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
desk		Backlog
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


April 10[edit]

03:33, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5[edit]

I want edit this artist page and I planned to giving a good references 2409:40F4:A2:AF0F:F8D9:7EFF:FEC7:A0C5 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in editing this draft, as it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously available, you may make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft title was protected so IP decided to create it under Draft:VigneshSivajayam despite the advice here and numerous rejections.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Vanity013[edit]

The topic is a cinematographer Vanity013 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanity013: yes, and? Do you have question you would like to ask? This draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a beginning cinematographer and has reputation via the Emtee music video which has credible sources / articles that mention Kabelo Sebake
I ask that his article be posted on main space or user space and further references will be added as his career grows Vanity013 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Kabelo Sebake has two sources neither of which mention Sebake? Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanity013: nope, doesn't work like that; we don't publish articles on non-notable subjects in anticipation of them possibly becoming notable later. If, as his career progresses, he one day becomes notable, a new case can be made then. But for now, being a 'beginner' almost certainly means that he is not notable enough to be included at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Ckptr3690[edit]

I am a first-time joiner of Wikipedia. My article are being rejected many times. The last time it said appears to read more like an advertisement. But I believe it is already written in a natural way. In fact I am not connected with the subject, I just tried to add a missing page. Could anyone please help to tell me in what sentence or words that look like an advertisement? Ckptr3690 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have few sources other than the school website, and those you do have seem to just detail routine activities. This is considered "advertising". There needs to be sources with significant coverage of this school, coverage that details what is considered important/significant/influential about it- how it meets the special definition of a notable school. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the explanations and directions. It is more clear now. Ckptr3690 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 75.88.67.7[edit]

This is a list of forthcoming books similar to the "Marvel Epic Collection" line which has a wikipedia page (that I made). The only information we have right now is directly from the publisher via press release and solicitations. I could source other sites that are getting the same information from the publisher that doesn't seem to solve the problem. How can I get this page published before the books actually get released? Because, by the time the first book releases, several dozen more will have been solicited and need to be complied. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that something not yet released would be notable. Indeed, if, as you say, you cannot find independent sources, then that pretty much proves my point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I could find multiple examples of sites stating the importance of this line of books (here, here, and here, for example). I just didn't do that before as the line is not yet published, so some of the information from each source is coming directly from press releases. This line is notable because its goal is to publish the entire history of some of DC's (and American comics' in general) most significant and noteworthy characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) in their entirety. With the way publishing works, at least in terms of comic book collections, the books have to be solicited approximately six months ahead of their publication date. DC seems to be pushing these books very hard, as they've solicited 10 volumes for publication in November 2024 or later. If you wait until the first book actually hits the shelves for purchase, and DC publishes them at the same rate, there could be a list of almost 40-50 books to compile, which would be significantly more difficult and complicated than keeping track of the books as they are solicited. 75.88.67.7 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 10 April 2024 review of submission by 152.23.179.99[edit]

Hey there, My draft was rejected with the comment "The current draft contains too much bragging". So, I edited it and submitted the revised version again. I am wondering if it will have another chance to be reviewed. In addition, the picture I uploaded was removed with the reason "No permission since 1 April 2024". I am confused because I own this picture and I am not sure where I should get permission from. 152.23.179.99 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you're Hosein Rostamian, please log into your account whenever editing.
Secondly, your draft was not rejected (which means end of the road), only declined (which means you can improve and resubmit it). So yes, you can have another review, and have indeed already resubmitted the draft.
As for your copyright in the image, you can find details of how to donate your copyright at WP:DCM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Dutchmagazine[edit]

I'm not sure I'm going in the right direction - the first time I submitted my draft the feedback was good and related to adding more references, the second time I submitted it, it was rejected because of language. Should I make the draft more concise? I'm sure the subject meets notability requirements. Many thanks Dutchmagazine (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dutchmagazine: I've accepted your draft, thanks for improving the referencing so promptly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 10 April 2024 review of submission by Antochkat[edit]

