Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		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


September 12

[edit]

00:55, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Fjavaherchi

[edit]

Hi. I saw your message in my notifications. Yes I am new to article creation. I'm wondering if you can point out any specific things in my article that stands out as "promotional language" or "improper sources" or anything else. I was rejected twice. Thank you! Fjavaherchi (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fjavaherchi, your draft has not been rejected, which means "this is the end of the line". Instead it has been declined, which means "make substantial improvements and only then resubmit". Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Tayyab121

[edit]

Want some guidance on what is missing or wrong with this article as this subject is well know pakistan clothing brand 

Tayyab121 (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tayyab121, your draft is overtly promotional, and promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and it is mandatory. Nobody cares if this company is well known in any country. Your draft must meet the stringent standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which are taken very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Faridgurbanov3

[edit]

Hello ! I would like to know what exactly problem is about my article ? Faridgurbanov3 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked daily(see above) I presume by you- this is getting disruptive. You have been given the answer. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will start reverting off further requests for this draft as disruptive. You have been repeatedly told what the issue is and have refused to read the replies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter)

[edit]

I Have Created My Article by following all rules and regulations and in positive manner but my article is not accepted please help me with this issue . 

Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter) (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter): you say that, but self-evidently you haven't followed "all rules and regulations", given that the draft is insufficiently referenced. Far too much of the content is unsupported, and some of the few sources are not reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 12 September 2024 review of submission by 176.10.136.162

[edit]

I get my submission declined when creating the page "Avionero". My sources are Expressen, Travel News and BreakIt. Could you please help me understand what the issue with these are? 176.10.136.162 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think this is too far off from being acceptable. We normally require three solid sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard, although in the case of companies and other organisations the bar is a bit higher.
  • The issue with the Expressen piece is that it's more about russians circumventing travel restrictions, in which context Avionero comes into play. It's also Avionero's MD commenting on these matters, rather than the reporter writing about Avionero. It's not a useless source, but it's not quite 'solid' enough, IMO.
  • The Travel News one seems to be based on an interview, which is again the subject talking about itself. Useful for some purposes, but not for establishing notability.
  • The Breakit article seems the strongest to me, although I'm not familiar with the publication so can't comment on its editorial standards and other reliability considerations.
TL;DNR = find at least one more solid source (two wouldn't be overkill!), incorporate them into the draft, and resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Hoptimist5

[edit]

I received feedback from an editor stating that the layout needs work and the references are not presented properly. I am struggling to amend the article because I do not understand the help pages. This is my first Wikipedia article and the formatting instructions are overwhelming. Can someone please help to correct the layout and references? Thank you very much. Hoptimist5 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoptimist5:, might this guide be of any use? It's an attempt to summarise and explain how to present sources, and why it is necessary to do so. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoptimist5. I'm afraid that that is a common experience of editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article without having spent significant time "learning on the job" how Wikipedia works. 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) 17:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bonadea and ColinFine. I believe my article does meet the criteria of verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources and notability. The only issue is the formatting of the article and the formatting of the references. I will look again at the guidance again regarding formatting. Hoptimist5 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Emmanue!EH2

[edit]

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Its my first time and I am trying to understand all these details. I will work on this and check the links you provided and then resubmit. If I am still having trouble I will follow protocol and connect with you again for further assistance. Many thanks. Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Hi again. I have talked with the Dr Claude Mariottini and asked him for further documentation and links as you require. The documentation of being born in Brazil and coming to US in 1963 is from the person directly and stated clearly in his blog bio which I documented and linked. Is that still not acceptable? His published books on Amazon are linked to Amazon. Is that not sufficient? The other publications of articles, etc., seem to be older and the links are buried in secondary sources so my guess is that is not acceptable. Also you say he is not notable. So his creditials and resume are old since he is retired. So how do I document those? I am trying to help Professor Mariottini, so do I just tell him we dont have enough documentation and he is not notable so he cant be listed? Not sure what my next step is. Please advise. Thanks so much.. Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmanue!EH2: We don't cite Amazon. We cannot use the subject's own words, written or otherwise, for any claim that could be challenged, and this includes age (blame Hollywood). Out of curiosity, have you read WP:NACADEMIC? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

[edit]

02:26, 13 September 2024 review of submission by Georgiarosecooke

[edit]

Hello,

I am wondering why the Biography got rejected from submission? What could I change? What should I put in a Biography on Wikipedia? What shouldn't I put in a Biography on Wikipedia?

Thankyou.

Sincerely, Georgia Rose Cooke Georgiarosecooke (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of this article is simply (presumably) your name and a bunch of SEO words. It's not written in an encyclopedic fashion and is completely unsourced. And realistically, there's no content to source since it's just a list of buzzwords. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting attempting search engine optimisation on Wikipedia is a waste of time. All Wikipedia pages (not just articles) use nofollow, which means that every search engine that complies with robots.txt will ignore outgoing links from it. And a large chunk of Wikipedia pages are noindexed, preventing them from showing up on search engines full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article about you should consist of a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write about you, and publish in reliable places: that is (almost) all. Furthermore, it is not in any way for your benefit (except incidentally). What you want to tell the world about yourself is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 13 September 2024 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

[edit]

please review this article, i have added citations... Tizzythewhale (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale: the draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 13 September 2024 review of submission by Tayyab121

[edit]

Could someone please review the article and let me know if it meets the criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia namespace? 

