anything more authentic/official than Tv Asashi on this matter since the show is broadcast on their network. The show is from Japan, so any source with information on the show would have a 50% chance of being lost in translation (as Japanese and English do not translate 1:1).
So this ultimately leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what more would work here, which is part of what I'm asking guidance on. GokuSS400 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Kresnabasudewa

[edit]

i have edit the content and referensces, please check. Kresnabasudewa (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kresnabasudewa The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. It is not enough for a politician to merely be seeking public office, they must win their election or actually hold public office to merit an article as a politican, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. You haven't demonstrated that he meets the broader notable person definition either. If something fundamentally changes about this, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly.
If you have a connection to him, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you work for him or his party, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i want edit, but not as a politician but as a young entrepreneur, can i do? Kresnabasudewa (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kresnabasudewa: no, for the same reason as explained, ie. there is no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i am surrender Kresnabasudewa (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

[edit]

Why not accept my article Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meattaeiwondota: the reasons why I declined Draft:Lav Kumar are given in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not work for any party.I am her to improve my writing skills.I am PHD student this is my 3 years. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I publish research paper in forms of article. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: do not resubmit drafts without any attempt at improving them. Fair warning: next time, I will reject this outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me.I am not aware about..
What I have to Improve? Tell me Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: meant to say also that you're not supposed to be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comedy me? Who give responsibility of this..your sentence like a children writing in class 6-5. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not writing about my self.. It topic after study on internet but it not on Wikipedia. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meattaeiwondota: your user page literally says "I am Lav Kumar website developer,News article writer." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is user page it about me. But on article I have written that is different you an search on internet. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see information on google AI or WhatsApp AI you ask about Lav Kumar Taekwondo player.you will get information. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI hallucinates. Anything written by it is worthless for notability. (You could argue that it'd be acceptable if someone actually edited its output, but that would make the source no longer AI given the extensive rewrites that would be required to make it accurate and sensical.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Fcontrepois

[edit]

Hello amazing team.

I do think that the topic of Cloud FinOps is of interest, but I do not manage to express it a encyclopedia way. Can I ask others to take over the writing of this article in a more encyclopidic style and submit again? Have a great day Frank Fcontrepois (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talk about. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Individual not in Team.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road for it. I think it's unlikely anyone (certainly anyone here at the help desk) will want to get involved in editing a rejected draft, although I guess it's always possible someone may choose to write a new one on this subject at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help me to improve my rejected article.. Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all; it reads like an internal whitepaper from an IT firm was stitched together with an investors' brochure to create a Frankenstein's Creature of inappropriate-for-Wikipedia. What is your connexion to Cloud FinOps? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the feedback. I was trying my best. I hope other will try to write the article better.
Cloud FinOps is a discipline, not a company. Most of the current standards are set by the FinOps Foundation that is under the Linux foundation. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: Which doesn't answer my question: What is your connexion to (companies entities promoting) Cloud FinOps? This sort of article isn't accidentally written by someone with no direct connexion to a subject or to entities with a stake in that subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very involved in FinOps, I work for a company that in involved in FinOps, I have a podcast on it and participate in setting the standards. Fcontrepois (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fcontrepois: The second of those things requires a disclosure even if your work on Wikipedia is otherwise completely divorced from that firm's business operations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Meattaeiwondota

[edit]

Give some advice Meattaeiwondota (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not publish research papers, so the best advice: please publish it somewhere else, such as at a blog. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

[edit]

How do we cite original sources like podcasts with the artist making statements? Monniejaym (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is about  Courtesy link: Draft:Kenyon Dixon?
It's basically web content, so you can cite using {{cite web}}.
That said, an artist talking about themselves or their work is primary source and therefore of limited use, and can only support factual, non-contentions statements, but does not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Forgettonexo114

[edit]

I wasn't expecting it to be published but I think that it would be a good placeholder until I can sit down and finish the page the more. Forgettonexo114 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 18 July 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro

[edit]