My submission was declined. (sorry if my english is bad) I don't understand why at all. This draft is a translation of an article in French that I myself wrote ("Historiographie alternative de l'Empire Mongol"), and which was verified and then accepted by French moderation because it follows the rules of Wikipedia. I am told that it was refused firstly because I did not cite enough sources: THERE ARE 41, almost all books by historians, from different authors, almost all of which you can read on the internet. I can hardly do more. Second, I am told that the point of view is not neutral, yet at no point do I promote these theories. The proof: throughout the article I constantly repeat: "according to the author", "according to his theories", etc. And also I use the conditional. Maybe my English is too bad and I'm wording it wrong? In this case I need help please Antochkat (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antochkat: we don't publish original research or synthesis, which this essay seems to be, or any sort of 'new theories' etc. that aren't well-known and widely-discussed in their field already. If you wish to promulgate an alternative to the current orthodoxy, Wikipedia is almost certainly not the right platform for that.
As for whether the French-language Wikipedia has accepted your article, this has no bearing on us here on the English-language one, as each language project is entirely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 10 April 2024 review of submission by IWasIAm[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if the new changes make this acceptable to be an article, and if not I was wondering what more needs to be added to make it official. IWasIAm (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not acceptable, and likely never will be anytime soon, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. "Up and coming" singers almost never merit articles; a singler must have already arrived and been noticed, meeting the definition of a notable singer as shown with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11[edit]

01:37, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Kellysnitelimit[edit]

I would like for my entire account to be deleted or deactivated from Wikipedia. i would like to have my grandfather's photograph deleted as well. I accept your decision to decline my article. However, i have the original articles published in the Florida Times Union in which they interviewed him at the night club in January 2004 for his 50th year of business. Every source is verifiable and related to him. After 20 years the articles have most likely been archived and are only available for a fee. i have the original newspaper for my grandfather's legacy. No sources are mentioned in passing. All sources are related to him. They were listed on the wiki references section/ article as printed on the original source (The Florida Tiimes Union/The Times Union). The Indigenous Biography of Cleo Kelly is live on amazon.com as we speak. It's been 70 years since he business opened but over 380 followers on Facebook follow the page because they know the club was real and many of them knew my grandparents and their children in Lawtey, Bradford County Florida. the manuscript for his bio was accepted for registration at the Library of Congress 10/23/2023. Cleo Kelly is his adopted. He changed his name to Clifford Kelly as an adult after the Great Depression Era. Legacy.com list his obituary and noted his business Kelly's Nite Limit as listed in the Gainesville Sun and can be verified. Again, please delete my account and his photograph. Its a shame i can't honor him with a page here but life goes on and so will I,...........as soon as my account and his picture are deleted. My account is less than 12 hours old so this can't be too difficult to process. Thank you and kind Regards. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellysnitelimit: Wikipedia user accounts cannot be deleted or closed, but you can simply stop using yours. I have requested your draft, which you had blanked already, to be deleted. You may go to the Commons where you had uploaded the photo and request that it be deleted. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for responding but this is pitiful. i should have looked before i leaped. wikipedia is free and all it cost is an account you don't need or want over an unwanted article? live and learn. so sorry i signed up. i'll take your advice and stop using it forever.....after my pic is removed of course. smh. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellysnitelimit: I don't quite understand what the problem is. Your draft was declined, once, and you consequently decide to give up; that is obviously entirely your prerogative. All I've done is point out that user accounts cannot be closed or deleted (for legal reasons). What is so "pitiful"? DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes you pointed it out but i don't have to be happy about anything i decided to do on wikipedia. it was my choice to sign up and i regret it. my article was denied and i accept it. giving up on this is best. i've never had an account that couldn;t be deleted. the juice ain't worth the squeeze on this one so i quit, i give up, and i move on. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kellysnitelimit Accounts cannot be deleted for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you intend to not return to Wikipedia, you can request that your account be vanished, see WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Quantor[edit]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review the article about Alhena (band). I acknowledge the rejection and I would like to improve it taking into account the detailed comments. But I admit that I don't exactly understand them... The reason for rejecting the article is "too many external links". I was convinced that every fact written down should be supported by a source. Previously, some of my articles were rejected due to too few external-source references, so I'm really confused. This was the second attempt to publish this article on English Wikipedia, in which I took into account the comments of the person who previously rejected the article. At that time, there were no any objections to the references. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could point out any links that you think are unnecessary and should be removed. Other specific comments for improvement are also welcome and I will be glad to make proper corrections suggested by more experienced colleagues. Thank You in advance. Quantor (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quantor: probably best disregard that "too many external links" comment, I'm not sure what it refers to either (unless it means the WP:REFBOMBING, which is plentiful). The point is that this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for lack of evident notability, and that seems right to me. Based on a quick scan, the sources, despite their number, don't seem to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and nothing in the draft would seem to satisfy WP:BAND, either, in any obvious way. Therefore your job going forward is to work towards meeting either GNG or BAND, and then resubmitting the draft. And if you want to cut down on the REFBOMBING, you might consider removing the references which only provide reviews of the band's music, as those don't directly contribute to the band's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Rosesociety.co[edit]