Tayyab121 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayyab121: this draft has been rejected already, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have removed the promotional content and now its ready for review you can now review it Tayyab121 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was not rejected for being promotional, but for lacking evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tayyab121 You say you are a professional content editor, but that you aren't paid for your contributions. Both of these things cannot be true at the same time.
Also, you claim to have personally created the logo of the company. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
I have listed myself as a Content Editor on my user page. I want to clarify that I have no personal or professional relationship with the company Mushq. My involvement with the article is independent and unpaid.
I noticed that the name "Mushq" was previously redirected to the Wikipedia page for Mushk, a Pakistani drama serial. This redirection was not relevant, as "Mushq" and Mushk are completely separate entities. The content I have published provides more accurate and detailed information about the fashion brand Mushq, which is distinct from the drama serial.
Please review your decision of rejection after revision of Mushq article.
Thanks Tayyab121 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tayyab121 If you have no relationship with the company, why do you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the company? So you're not a "professional content editor"?
How did you come to edit about this company? (which, after making a few practice edits, you started editing about) You also claim to have taken an image of their store in Lahore. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I mistakenly mentioned the content as my work. I will correct this, as the information was sourced directly from the company's website. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Tayyab121 (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have infringed on the company's copyright and must immediately go to Commons and request deletion of the logo. Images are not relevant to the draft process, so you don't need to worry about adding a logo yet. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use" rules, which does carry some restrictions but allows for limited use in articles(not drafts).
Is the image of their store from the company website too? 331dot (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing As mentioned in the initial feedback, I have revised the article to remove promotional content and added reliable sources for references. I would appreciate your review of these changes to ensure that all issues have been addressed.
Additionally, please note that Mushq, the fashion brand, was launched in 2018, which is before the Pakistani drama serial Mushk aired in 2020. This distinction is important for clarity and context in the article.
Thank you Tayyab121 (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The need to differentiate the store from the TV show is not grounds to create an article. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
From my perspective, if a subject exists and is notable, it should not be redirected to an unrelated article. Instead, accurate and detailed information about the actual entity should be provided. This approach enhances the value and reliability of the platform.
This is one of sources that i have used for information.
https://tracxn.com/d/companies/mushq/__E5tmSq7CQJWxIJZgLPYxvEg-3psqhwHrD3SLudnMi3s
Tayyab121 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue is if the topic is notable- not to provide differentiation amongst other topics. In any event, this discussion is academic, as the draft was rejected and will not be considered further, as the company does not meet the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 13 September 2024 review of submission by SKumar58

[edit]

help me out, unable to summit the articles SKumar58 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered any more. You have not demonstrated that the company meets the definition of a notable company.
Furthermore, you have not disclosed your relationship with the company, per WP:COI and WP:PAID. You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo. Your username also matches that of the person you say is the CEO of the company, that makes you a paid editor and the Terms of Use require you to make the paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not related to this company, or the person related in this article; my name is SethupathiKumar as Skumar58, I just created this account Wikipedia. interest in contributing information, this company name is related to Bigil Movies Name, I research on online then I create on the artical SKumar58 (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SKumar58: did you by any chance previously edit under the Vr26studios account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I am online editor, Vr26studios is my hidden stage name on content creation, then I change name SethupathiKumar to SKumar58 SKumar58 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SKumar58: given that your original (or at least earlier) account was blocked, you are not allowed to edit from any account or IP address. The block applies to you as an individual, not just to the blocked account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 13 September 2024 review of submission by 198.52.165.99

[edit]

Hello,

I was declined for my first submission of "Infinite Universe Theory" which I then resubmitted which then took me to a page that said it was declined. Is there a way to find out if my resubmission (2nd attempt) was accepted or if the second attempt was also declined and if I could get some help to edit this article for the standards that Wikipedia requires?

Thank you

Viromi 198.52.165.99 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a research essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. I would also see Help:Referencing for beginners; we aren't fans of just slapping references on the end and prefer them to be in-line. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 13 September 2024 review of submission by EZ BC

[edit]

It was rejecetd for unrelaible sources. I've learned that local news outlets are not deemed reliable. I've added more citations from national news sources and government sites, but is it okay to still include some local news citations for some details? EZ BC (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not accurate as a blanket statement to say that local sources are inherently unreliable, but local sources don't usually have the reach to establish notability of a topic. The main issue is that you have merely summarized this person's activities, you have not summarized significant coverage of this person that shows they are a notable person. What is the influence of their advocacy as sources see it? 331dot (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 13 September 2024 review of submission by 198.52.165.99

[edit]

I resubmitted an article with the changes requested and was rejected again. Would you please tell me if I could speak with the editor(McMatter Talk) regarding the specific changes they require?

Thank you

Viromi 198.52.165.99 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You put the words "article declined" where the name of your draft is intended to go. Which draft is it? You can communicate with that reviewer by going to their user talk page, you can click the word "talk" next to their name in the decline message on the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 13 September 2024 review of submission by Qmwne235

[edit]

Since the notice that this draft was declined was accompanied only by a standard template, I was wondering if I could have a more detailed review of the sources. On which of the criteria for notability is the article currently falling short? I'd appreciate any advice! Qmwne235 19:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the reviewer who declined it to explain, on their talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would need to pass the criteria at WP:NBAND to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have been credited as one of the most influential bands in Canada's screamo scene is an exceedingly thin and unpersuasive claim of notability. When musical genres are sliced and diced into ever thinner and more obscure sub-sub-sub genres, notability becomes very difficult to establish. Did they have any hit records? Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qmwne235, your assertion gained acclaimed (sic) as an important hardcore release is cited to an article that discusses dozens of bands and devotes just two sentences to this band, namely Edmonton’s I Hate Sex called it quits this summer but left a mark on the Canadian scene. They went through a number of lineup changes but always featured vocalist Nicole Boychuk, whose impassioned, at times desperate sounding, delivery anchored their sound. If you think these two sentences amount to "gained acclaim", then maybe encyclopedia writing is not for you, because hyperbole is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