I am having a difficult experience with the Wikipedia editor for the topic I am attempting to publish. I've provided numerous verifiable sources and citations, but he has declined every single one. This is a digital online code and protocol for search engine optimization that provides direct communication to search engines, similar to the Sitemaps protocol that Wikipedia has published. However, the reviewer does not see digital industry journals as having integrity on the subject. This is very confusing. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. With all due respect to him, I'm not sure anything I provide or do will satisfy him. Is there a way to have another editor review my submission? VWellsMicro (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been declined by 4 different reviewers. I haven’t checked the sources but the draft is promotional in tone and stuffed with spam links, the “Benefits” section is also entirely inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro I have left an overlapping comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro "he has declined every single one." Er, no. You have had multiple separate reviews by multiple reviewers. Multiple different opinions telling you that this draft is declined. What you need to do is to do the work that has been outlined. Perhaps we need be clear:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I hope that helps you to earn how to check your references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no spam links. This is a protocol that works as an interface between search engines and websites. It is offered as a plug in on multiple content management systems and delivery networks such as Wix and Duda, which is why they are mentioned. This is a completely legitimate internet protocol utilized by tons of major companies - and is currently administrated by Microsoft Bing. And thank you I believe I have done the work. It's an online protocol that is written about in online digital journals like Search Engine Journal that has a readership over of over 1 million people. Here is a completely valid article on the protocol by the journal. I recognize this may be a bit complicated subject. Ive tried providing everything I can. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro You can argue, or you can take advice. Your move. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to argue. I am simply trying to get this published. I simply thought that we were supposed to link out, there is no goal of spamming here. I am not a spammer. I am just trying to publish this article. I am sorry for the confusion. I will remove all of the outbound links. VWellsMicro (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro Then please take the advice. Generally, reviewers here know more than new editors. You have declared that you are paid by Microsoft for your edits here. (I tidied up the note on your user page, please correct any inaccuracies). Please use your salary to learn what you are doing. A paid editor should be able to get their article accepted on their second attempt (assuming it passes our notability criteria).
If you want it to be accepted, please do the work, and do not resubmit for review before you have done it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VWellsMicro You are wrong, your draft has 21 spam links to involved companies, we simply don't use external links in this manner. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 18 July 2024 review of submission by Hasalaka Sumiththa thero

[edit]

approve page Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero You have not submitted the draft for review. In its current state it will not be accepted. Please read the notice at the top and do the work it explains 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why your article submission was declined Hasalaka Sumiththa thero (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasalaka Sumiththa thero Please DO NOT open multiple threads here.
You deleted the notices when it was declined. They told you why. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

[edit]

03:25, 19 July 2024 review of submission by TonyGadreal

[edit]

I am a New article creator TonyGadreal (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyGadreal: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You should not be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text from freely licensed material to Wikipedia

[edit]

Can I partially copy text from freely licensed material, such as works by the Government of India (and licensed under GODL) to create articles?

I am asking specifically about text. @CharlieMehta had mentioned that there is a possibility that this is allowed only for images & diagrams. Is it true? Skratata69 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skratata69: this isn't really the place to ask about copyright, but in basic terms, if by "freely licensed" you mean material in the public domain, then as long as there is evidence of this status, and you're clearly citing the source, and the copying is otherwise appropriate, then you can use such material. See WP:Public domain for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skratata69 However, it is a general truth that text from external sources is unlikely to be of the style or quality required by Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, I was not blindly copy pasting it. I took a lot of time and wrote content and added comparisions on my own, since it was my first article. It got a ~50% overlap with the freely licensed content so my draft article was declined. Skratata69 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skratata69 If the location of the freely licenced content contains a compatible licence you will not have this problem again. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for all sorts of details to help you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieMehta Please enter this discussion, there appears to be unfinished work here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website is of the Reserve Bank of India, a body of the Government of India. The government has licensed all non-sensitive content automatically under a free license as seen here, so there is no need for an explicit license on every site.
[1](page 5 here) Skratata69 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

I don't know how to add references and What should I do to improve it. Please tell me🙏🏻 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, you have correctly added references, so you know how to do that in theory. It's just that you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, you need to cite the sources where you got all this information from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Panchayet

[edit]

Could you please provide feedback on how to improve this? Panchayet (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panchayet: the draft is completely unreferenced, with zero evidence of notability, and as such is basically just the subject telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional. This is why it is pending speedy deletion.
What is your relationship with this institute? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia

[edit]