Why is this request being rejected? Rosesociety.co (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Please disclose your paid editing status too. Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosesociety.co: because it is pure promotion, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing channel for your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 11 April 2024 review of submission by GMako6[edit]

I need improvement for an article to be qualified to go live since the person am writing the article about is notable since he serves more than 56 countries as an advisor on Cybersecurity and in his carrier there are only 79 specialist all over the world GMako6 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMako6: we require actua evidence of notability; you saying that the person is notable is not enough, nor does being an 'advisor' make anyone inherently notable. We need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 11 April 2024 review of submission by TRU Alumni[edit]

How can I get this submitted? I am doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page. Would I be able to add to these 'subjected' sources by citing ted talks that he is done to these same passages? This information is indeed legit and well sourced and it is disappointing that this page was not accepted. TRU Alumni (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRU Alumni: you can "get this submitted" by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. But first you need to address the reasons for the earlier decline, otherwise this will just be declined again. We need to see evidence of notability, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of your sources are independent of the subject so you are clearly NOT "doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page" articles are based on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, not what the subject says themselves. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Nemesia345[edit]

I believe all comments have been addressed to enable publication of this page. That said, I would like to check with experienced editors to see if any changes should be made before resubmitting for publication.

The previous comments on draft that have now been addressed are as follows:

1. Completely unreferenced advantages: New references added to this section and throughout article to address.

2. table with exclusively external links: This was a formatting error due to limited author Wiki experience. Table has been updated to use appropriate references format.

3. Based on how this article currently exists, it does not seem as if its unique existence is warranted, and would be better served on a glossary of terms as suggested by AngusWOOF: Respectfully disagree. Closed-loop geothermal is a large category of research and commercial development highlighted in US Department of Energy and other highly reputable source reports, with associated content extending well beyond level of the geothermal 'glossary of terms' page. Further, the talk pages proposed for further discussion are not active. Comments have not received feedback in over 6 months Nemesia345 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


IMO it meets the criteria for existence as a separate article. I'd be happy to review if you ping me. That's not saying that it doesn't need more development. It needs more specifics on how it's done. Also clarifying terminology with respect to (and possibly linking to) closely related articles which I can see from your history that you are already helping at. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll send your way Nemesia345 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 11 April 2024 review of submission by AlMad81[edit]

Quoting the message rejecting a draft:

«This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.»

However, without specifics or an example of a reference that does not meet these criteria, it is difficult to amend a draft and make sure the next re-submission will not be rejected as well. There cannot be a 'learning about mistakes' if these mistakes are not concisely and unambiguously pointed out.

Hence my request to any experienced editor, including the controller himself, to provide detailed information of where something could be clarified, corrected or simply removed.

Thank you in advance. AlMad81 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlMad81 I fixed your link for proper display, we don't need the whole url.
I will ask you, what are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this series of games? Most of your sources seem to just discuss specific games. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for chipping in. One of the sources is in the draft article: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/45203/designer-diary-high-frontier; there is also a small video on the history of the game series by Phasing Player: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUm3rnQRRhw; unable to find a 3rd reference that would cover all the titles mentioned in the article - only partial references or comparative reviews. This is precisely the goal of the entry, to provide a history of the design.
Although that got me thinking. Should it be each title on its own? Or title the article based on the latest edition and use the other titles in a historical context?
This was originally a translation of the Spanish entry, which had already been accepted by Wikipedia and vetted by the designer of the games. I am only a collaborator and as a new editor, a bit confused about the inconsistency of the rules based on reviewer and Wikipedia version. Thank you in any case for your input. This will probably help if I ever decide to contribute with content by my own initiative. AlMad81 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources for English Wikipedia. Your stated goal to provide a history of the design, is very clearly not in line with the purposes of Wikipedia: if an independent reliable source has already done so, then a Wikipedia article could summarise it; but unless you can find several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, the games do not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
I have emphasised "English Wikipedia", because other Wikipedias have different rules and criteria. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a very surprising reply considering the scope of Project board games in Wikipedia, where there are entries to a number of games, many of them not necessarily classical nor 'relevant' from a notoriety point of view (this excludes chess and the like), and an entry like Dungeons and Dragons is one of the most complete as well in terms of the historical development of the game, with many references being the game's own materials - as I have done here.
At this point, there is either (1) an issue with the actual entry name, and I should focus on just one title and its development in the fashion depicted above, (2) a very unclear way to select what contributions are relevant to Project board games, or (3) a set of purely formal issues with the article, like unclear references, irrelevant info etc. that has yet to be precisely pointed out.
Again: since I initially set out to translate, but found out I could learn something about editing here in the process, I would not want to spend time debating, and focus on finalizing a product. If it cannot be in English, so be it. AlMad81 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are acceptable in certain situations, but not to establish notability- which is the main thing that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 11 April 2024 review of submission by LibrariesStillRock[edit]