[edit]

06:30, 14 September 2024 review of submission by Dbgbr

[edit]

I submitted article to publish with all relevant evidence available on Google search but still it's say not sufficient evidence, kindly help me out.... Dbgbr (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dbgbr, your draft has been rejected and speedy deleted. This is the end of the line. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 14 September 2024 review of submission by Royiswariii

[edit]

Hi, I would like to request a review of my draft article Draft:Sining (song). It has been two weeks without any review, decline, or acceptance. I would appreciate a review so I can make any necessary changes if there’s something wrong, or if it’s accepted, it would give me peace of mind. Thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii I fixed your header to put a link to your draft in the correct location(you had the words "draft article" there). As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,516 pending submissions waiting for review." You will be informed when the review is conducted, and if the draft was accepted or not. If it was not accepted, the reviewer will leave you feedback. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 14 September 2024 review of submission by Abhi2002pathak

[edit]

I am trying to create a neutral page for this politician, actually here is the reason why she needs a Wikipedia page. There is one lady criminal Neera Yadav and people who want to search Neeru get confused by Neera's name, creating a problem. I just want people not to rush down to the decision that this is biased article. I have not relation with her I just want to remove this confusion. Abhi2002pathak (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi2002pathak. Your statement that she "needs a Wikipedia page" is based on a (very common) misconception. A Wikipedia article about a subject is not in any way at all for the benefit (or detriment) of that subject. If Yadav meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (perhaps the more specific notability for politicians) then there can be an article about her: if she does not, then there cannot be an article about her.
The existence of somebody else with a similar name is of no relevance at all to deciding whether or not an article can be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at Draft:Neeru Yadav, I think she may well be notable. But I notice that some sections of the draft are unreferenced: specifically, "Early Life", and most of "Achievements and recognition" - note that Wikipedia does not normally take notice of awards unless either 1) the award itself is sufficiently notable that there is a Wikipedia article about it, or 2) the subject winning the award has been written about at some length by an independent commentator.
I have wikilinked the word "sarpanch", as people outside India are not likely to be familiar with it.
I have also restored all the WP:AFC messages and comments, which you should not have removed. That will allow you to resubmit the draft when it is ready. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much I am collecting more reliable sources to justify this page. I will resubmit when I am ready to review. 2405:201:6807:C8B6:EDB9:F98B:8473:73B2 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhi2002pathak: just out of curiosity, how do you know this person has a problem with people confusing her with her namesake?
Also, could you please stop tampering with the AfC (and other) templates in this draft, they're there for a reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now not going to do Anything with templates people have added. Btw I got to know about her as I was surfing on Wikipedia and got on Wikipedia page of hockey. Then by curiosity I find about people and news about hockey in my state. I would appreciate required for this page. 2405:201:6807:C8B6:EDB9:F98B:8473:73B2 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't answer my question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 14 September 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

[edit]

Hello i have submitted an article on kendo master Tomio Otani. I wanted to see if it could be reviewed and accepted and whether there are any suggestions for improvement, thanks! Finlay73 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review, as indicated on your draft, this could take time. If not accepted, the reviewer will leave feedback. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]

08:43, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Sarim Wani

[edit]

can you please accept it now? Sarim Wani (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review. As noted on the draft, this could take some time, please be patient. There is no way to speed up this process, which is conducted by volunteers. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Kaspatik

[edit]

Mostly to do with citations relating to some bits of the sumotori article, unless I'm not using the right keywords to fetch articles or what, but it's really a struggle from what I could fetch from. Kaspatik (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:42 carefully, and evaluate each of you sources against the criteria there. I suspect that most of your sources are of limited value (and do not contribute towards establishing notability) and some of them are worthless for Wikipedia.
Note that a citation that just shows that something exists is nearly worthless: if this is significant, then there will be indpendendent sources about it, and if there aren't, why is it significant enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I figured it was gonna be like this. Atleast with ways I was going about the article (and the citations), mostly for the niche subject around Sumotori dreams. But alas though It's roadblock that I hit little after doing research and the alike into it and stuff like that on wikipedia is the least concerning subject to cover. Kaspatik (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Nalabala1323

[edit]

To help formatting the page and citing sufficient content and information. They are filming here in Louisville, Kentucky and our little town in Frankfort, Kentucky and I’ve been doing research on the film Carolina Caroline and spoke to some crew and one of the producers which was why based on information I’ve gathered Mr. Ward should have a page. His wife Brittany Ward is also a producer on the film and she produces and manages Elle and Dakota Fanning as well as Liz Hannah who wrote the Movie The Post directed by Steven Speilberg starring Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep. Ms. Ward and Mr. Ward also producer many other projects for Hulu, Amazon and Netflix. They have worked together on many projects. The Girl from Plainville and THE Great which had three season on Hulu starring Elle Fanning and Nick Hoult. I have drafted a new page but would love help on this project and page. Much appreciated! Nalabala1323 (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalabala1323: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those, of course.
In any case, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
Also, just so you know for future reference, your own interviews and other research, while no doubt interesting to conduct, isn't useful on Wikipedia, as that comes under original research which is not allowed. We are only interested in what reliable published sources have said about a subject.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the sites and references do show past films, current films and the films worked on which to my findings have grossed hundreds of millions of Dollars at box office and projects the gentleman has worked with A list actors and directors and it links to his current film production filming here in Kentucky Carolina Caroline and he is on that page so why would it not be of interest to put context behind his credits and colleagues? Nalabala1323 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't change the fact that those things are original research. There are places to publish that, Wikipedia isn't one of them, sorry. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nalabala1323: What you're basically trying to argue is that the film is notable due to its personnel's notability. We do not accept that argument (and we never have); the film needs to be notable on its own merits regardless of the notability of the names attached to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 15 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:8AEE:DF00:60F4:E261:6D57:5B34

[edit]

Hi there,

I am a British milliner and I recently paid someone to build a page for me which they were clearly unable to do successfully.