The article was declined for insufficient citation. Would it be possible to see what claims need the addition of a citation or better sources. The subject of the article means that scholarly sources are not particularly available. Instead, most information is derived from the websites of galleries which I would see as being fairly accurate when discussing thier own galleries. The range of citations used in inline with pages on similar topics. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the references are not seperated from the last section (they are just at the bottom of the article without a seperate subheading). Could this be part of the problem? Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: no, that's not the problem; that's easily fixed.
It's also not about insufficient citations. That point was added just as a comment.
The reason for declining is that the sources do not demonstrate notability. Please click on each of the links in the decline notice to see what sort of sources we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia We (primarily) don't want to know what associated galleries say about this organization, we want to know what independent reliable sources say about this organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. As the reviewer notes, much of the draft is unsourced(especially the history section)
Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So with regards to notability adding more sources such as news articles or books referencing the work of Venetian Heritage would fix that. There are existing articles on similar organizations some of similar notability. No I am not directly affiliated witht the organization but am from Venice (and am interested in its history) so am well aquianted with their work, history and activities. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right - as long as the articles and books weren't written, published, or commissioned, by VH or anybody it works with.
As for other articles: we have many many seriously flawed articles, which nobody has got around to doing anything about. If you want to compare an existing article, make sure it is a Good Article or a Featured Article. See Other stuff exists . ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by EbrietanPhasmid

[edit]


Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and am having trouble creating an article that passes review. This article was declined on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria for a wikipedia article due to lack of depth/reliable sources. I was wondering what advice you could give me when it comes to improving this article?

My digging only yielded two secondary sources which I have made use of. The remainder of my article utilises primary sources (the language's creators).

How can I make this article fit for the wiki?

-EbrietanPhasmid (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EbrietanPhasmid: by finding, and citing, 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. If you cannot find such sources, then the subject is probably not notable enough, and the draft cannot be accepted. It's all about the sources, no amount of editing will magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

[edit]

This article was rejected and in the accompanying explanation, it states that the copyright violation that caused it to be rejected has been removed. Does this mean that I can re-submit it and that it will be re-assessed or do I have to do something else first? I've made no edits to the draft myself. Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janep1814 Fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok.Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean I can resubmit without making any other changes (as the copyright violation has been cleared)? Janep1814 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may. On the surface it looks remarkably good (and well-sourced) for a new editor's first attempt. I haven't looked in any depth, though. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll resubmit. Janep1814 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

[edit]

I am making my first article about a micronation that is named Ironland. It was established on 26 Jun 2024. I am new to making articles so that's the reason I need the advice. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics I like _magnify, but this micronation is not yet a notable topic for Wikipedia. The draft has therefore been rejected and will not be considered further for the time being. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malaysian guy who likes politics: please see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you can point to at least three independent, reliably published, articles or books which talk in some depth about your micronation, then it might be worth considering it as a possible topic for a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 19 July 2024 review of submission by KnotWhen52

[edit]

My Article is about a national sports coach who is also a published sports scientist - I am aware that the article fails due to notability. Can you advise on what steps I should take to rectify? For example, should I make the article shorter, should I remove some citations and references that aren't relevant? Do I not have enough? I've tried to be as detailed as possible, so any guidance would be helpful. KnotWhen52 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnotWhen52: as the draft has been declined for lack of notability, that is what you should address. Find sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ACADEMIC notability guideline. Other edits may be useful also, but they won't help you get around the notability problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Malaysian guy who likes politics

[edit]

This article was considered to be deleted because it states that it's just a "hoax" rather than an factual article. I am requesting assistance because this is the first time I am establishing an article. It took two days for me to submit this article. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: this draft has been deleted. Please don't recreate it.
And please don't start a new thread with each comment. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Pratap555

[edit]

Why the article declined Pratap Keshari Das (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was stated by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please read it, and the policies linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 19 July 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4

[edit]

Béla Sipos, who has edited the article until now, does not understand the information the Auric reviewer provided. József Móczár wrote the request for help, as Béla Sipos gave up further editing, citing insufficient programming knowledge. After several years of corrections, please finish the editing and publish the Wikipedia article. 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it for review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. It won't be accepted unless it is written in the neutral point of view, which it is not right now. Articles are not supposed to promote the subject. Since it is a biography of a living person, all statements must be supported by inline citations to reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you must also disclose that before editing it. C F A 💬 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Lucasirby

[edit]

Would like to know how/why more references are not reliable Lucasirby (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasirby: We don't cite Liquipedia (no editorial oversight) or the subject's own website (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Clarkin1573

[edit]

I am new to wikipedia, and it is unclear to me how the page I have created in materially different from many many other university pages on wikipedia, including these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania_School_of_Engineering_and_Applied_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University_College_of_Engineering 