Could I move this into my user draft space? I don't think it will pass through review right now but I don't want it to disappear entirely in case I find some more notable sources to add.

Thanks! LibrariesStillRock (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to move it. It won't disappear as long as it is edited at least once every six months, and even if it wasn't, it could easily be undeleted. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Loganmascarenhas[edit]

What if I cannot find any other sources, citations, or references online besides what is already there. Loganmascarenhas (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loganmascarenhas: if you cannot find and cite sufficient sources to establish notability, then it will not be possible to publish an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Cleverdisguise[edit]

I'm slowly moving forward as a beginner in the Wikipedia space to write this page of theater history. I've recently gotten permission from the photographer to publish a photo which appeared in Vanity Fair magazine in 1991, which I hope will add some veracity to the page -- once I figure out how to add a photo! I'm working slowly because I'm a beginner, not a coder, and because I can only work on this project occasionally. Thanks, everybody, for your help in getting it right! Cleverdisguise (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleverdisguise: you don't ask a question, but can I just say that your main concern should be to show verifiability and notability, both of which are demonstrated through referencing; not photos, which are not required in any way, and do not add 'veracity' in any meaningful sense.
You also should not upload someone else's copyright content, unless you have show evidence that the copyright owner has agreed to relinquish their rights and release their content into the public domain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

04:48, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Qubacubazamniauser[edit]

I don’t get it omega nugget I’d not talked about it does not have sources barley if I did I would add it there’s just not many sources is there any sources out there about omega nugget pages theres is not many so I don’t get the reliable and secondary and please point out the in-depth and independent of subject 

Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qubacubazamniauser: please drop this now, the draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Elene Tevzadze[edit]

Hello, so my article was reviewed and I've been told that it is not supported by reliable sources while I've cited links from youtube, official webpage of the subject of an article, the newspaper (Washingtopost). Could you please tell me, what is the issue? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elene Tevzadze: the issue is that almost the entire draft is unreferenced, and two of the references cite non-reliable sources. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources.
There is also zero evidence that the subject is notable. The sources are primary, with the exception of the WaPo piece which you've rather misleadingly described as "article about Mzia Nioradze", whereas it's actually about the opera War & Peace, and only mentions Nioradze once in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'll edit the WaPo article. Doesn't the OPERABASE page on the subject qualify as an official source? Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elene Tevzadze: I'm not sure what you mean by "official source", but AFAIK Operabase is at least partly user-editable, and may not therefore be entirely reliable. In any case, it doesn't help to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok got it. I'll try once more, I added two more sources, hope they qualify as official resources. Thanks. Elene Tevzadze (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in "official sources" whatever they might be, we require independent reliable sources and please note that Facebook, IMDb. Operabase and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos[edit]

I do not know what Is wrong with my article, nor what is left Ugo perritos (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugo perritos: the main thing that's wrong with it is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable, as you're only citing Tesla's own manual as a source. We need to see that this feature has been discussed at some length in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of Tesla. (I'm also not entirely sure that all the information is factually correct, but that's not why I declined this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Ugo perritos (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anthosalba[edit]

Hello; I have this message on my draft page

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sofia Pro, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

I don't quite understand why there are two drafts... the correct one is Sofia Pro (typeface). Can you help me?"