I am not able to access it to make changes that would make it more suitable for you.

Can you offer and assistance? 2A02:C7C:8AEE:DF00:60F4:E261:6D57:5B34 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. There is nothing preventing you from editing the draft, but doing so would be academic, as it has been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. The issues from the first attempt at a draft were not resolved. In terms of you editing the draft, please see the autobiography policy.
It appears that you may have been scammed, see WP:SCAM. If you're certain the editor is legitimately trying to write an acceptable draft, they failed to comply with our policies, including making the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. I might try to get my money back if I were you, but it may not happen. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming what seemed pretty obvious all along, namely that the two editors involved (which I actually rather suspect to be one editor using two accounts) were, and are, undisclosed paid editors. This was queried several times, but no response was ever provided.
I hope you can get your money back, although I expect you probably won't, regrettably. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No payment for this, just star struck they have been filming in our small towns in Kentucky and they shot scenes at two of our stores so I’ve got an inside look how movies are made and it’s fascinating. I’m not professional and wouldn’t except anything for doing something I’m passionate about and trying to learn in my off time. Nalabala1323 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nalabala1323: you probably meant to reply in your own thread (the one above this one)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, thanks for clarifying!! If you can help in the future I would like to continue and grow within wiki and the community’s I’m passionate about. Thanks again! Nalabala1323 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Nalabala1323

[edit]

I don’t fully understand as I’m new to this and have spent numerous hours researching the gentleman and the company that is filming in our small town and Kentucky. I found numerous publications about the producer as well as the film and their colleagues and other producers when I checked the Carolina Carolina Film page on wiki they named as well as Mr. Ward and he has substantial credits as colleagues Tim and Trevor White from what I see so any help would be appreciated to be able to site the correct references doing a thorough research. He’s been involved in over 40 movies with a list, actors and directors, I don’t know why that wouldn’t be acceptable as there are some film Producers I’ve looked up that have pages and don’t have nearly as much success or years of experience. Is it that I’m not coding or writing correctly? Nalabala1323 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just document the existence of his work. You must gather and summarize independent reliable sources that give him significant coverage- coverage which goes into detail about his importance/significance/influence to filmmaking(if you are asserting he is a notable creative professional) or just meets the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Dooggyzon32

[edit]

Adding a new articles and information Dooggyzon32 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dooggyzon32: that's not a question; did you have one in mind?
That said,  Courtesy link: Draft:Alitta Cat does not look likely to turn into a viable encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The user requesting help has been globally locked for long term abuse. cyberdog958Talk 08:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 15 September 2024 review of submission by BellaNYork

[edit]

Seek guidance from colleagues in here:

As per WP:OUTCOMES district magistrates are notable as such holding the career perspective.

( Political figures not elected to public office Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. ) 

BellaNYork (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BellaNYork: in a word, no. Civil servants are not inherently notable, and neither is sub-state anyone, whether in a political or administrative role. In any case, such notabilities would only be presumed, not absolute, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that the subject is notable, rather than for the reviewer to demonstrate the opposite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your guidance is helpful to understand better. Much appreciated. BellaNYork (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BellaNYork: Let's test that assertion. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to the above, WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy nor a guideline, but an essay. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 15 September 2024 review of submission by Jacob David Dove Pottage

[edit]

I want clarification on the standards for sources, I want to write an article about a living popular YouTuber, most of what is known about him is based off of what he has said about himself, do his own videos where he talks about his life count as reliable sources? Jacob David Dove Pottage (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob David Dove Pottage I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. No, we are not interested in what someone says about themselves, only in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about persons that meet our definition of a notable person. If the only sources are someone speaking about themselves, they do not merit a Wikipedia article. We are looking for things like news reports, professional reviews, books, etc. YouTube videos(even if independent) are not acceptable sources unless they are from reputable news outlets on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused, I though the draft existed already. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

[edit]

00:51, 16 September 2024 review of submission by SCAFP213

[edit]

The person who edited this Goodfellow Bros. entry said that there were citing errors. But the citing looks correct. Instead of using "foo," I used multiple 1, etc. because there was not just one multiple. I couldn't call every multiple citing "foo." Please explain why this is incorrect. Also, the article is worthy of a wikipedia entry. It is a 100-year old company that was instrumental in the development of the region. It is every bit as worthy as an entry like that of a similar company Kiewit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiewit_Corporation. The references are in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. I think it's irresponsible and arbitrary to reject this entry. SCAFP213 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll to the bottom of the draft, you'll see the text Cite error: The named reference "multiple 1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Click on the link to the help page – it explains what's wrong and how to fix it. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:19, 16 September 2024 review of submission by Rafael Daiki Ando

[edit]