Clarkin1573 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarkin1573: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And unlike the other three articles, this lacks usable sources and is written primarily to promote the college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, I just resubmitted this post for review last week and would like to know if I am going to get assigned the same reviewer for my submission that I had the first time around. If so, is there a timeline I should follow for when the Wikipedia draft will be reviewed? If not, is there a way of following up with someone at Wikipedia to get a better sense of what to expect? Thank you. Wyneep (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "assigns" reviewers at all, ever. Reviewers look through the list of drafts awaiting review, and choose which they wish to pick up, and which order to deal with them. I suspect that some reviewers, sometimes, look at the oldest waiting drafts and pick them up even when they don't really want to (but I'm not a reviewer, so I'm only guessing that). ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reviewers find drafts the same way. Some look at drafts relating to their specific interests, some go by date, some go alphabetically, and some choose them randomly (which is what I do). Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation system is very backlogged right now (there is almost always around 3000 drafts submitted for review at any given time!). You shouldn't have to wait any longer than 3 months for a review. C F A 💬 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Heikdong

[edit]

This page was deleted and restored. Submission was declined on 21 October 2023 by Rich Smith (talk). He stated that: "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds."

I have resubmitted the draft with the corrections and removal of infringements. What's the next step? I'm new to Wikipedia and have taken over this page from previous person who is no longer working on this page.

Thank you, HK Dong Heikdong (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you need do other than wait.
However, if you want to increase the chances of a reviewer accepting your draft, you will carefully read what we mean by a reliable source, and get rid of all the obviously unreliable ones you have cited at present. We do not accept social media, blog posts, and we certainly don't accept articles from random weirdly-named sites that all have exactly the same appearance and the same "about us".
Obviously, when you get rid of a source, you get rid of all information which is cited to that source - unless you can find a reliable source which provides the same information.
When you say you "have taken over this page from previous person", what is your relationship to that previous person, and to Dong? If you are in any way employed by or on behalf of Dong or his church, you must formally declare your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Elithton

[edit]

How long do I have to edit the text?What content is prohibited, and what should I avoid using in the text? Elithton (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions may be carried out at any time as long as an admin feels the criteria is met- I believe that's the case, so I deleted it. I would suggest that if you have independent reliable sources that give this game significant coverage, that you start fresh. I would advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is a good idea to first get experience under your belt by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Mdahmke

[edit]

Hi, I've added a couple of references... I wrote much of the original material about the Computalker for BYTE and onComputing back in the late 70s and developed applications for the computalker. Unfortunately there are very few other independent sources. Mdahmke (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are very few other independent sources, then by definition, this system does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Linwoods96

[edit]

I was told I did not have enough reliable sources for verification. I included a reference section which included at least two articles, plus discogs to verify music Klubjumpers worked on. Do I need another article to verify their notoriety? Also, I am not sure how to include the links within the body of the article. I need help putting the citations in. Please help. Linwoods96 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Linwoods96: We can't use Discogs (no editorial oversight). All of your references need to be in-line, citing specific claims, rather than just slapped on the end of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 19 July 2024 review of submission by Brandonweiss8

[edit]

Hi, I submitted the draft with many references as noted at the bottom. Not sure what the issue is here. Thanks Brandonweiss8 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brandonweiss8. The ADDITIONAL REFERENCES section seems redundant- surely these should all be converted to in-line citations to support material in the body of the draft. Otherwise, what is their purpose? Qcne (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes I did just that when re-submitting 4.7.17.138 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you have (and please remember to log in while replying). For example, the Silicon Valley Business Journal reference has no accompanying in-line citation, and doesn't appear in the References section. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

[edit]

01:44, 20 July 2024 review of submission by Charles Nsugbe

[edit]

please what do i need to do for my article to be accepted Charles Nsugbe (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Nsugbe: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 20 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 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Fade258 who reviewed the draft, and possibly above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 20 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

[edit]

Hello. I do not understand why my article is not approved. I thought I had a good selection of reliable third party reference resources. Is this based on language differences? CymaSonic (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions too. While Wikipedia isn't based on language differences, it seems you didn't read the reviewer's comment about the draft. Since you're here, look at what is needed. Your draft is about a living person, and per Wikipedia policy, such biographies needs adequate sourcing to almost every credible/noteworthy content. In your draft, there doesn't seem to be any citation in the "Early life and education", and "career". Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 20 July 2024 review of submission by ArtHistorian1014

[edit]

Hello! This submission was just rejected because of unreliable sources, and I was hoping for more clarity into which sources were unreliable so I can avoid using similar ones in the future. I'm trying to add prominent contemporary artists to Wikipedia and believe Punkmetender is among them so would love to optimize this page to a place of submission acceptance. Thank you! 

ArtHistorian1014 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1235667605"