Thanks Anthosalba (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthosalba: I think what's happened is that your sandbox draft was moved to Draft:Sofia Pro, leaving a redirect behind. You then overwrote that redirect with another draft on the same subject, and submitted that as well. I declined it earlier today, but you seem to have submitted it again.
Assuming you no longer need the sandbox draft and would like to work on Draft:Sofia Pro going forward, then you can just blank the sandbox page and that will take care of that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Ok I understand but I have all my improvements on the san box and not on the Draft:Sofia Pro (with all references !). Do I need to tranfer all references on the draft : Sofia Pro ? Anthosalba (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have transferred my latest corrections into the Sofia Pro Draft using the edit source tool. I believe it's good now. The draft is okay. Anthosalba (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 12 April 2024 review of submission by Anil at SharmaCreative[edit]

Hello, I'm still not understanding why my article - submitted on behalf of a client - was rejected. The reason stated was that the references do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines; however, all 8 references used are independent news sources. I also disclosed on my user page that I am a paid contributor on behalf of the company. Could someone help me understand why the article keeps getting rejected? Anil at SharmaCreative (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anil at SharmaCreative: they are not independent news sources, they are routine business reporting, which is invariably based on press releases and similar materials. With the possible exception of the FNN article, none of the sources meet the WP:GNG standard required by WP:NCORP notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question you need to ask is, "Where have commentators, wholly unconnected with my client, and unprompted by them or their associates, chosen of their own bat to write at length about my clients, and been published in a reliable source?
If the answer is "nowhere", then your client does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time and your client's money. You might want to show them BOSS.
If the answer is "in these several places", then you can continue. Forget every single thing that your client has told you, and write a summary of what those sources say about it. Don't mention products, or their clients, unless the sources talk about them. Certainly don't mention anything at all about their "mission", or "vision", or history, unless the independent sources discuss those.
If that produces a viable draft, you can then add in a limited amount of uncontroversial, non-promotional factual information (such as dates, locations, names of principals) from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 12 April 2024 review of submission by 71.153.13.144[edit]

I just saw this page. This is regarding my husband and it is such a personal attack page. There is a person he fired a long time BECAUSE of scientific misconduct and he is hell bend in ruining his reputation. There is so much personal information and false information in this article I do not even know where to begin. I urge Wikipedia not to publish this article. We will consult with our attorney regarding the defamatory nature of this article. He is also a European citizen and we will seek GDRP protections for this. This is such a huge invasion of privacy and we as a family feel violated if this article is allowed. 71.153.13.144 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the no legal threats policy. We cannot stop you from taking legal action, but you cannot edit if you have made legal threats or have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both.
If the draft at issue is libelous, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of any further action I have declined the draft for now as an attack page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not wanting to sue wikipedia in no shape or form. We are only wanting to have access to the individual that is posting this information. We know who he is but he is always doing these things anonymously and we want wikipedia to be aware of this person and assist if there are legal matters. We appreciate it. 71.153.13.144 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the page for speedy deletion and blanked it as a consequence. Don't just decline an attack page, tag it for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jéské Couriano The attack parts were sourced, so it wasn't an obvious speedy delete candidate. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13[edit]

10:38, 13 April 2024 review of submission by Trafalgar54[edit]

I have submitted my draft but there is always some query regarding not adequately supported by reliable sources. I ask your precious help please. Please realize that many documents and informations are original and personal of the subject of the draft and is very difficult to see in the website whereas the information and the letter of commendation are very important to plan the draf page. Thank you very much. All the Best Trafalgar54 (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be based completely on published sources. Unpublished material can never be cited, and nor can information which is validated only by unpublished material. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 13 April 2024 review of submission by Siralex1973[edit]

Hi, according with the band, i'm going to create pages for every single they made. I started with the one mentioned above but the submission was declined maybe for not enough references?. Please can you suggest me what can i do to make the right articles? is my first work in wikipedia... thank you very much in advance Alessio Siralex1973 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siralex. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
If you do this, then by the time you try creating articles, you will know that creating an article begins with finding independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, and that if you can't find enough, your quest for that particular article ends there. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 13 April 2024 review of submission by Dineshgopal[edit]

All are reliable links like IMDB and even the linked wiki pages contain the name of the person. Please let me know what I need to do for approval. Thanks. Dineshgopal (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB it is never a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And nor are Wiki pages a reliable source.
And interviews, even if they are published in a reliable source, are not independent, and do cont contribute to establishing notability.
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) 16:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14[edit]

06:43, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Skimliii[edit]