Good night! I rewrote the International Economics Olympiad article and would like to know if it is good now. If not, could you provide more information about what is expected from the article? Thank you! Rafael Daiki Ando (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected by @Star Mississippi in January, with the comment Despite multiple attempts over the years, it does not appear there has ever been sufficient coverage to establish notability. "Rejected" means that it cannot be resubmitted.
If you believe that there is relevant coverage (that meets all the criteria in WP:42) that was either not found in January or has been published since, you need to ask Star Mississippi to reconsider it. But please do not do so unless you are sure that the sources are now adequate for Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @ColinFine. My opinion remains the same but if another reviewer sees things differently,happy to revisit. Star Mississippi 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 16 September 2024 review of submission by High Admiral JMT

[edit]

I see that almost every named storm had a list. Pulasan is a new name and one storm just formed with this name. The material is similar to all other lists. Why then is it rejected? High Admiral JMT (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@High Admiral JMT: this draft was declined (not 'rejected') because the subject is not notable. It's also not much of a list, if you only have a single item, which begs the question why create a list article on a non-list, especially when that single item already has an article of its own. (And no, "almost every named storm ha[ving] a list" is not a valid reason.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 16 September 2024 review of submission by Linaa06

[edit]

Hi, I'm struggling with how to find reliable source for my company introduction page in Wikipedia platform. Our company is quite new, so the only thing we get is the document, links from our company sites, PR articles and some social post with others parners.

May I ask about what we can consider as a reliable source for a new business like my company?

Thank you so much Linaa06 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Linaa06: I don't know what company, or what draft, you're talking about, but by the sound of things it's unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Also, just to say that there are no "company introduction pages" here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. We publish encyclopaedic articles on subjects which are notable. If you wish to tell the world about your business, you need to find a different platform such as LinkedIn etc. Note also that promotion of any kind is not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most companies (like most people, most bands, most charities, most schools, most streets, etc) have not been written about sufficiently to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so cannot currently have articles about them in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Atok. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:59, 16 September 2024 review of submission by Pat Moller

[edit]

I want to request to rename this page from 'ResourceCO' to 'ResourceCo' to correct the capitalisation of the company name. Pat Moller (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pat Moller: done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pat Moller: Though given the draft is highly promotional, you're basically just putting a new coat of paint on a condemned house. What is your connexion with ResourceCo? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:34, 16 September 2024 review of submission by VvS77qq

[edit]

I removed the trivia section as suggested. Unfortunately I have problems with the commented "several unsourced statements". I tried to give references to all claims/statements. If I hadn't any, I did not publish the corresponding parts. So, I really tried to be as precise as possible - not giving at least an example of "several unsourced statements" does not help me in improving the article and seems just like a "copy-paste-argument". Any help or hint on this is highly appreciated! VvS77qq (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VvS77qq: I count at least a dozen paragraphs, in other words the majority of the draft contents, without any referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 16 September 2024 review of submission by High Admiral JMT

[edit]

I think we still need this page, as currently I see that it is almost inevitable that more storms named Pulasan will develop, in 2030 and possibly in 2036, 2042, etc. I think we need this page for the present, as it will develop. High Admiral JMT (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When new storms are given that name, and there is material published about storms called Pulasan (not just about individual storms) then it is possible that there can be a Wikipedia list. We do not published articles because they may be useful in the future. See WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 16 September 2024 review of submission by Timashaedirisinghe

[edit]

Dear sir, kindly note that i have been experiencing difficulties when editing my wiki page kindly help me.i have been publishing my new edits but it doesnt appear on google as newly edited information sir.i think i have been mistakenly editing wikipedia page incorrectly thats why .kindly help me sir Timashaedirisinghe (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timashaedirisinghe: your draft has not been published yet, it was declined by the reviewer. Search engines cannot see unpublished drafts, that's why it won't appear on Google.
What is your relationship to the subject of your draft? I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir, Im unrelated to the subject she is a television presenter in srilanka and she is a celebrity as she has won the 4th runner up title at Miss rilanka universe 2007 pageant and works as an actress and a Televion presenter. and represented srilanka in india as an actress.the purpose of this article is to give her respect as an achiever who has achieved so many things since her young age which she still does . Timashaedirisinghe (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timashaedirisinghe: so the fact that her name and your user name both have 'Edirisinghe' in them is just a coincidence? Also, you've included a lot of personal details in your draft which don't seem to come from any of the sources listed, so where did you get all that information from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 16 September 2024 review of submission by Viljowf

[edit]

In my view, the author has addressed the previous comments adequately. There are numerous sources citing reviews of an important scholarly work on South African music history. An entire thesis chapter is dedicated to the subject.If an entry on the Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Australian_Rock_and_Pop#:~:text=The%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Australian%20Rock,but%20is%20not%20otherwise%20relates qualifies, surely this one does too. Viljowf (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree, and pretty much said so when this was raised here last month. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The range of coverage from South African Journal of Musicology, The Musical Times, and African Affairs, all notable publications in their own right, seem more than adequate for a reference work like this. I would resubmit it myself if it wasn't rejected. Reconrabbit 19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 September 2024 review of submission by 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:A9F0:F7FD:4B62:7310

[edit]

I helped a friend write this page and it keeps getting declined, can anyone help me with how to update it appropriately? It's my first time! 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:A9F0:F7FD:4B62:7310 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are a mix of passing mentions, the subject commenting on things, and primary sources. For notability per [{WP:GNG]], we need to see multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of the subject, and of each other) and reliable, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

[edit]

01:56, 17 September 2024 review of submission by San1976Marino

[edit]

My draft: Norman Mathews article continues to be rejected because, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I don't understand this because the sources I used include the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Reader, Playbill, and various other major sources. Why are these insufficient? Also, there is the claim that some of the sources are unreliable. Could someone please point specifically to one or two unreliable sources I've quoted in the draft so that I may understand the problem better and eliminate them? I've read the articles on citing sources but can learn nothing as to why the sources I have used are inadequate. Please Help. Thanks. San1976Marino (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@San1976Marino: nobody is saying that all your sources are unreliable, only that some are. User-generated content in particular is not considered reliable, because it isn't subject to editorial oversight; to put it bluntly, anyone can publish any old rubbish they want. In the case of this draft, that means Bookbaby, YouTube and SoundCloud.
The bigger problem is that too much of the content is unsupported by any sources. From what source did you get the DOB? Where does the info in the 'Early life and education' section come from, or in 'Musician'? Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and pretty much every statement needs to be clearly backed up by a reliable source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article development

[edit]

am a kenyan artist kindly how can i develop an article for me? Prince Ackley (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put bluntly: you don't.
Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is very strongly discouraged, because it is almost impossible for most people to write about themselves in a sufficiently neutral way.
Note that, if there is ever an article about you, whoever writes it:
  • it will not belong to you
  • it will not necessarily say what you want it to say
  • it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
  • it will be able to be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates. (You would be able to request edits, but an uninvolved editor would decide how to respond to your request).
In short, Wikipedia may not be used for promotion (ie "telling the world about yourself").
I suggest you put your time and effort to other things. ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your fans, or in enhancing search results for you, or your Google knowledge panel(for which the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible input). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So its impossible... Prince Ackley (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not impossible if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most artists don't), but very difficult, and you may not be happy with the result. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Fsekoech

[edit]

Hi, I have made changes to the article over 6 times. The reviewers point out one issue at a time, kindly address all the issues at once, or tell me exactly where the issue is so that I can fix it. As the article stands, it is perfect for me. Make the changes or be specific with the error. Kind regards. Fsekoech (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are having an experience that is very common for editors who attempt the extremely difficult task of creating an article before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works.
If you took up a new sport, and immediately entered a tournament, you would not expect to do well in it; but (assuming experts bothered to give you feedback on your performance) you would probably not understand what they were saying, because you had not spent time learning how the sport worked.
This is much the same. 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) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fsekoech: due to technical limitations, a draft can only be declined for at most two reasons. If it has several declinable issues, then it is possible for each reviewer to decline it for different reasons. Reviewers don't have to decline for any particular reason, such as for some sort of 'major' or 'primary' reason, or for the same reason as in the previous decline; they can decline for any reason that is valid. Also, declining for a different reason than in the previous decline does not necessarily mean that that reason no longer applies.
Case in point, earlier I declined this for lack of evidence of notability and insufficient referencing, and I can tell you that both of those problems still persist, even though other reviewers have subsequently declined this for different reasons.
On a different matter, can you confirm that you have read and understood WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, however, I was working on a friend's article in order to acquire the technical-know-how as I would like to write about computer science. I have made necessary changes to the references, you can check it out, kindly Fsekoech (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You took an image of him and he posed for you, what is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Top famous 2019

[edit]

"Ahsan Ali is held to be one of a vanguard of proficient visual designers who have adopted and promoted the use of standards-based, cross-browser solutions to web design problems."

(i) "Held to be" by whom? (ii) There are millions of proficient web designers. If anyone is in the 'vanguard' it is those with the foresight to design the next level of standards... certainly not the millions who simply follow them, as happens in most industries. Top famous 2019 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Top famous 2019: not sure what's happening... you seem to be posing a question, and then answering it yourself. Did you have a question for us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Top famous 2019

[edit]

Sorry Now Edits Top famous 2019 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 17 September 2024 review of submission by ZubaMusic

[edit]

I don't see why its wrong, and bad, when I removed the things that had to be removed. ZubaMusic (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this whole draft was a mess. No plausible claim to notability was made, there's not a single citation to a single fact asserted, and it appears this is an autobiography or at least a significant WP:COI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Drzarqa3

[edit]

Hi, I recently received this notification from wikipedia, The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Can you please help me use footnotes for wikipedia page.

Thank you, Drzarqa3 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drzarqa3 Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. These will help you to place your footnotes correctly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 17 September 2024 review of submission by JLzero02

[edit]

The Moriyama Teshima Architects article I had drafted for creation has been in review since March 6th (+/- 6 months). I suspect the delay has to do with the submission having been declined, though all of the comments made by editors were applied promptly. Is there any way I can improve my odds of having it reviewed and approved within a reasonable timeframe? Thank you! JLzero02 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do to speed the review process; drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JLzero02: just for the record, we count waiting times from the most recent submission, which in this case was c. 3 ½ months ago. Still quite a long time, but not as bad as 6 months.
A draft with 50+ citations will tend to put off reviewers. Personally, I would take out the entire 'Major Projects' section and the corresponding sources, or at least cut it down dramatically to the most notable ones only.
Either in addition to or instead of that, you could highlight the 3-5 sources that you feel are strongest in terms of establishing notability according to the WP:NCORP guideline. This would mean that the reviewer wouldn't have to sift through all 52 to find the few that really matter.
While this wouldn't necessarily expedite the review per se, it might at least encourage a reviewer who comes across this draft to review it rather than to groan and move swiftly on... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the suggestion, will do just this! JLzero02 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Əhməd Qurbanov

[edit]