I need help understanding what am I doing wrong with the article. It has been in review waitlist for quite some time Skimliii (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skimliii: there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Also, far too much of the content is unsupported by referencing - where is all this information coming from? I have consequently declined your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is actually just a translated version of an bulgarian wiki article, that is already live from couple of months. I got the info from the choir's page in wikipedia, the original bulgarian version of the article. What more for the subject to be notable? Skimliii (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skimliii: notability doesn't arise from having an article in another language version of Wikipedia (which in any case is entirely irrelevant, as each version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements), or by association with another subject which may be notable. In this case, I'm not aware of any special notability guideline that would apply to choirmasters, therefore you would need to show that the subject satisfies the general WP:GNG one. And you need to support the information comprehensively with inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So i would have to find reliable secondary sources, that are different from the choir's website for example. Or the biography of the person in the Academy of arts. Can you give me an example for such sources, I don't seem to understand from the given info in the wp:gng section in wiki. Would all this be enough for the article to get approved? Skimliii (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skimliii there are two separate issues here:
  1. Notability: you need to cite sources that satisfy the GNG standard, namely multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, that have provided significant coverage of the subject directly. Without demonstrating notability it isn't possible for this draft to be accepted for publication.
  2. Verifiability: you also need to support every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details with an inline citation to a reliable published source, so that the information can be verified. So for example, when the draft states that she obtained a degree from the Plovdiv Academy of Music, Dance and Fine Arts, we need to know where that info came from. Anything that cannot be appropriately referenced should be removed.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I cite all the awards she receved, contributions she has in the bulgarian choral art, degree from both AMDFA and Westminster choir college, would that make her notable? I know, that for a person to be notable in gng, he/she must have Awards and Recognitions, Impact or Influence on the field they work on. If I somehow succeed in finding and verifying all that information with the proper inline citations and sources, would that be enough? Skimliii (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the awards are notable, ie. they have their own Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the awards considered notable if they have mentions in the national radio? Or news? Can i cite the pages of the festivals where she earned those? They are considered a big deal in our country. Skimliii (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I think I managed to improve the article, if possible can you see it and tell me if I did a good job with it? I added every reliable source information I could get my hands at, including some scientific papers, radio articles, degree proof from a reliable source and fixed the inline external links from the body text. Skimliii (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 14 April 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345[edit]

Hello, I have submitted a biographical entry for John Maxwell Bailey who was an important member of the team working at CERN on Muon storage rings from 1964 onwards. This was initially rejected as lacking references but I have now put in some major academic references. There has been much recent coverage of Muon research in the press so publishing this biographical page which summarizes all the early work by the leading expert on Moun storage rings will be very timely. However the paper has just been returned again as still lacking references. Is this insufficient evidence of the academic work, or of something else such as JM Bailey's place of birth (Australia)? JM Bailey's personal details can be verified from the end of this year (2024) via on online link to the Queen's College Record which will publish his obituary in the end-of-year issue (Notable former students), would this be helpful? Clearly that is over six months away and we do not want this page to become dormant. Please can you advise how to provide the information that is required? JFBB12345 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFBB12345: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? We don't use news stories anywhere near as heavily for academics (since most of them don't make the newspapers anyway); so we instead judge their notability based off of how widely they have been cited or if they have otherwise made a name for themselves in academia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 14 April 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345[edit]

Hello, I have just seen that this is a place where I can ask for help. I have submitted a biographical entry for John Maxwell Bailey who was an important member of the team working at CERN on Muon storage rings from 1964 onwards. In this article following initial refusal on the valid grounds that I had not included published scientific articles, I have now referenced (with links) a number of the most significant papers coming out of this research for whom JM Bailey was the main author (his name appearing either first, or following Francis Farley who was the leader of the large team cited as 'et al' which can be seen by viewing the papers on the links submitted). There has recently been renewed coverage of Muon research in the press so publishing this biographical page which summarizes all the early work by the leading expert on Moun storage rings will be very timely. Despite the evidence in all these papers / links, the biography has just been returned again as having insufficient evidence. Is this insufficient evidence of the academic work, or of something else such as JM Bailey's place of birth (Australia) or something else? His attendance at the University of Sidney and at The Queen's College, Oxford can be substantiated by the alumni offices of the academic institutions concerned, but this is not something that can be put as a link into a Wikipedia article. Please can you advise how to provide whatever information is required? Is it personal information which I can supply to you directly such as an email from the universities confirming his attendance there? Your help is much appreciated as I believe this will be a significant addition to Wikipedia (strong links to three other scientists featured on Wikipedia: VA Bailey, Francis Farley and Emilio Picasso). Thank you! JFBB12345 