Greetings, I've already corrected some mistakes in the article. I added independent sources and removed social media references. Please, review the article and give the feedbacks. It would be very helpful. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Əhməd Qurbanov: if you feel you have addressed the issues highlighted in the previous review, you may resubmit the draft and that way you will get more feedback in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov Please both submit this for review and continue to make improvements. There is a waiting period of anything up to three months for a review right now. Submission does not stop you from working on it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, DoubleGrazing and Timtrent, I want to be sure that everything is OK before submission. I don't want to get another decline to article. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov Reviews on request are not something we entertain, I'm afraid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do we need to improve the article? Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Are you associated with this event?
The decline message states what is being looked for. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, because of misunderstanding for translation, I mentioned "we". I am not associated with the event. Yes, I need feedbacks about decline message. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly say that if English is not your first language, you may want to edit the Wikipedia of your primary language.
You have just told what the event is, and what happens there, you have not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the event, showing how it is a notable event as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 17 September 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. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, 331dot and ColinFine, I inserted a lot of independent media sources which is talking about the summit. Please, consider that. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources published in advance of an event are almost always regurgitations of press releases, and so are not independent. It is unusual for a journalist to have anything much substantial and independent to say about an event before it has happened. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Matt.ruhstaller

[edit]

Can you please give me a few tips to understand what requirements I am not meeting? Do I need better citations? Many thanks! M (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The draft just documents his qualifications and work. It should mostly summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable creative professional. Most of the claim looks to be like he is associated with notable people, but notability is not inherited by association. You talk a little about a photo of Madonna kissing Britney Spears, but don't discuss it beyond it being widely printed, which is the case for images of any top tier celebrity. Do any sources discuss the photo itself and its artistry/style that presumably the photographer played a role in? Stuff like that. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re conflict of interest: I know this person socially.
Thank you so much for the clear explanation, I'll work on those concerns and re-submit. Super helpful, thanks! M (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt.ruhstaller: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. There are two ways to demonstrate that, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:PHOTOGRAPHER notability guidelines. Study those, and see if you can find evidence that the subject meets either. (Hint: the GNG one needs coverage in multiple secondary sources; the PHOTOGRAPHER one requires a significant career with major achievements in their field.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Ganbatte Michelle

[edit]

On which part of content i have to fix issues, please confirm Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbatte Michelle: primary sources, which is all your draft cites, do not establish notability per WP:GNG.
What is your relationship with this subject? This has been queried on your talk page, but I don't believe you've responded. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a replied to DoubleGrazing, what kind of citation needed to establish notability, does it includes news and articles independently covering the events of this organization?? Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Marchjuly

[edit]

Would an AfC reviewer mind taking a look at Thomas Hui To? It appears to have been submitted for review by the article's creator, who then moved it directly to the mainspace themselves a few weeks later. There's also some mention of the creator being "connected" to the subject in a post made at Talk:Thomas Hui To: so, their moving the draft to the mainspace themselves could be an issue per WP:COIEDIT. The article has already been drafitified once by another user; so, perhaps that option is no longer available any longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Shakerpm

[edit]

My page was declined and would like some help in making it approvable. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." These are the comments that were left. How can I find "reliable" resources and what does the second comment refer to? Is there a minimum number of citations/footnotes that are required? Patty Mitchell (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives helpful guidance on identifying reliable sources. Think: expert-written articles, major news organizations, academic journals, etc. There is not a minimum number of required citations, but it is good practice to add inline citations (referring to these: [1][2][3]), for all the facts included in your draft. Ca talk to me! 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 17 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:EE1E:9E00:F882:29D5:1B6D:EB1D

[edit]

Hello! Would like a bit more help with improving this entry after it was declined, if possible? 2A02:C7C:EE1E:9E00:F882:29D5:1B6D:EB1D (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Elfelix

[edit]

AfC second request: Draft:Sudarshan Kapur.

Sudarshan Kapur is NOT the same person as Sudarshan Kapoor (see Talk:Sudarshan Kapoor and Draft talk:Sudarshan Kapur). Note: the book Raising Up a Prophet (1992) was written by Sudarshan Kapur.

The first AfC request was recently refused based on a patent misunderstanding of the above information.

The above Draft article about Sudarshan Kapur should be entered into Wikipedia proper. It was recently written (since November 2023, and by elfelix starting April 2024); it includes information once mistakenly contained in another Wikipedia article ("Sudarshan Kapoor"). Apparently the reason why the above Draft article was not 'in due course' published on Wikipedia is due to its conflation with that prior article of a similar name: "Sudarshan Kapoor".

The article Sudarshan Kapoor, by mistake, used to contained information about Sudarshan Kapur. This mistaken information in the Kapoor article was deleted on June 6, 2024.

The basic difference between these two articles is already stated above.

The reasons for the mistaken conflation of Kapur and Kapoor: 1) both are American professors of similar age, originally from India, with a career focus on Gandhi and nonviolent political action; 2) it seems that a person of India with such a name might transliterate it to either Kapur or to Kapoor.

The user elfelix is the party first responsible for this Wikipedia mistake.