JFBB12345 (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Aqibzubairkhan[edit]

cause i added some credible refrences Aqibzubairkhan (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more YouTube references (unreliable source) and external links isn't remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 14 April 2024 review of submission by 65.183.154.8[edit]

I am surprised that this article on the Irish poet Angela Patten is rejected. My attempt here is to show her as a notable poet who is part of the evolving canon of Irish women poets. Her poetry has been included in major literary journals and in significant anthologies that have been reviews in major scholarly journals. Should I tag her as part of Women in Red? 65.183.154.8 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been rejected (which is a terminal option), only declined (which means that you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons). On both occasions, the reviewer felt that notability had not been demonstrated. You need to either cite sources that meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or provide evidence that the subject satisfies one or more of the criteria in the special WP:POET one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Connor World[edit]

I need help referencing Connor World (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Connor World: this draft has been rejected for complete lack of any evidence of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find help with referencing at WP:REFB but your draft has reached the end of the road. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 14 April 2024 review of submission by WarriorYt43[edit]

This draft has been rejected. Please help me fix the issues so it can be uploaded on the main page. Here is what the reviewer said about this.

"The BLP relies on some unreliable sources, lacks a NPOV, and still promotional in nature. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:N."

Please help. Thanks! WarriorYt43 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 14 April 2024 review of submission by Bemdani[edit]

Hello, I made the first draft of this article at the end of last August. From then on, with the contribution of Wikipedia reviewers, I made all the changes that were suggested, and greatly improved the article. So I would like to know if I can resubmit it now. Finally, I emphasize that I made all changes suggested by DoubleGrazing, and in relation to his/her comment "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", I respond that my relationship with the subject is strictly academic, as I studied his books during my doctorate. I look forward your feedback. Thanks. Bemdani (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bemdani you can resubmit it but it will mostly likely be declined again because the majority of the sources are Skovsmose's own work. You can't source statements like "All his works led to the development of several notions and concepts, for instance, critical mathematics education" to a publications written by Skovsmose. That is just one example but such claims need to be supported by strong secondary sources. See also WP:PROF. For his work as an artist, critical reviews by reputable publications/critics are needed. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 15[edit]

06:40, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36[edit]

why my article draft was declined Mani G 36 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mani G 36 I have rejected the article as there is no indication this person meets our notability criteria for musicians at this time. Qcne (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Baluulab6[edit]

i tried to publish this page sever times but it is not yet done . Kindly help to publish this page as it is important to keep the Wiki of Karthika thirunal indira bhai as there is no any other source to mark her presence in the history and Travancore royal family Baluulab6 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baluulab6 your draft will never be published because there are no references. Wikipedia articles must be references with independent, reliable references. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY. Qcne (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no other sources, then this is necessarily original research, which is not permitted in any Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36[edit]

pls help Mani G 36 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rejected the draft and there is nothing further you can do, @Mani G 36. Qcne (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Cfarant[edit]

why my article is rejected ? Cfarant (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cfarant I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted if you can fix the issues identified by the reviewer. Please see the message left by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfarant and 331dot: My first thought was to look over at the French language Wikipedia and see whether there was an article there. (Caveat: my "Frenssh", is much like the the Prioress in The Canterbury Tales but "After the scole of the University of Woolloomooloo", rather than "After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe"). From what I can see, "the article was considered for deletion in 2017 and was deleted as an article that was on en.wp in 2024 but not on fr.wp. My guess is that that an article about this living person may not pass any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC. As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 15 April 2024 review of submission by TaraLemming[edit]

I included third-party resources about Herbert L Kloiber but it says these do not count as notable credits but they are third-party and mention the person in more than just passing. Why are these credits not credible? TaraLemming (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are independent, but just document routine activities. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TaraLemming: please read WP:OVERCITE. We surely don't need 11 citations to support a fairly non-contentious statement like "After serving at TMG for almost seven years, he founded the Munich-based production company Night Time Media in 2020". The same problem is there throughout the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos[edit]