The AfC first request by elfelix was likely made in June 2024. Elfelix (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 17 September 2024 review of submission by TheBestWikiPublisher

[edit]

There's no submission button for me to resubmit my edited work. I have reliable sources- if WSJ, Barron's and The Globe and Mail aren't reliable sources then I'm not sure what else to say. TheBestWikiPublisher (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no resubmit button because the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It's the end of the line for the draft. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company amd what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Aimee St.Clair

[edit]

The article I submitted was declined for tone, perceived lack of neutrality, and possibly "peacock phrases". I'm going to try again but could use some specific feedback if someone is able to point out the specific parts of the article that are in need of editing. Aimee St.Clair (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Aimee St.Clair. I do agree that the draft contains tone issues. To give examples, Utilizing queer aesthetic strategies and often employing humor to challenge social codes and conditions, Woodham's work activates specific contexts, bringing focus to the moment, along with shifts in awareness and perspective. sounds quite obtuse to me, and is an opinion not attributed to any specific critic.
a festival that brings a thematically organized concentration of art experiences to public spaces and aspired to a renewal of the site through historical reclamation and expressions of community rights to public space can be shortened with less flowery prose.
...the festival's long history "long history" sound promotional. Ca talk to me! 04:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

[edit]

04:11, 18 September 2024 review of submission by 1972SUnite

[edit]

My article was declined due to unreliable resources. However, my resources, i.e. the news articles cited, are credible, but I believe the reason that they are being flagged is because the url to these articles require subscriptions to view. Because these are historic newspapers, from the 1970s, while they may not be easily accessible they can be located with a few extra steps.

In this situation, would I be better off not linking the articles to a url, and citing only the articles themselves? 1972SUnite (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reviewer was more concerned about its sparse sourcing rather than reliability. Many of the claims present are not backed up with a inline citation, and contains unattributed opinions. Text like " The events of November 16, 1972, may have tested their endurance, but their unwavering commitment to the development of Black social consciousness remains and will continue to be an everlasting legacy." belongs in an argumentative essay, not in an encyclopedia. Note that ChatGPT and other text-generating AIs are poor in generating prose with dry prose, and you should edit them. Ca talk to me! 04:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you really own the copyrights to the historic pictures? Ca talk to me! 04:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:26, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Saddam19

[edit]

hi wikipedia

i want to this draft Madarsa_Rahmatul-Uloom_Naukatola to an artical post on wikipedia this a eduction centre in my city raxaul far from 4 km a small village naukatola and this madarsa is very popular in around the raxaul sub division . please help me .

thank you your user saddam19 Saddam19 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saddam19: your draft hasn't been reviewed because you haven't submitted it yet. That said, there is no point in submitting it as it stands, because it is only referenced with Facebook, which is not an acceptable source. See the notability guideline for organisations, WP:ORG, which tells you what sort of sources we need to see before this draft can be accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:29, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Top famous 2021

[edit]

edit this page Top famous 2021 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Top famous 2021: this draft has been rejected, as you very well know. And please stop removing the AfC templates, this has been pointed out before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Pratikshourabh1122

[edit]

can you help me what to do to get publish Pratikshourabh1122 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratikshourabh1122: I've posted advice on your talk page, which I presume you didn't read, because you came to ask on my talk page, which I answered, and you probably didn't read that either, as you're now here. This is not LinkedIn, where you tell the world about yourself and your software development etc. skills. This is an encyclopaedia. If your only objective here is self-promotion, you need to stop now and find a different outlet for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my highly useful and carefully thought out deletion notice -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Mellouis98337

[edit]

Can you assist me on how to get my draft submitted? Mellouis98337 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellouis98337: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website, you need to find other marketing channels for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Pratap singh112

[edit]

Please let me know who to write the article Pratap singh112 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion. Promotional activities are not permitted here. If what I assume is your company(if you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID) merits a Wikipedia article according to our definition of a notable company, someone independent of the company will eventually write one. I suggest you go on about the work of your company as if Wikipedia did not exist. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 18 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7720:7000:14FC:1CBA:85A9:3658

[edit]

Advice on declined submission Hi Please can I get some help with a draft submission that has been declined: Draft:Amy Bateman

This is the feedback: do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

I've been through the guidelines but don't understand what is missing. Please could you help?

Thanks Natalie 2A02:C7C:7720:7000:14FC:1CBA:85A9:3658 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header, you had the words "advice on declined submission" where the draft title should go. The whole url is not needed so I removed that, too. Remember to log in when posting.
Most of the awards do not contribute towards notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize), though Lakeland Book of the Year has one. You have references, but they are not in line next to the information they support, see Referencing for beginners. You have desribed her curator work but not said what independent sources consider notable about it, how it was particularly important/significant/influential.
If you are the creator of the draft, your username suggests you are connected to this person, what is the connection? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This refers to notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. You need to cite multiple (3+) sources that are secondary (mainly print or broadcast media covering the subject from an external perspective), and reliable (editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc.), and entirely independent of the subject and of each other, and that have provided significant coverage (not just passing mentions, brief 'profiles', etc.) of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 18 September 2024 review of submission by OrlandoX3

[edit]

Good morning OrlandoX3 (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrlandoX3: that's not a question, but now that you're here, let me ask you one: which account(s) have you previously edited, or are currently editing, under? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 18 September 2024 review of submission by Rickmood

[edit]

I want to know why my page getting rejected? Rickmood (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rickmood I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted(and you have done so). The reviewer will leave you feedback, as prior reviewers have. Do you have specific questions about that feedback?
You also seem to be associated with this film, as you claim that you personally created its movie poster. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rickmood: Draft:Hangama Dot Com hasn't been submitted.
When you say "my page", can you elaborate? Because the creator is not your Rickmood account, it is Hangama1 – do you also operate that account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I saw Draft:Hangama Dot Com 2. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you seem to be talking about Draft:Hangama Dot Com 2?
Please still answer the question whether Hangama1 is your account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1246361943"