May we include a video in the bibliography as a source of information? Ugo perritos (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugo perritos: if the video meets the WP:GNG standard, then you may cite it, yes. But your primary objective is to demonstrate notability, because that is what's preventing this draft from being accepted. Do not resubmit the draft before notability is clearly shown.
Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say I, not we. Ugo perritos (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 15 April 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423[edit]

Article review time is taking too long, all the other submissions of mine took only 1 or 2 days, is there something wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: there is nothing wrong, your draft has only been waiting for a few days, and it may be reviewed at any time, in a matter of minutes, days, or weeks. As it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,393 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I was just a bit worried since all of my previous ones took such a short time. SouthPole5423 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Grantsharples[edit]

Hello! I've had my article rejected several times, and I've tried to address the reasons for rejection with each new submission. Where does this article fall short? One of my edits said it looked good aside from the "industry scope" section I've since deleted, but it has still been denied approval anyway. What can I do to remedy that? Thanks for your help! Grantsharples (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantsharples: your draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') a few times, because at least two reviewers felt there wasn't sufficient evidence of notability. Based on a quick scan only (not a thorough source analysis), it seems you're citing almost entirely primary sources, with the exception of the Good Morning America piece. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comment that the latest reviewer made: We need independent, in depth coverage, which doesn't appear to e present.
Looking at the list of references, it strikes me that many of your citations are to directories, or lists of services. If so, then unless any of them contain in-depth coverage of the subject, all of them together contribute nothing at all towards establishing notability, and probably almost nothing at all towards the article.
The article should be almost entirely a summary of what commentators wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by MorriconeEnnio[edit]

   Hello :)
   I'm wondering why the published sources referenced are not considered adequate. Is it because although published, they are not available online? Bc that is not the criteria for reliability as per the policy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Were there particular sources that you found to be unreliable or were all considered unreliable? Is the issue that they were considered unreliable sources or that they were considered unreliable in terms of the statements in the text? Thanks so much for your assistance! I appreciate your feedback.  MorriconeEnnio (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MorriconeEnnio. It might be that the reviewer declined it because the draft does not conform to our mandatory use of in-line citations for biographies of living people. You're close, but there should not be a Notes section and instead follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE in order to create properly formatted in-line references, which will automatically create a References section for you. @Ibjaja055
You're right though, offline sources can be used. Qcne (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this isn't the reason for the decline, but I noticed that in the infobox at least the date of birth is unreferenced, which per WP:DOB must be backed up with a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, @MorriconeEnnio@Qcne So sorry for replying late. The article was declined because there are not enough secondary and independent sources that can prove that the subject is notable. If there are good sources with the problems of in-line citations, I will gladly work on the article and move on for another reviewer to approve or decline. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O ok. Thank you all so much for this feedback! I will review the tutorial at the link you provided. I will also do a bit more research into additional sources. @Ibjaja055 I would appreciate your help on editing and drafting. However, if you believe additional sources would support approval re: notability then let me do a bit more research first. Thanks again :) MorriconeEnnio (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Rudharnagpal50[edit]

i dont know about wiki writing can u please help me to publish my film page on wiki Rudharnagpal50 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is no indication that your film is notable enough to merit an article, sorry. Qcne (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rudharnagpal50: your draft is completely unreferenced, you need to cite the sources that have provided that information, see WP:REFB for advice. And then the sources also need to satisfy a notability guideline, either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6[edit]

The article was rejected because the subject soubded not notable enough. Yet I have tge impressiln that if one asks people who are the most important thinkers of these modern times. Kaisa Hannele Tervola comes to people's minds. So a Wikioedia article about her writing work would be notable enough subject for Wikipedia. 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't assess notability by "asking people", but by evaluating the sources used in referencing the draft. This draft lists (without citing, which is a hard requirement in articles on living people) some external links as well a number of works by Tervola, but none of it suggests notability in any obvious way. If you can find sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, or alternatively demonstrate that this person meets one of the special guidelines such as WP:NAUTHOR, you may appeal the rejection directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Techrd2000cork[edit]

Kindly Advice Techrd2000cork (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Techrd2000cork: my advice is to steer well clear of this sock-fest of a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 100.2.77.12[edit]

All

My attempt to get a Wikipedia entry for the American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma has been denied. Below is our soon to be published Trauma Roadmap outlining the problem. There is a pressing need for both the military (lack of trauma-proficient eye surgeons with a rising threat of hostilities) and civilian sectors (poor eye trauma training and unwillingness to care for trauma) to tune up eye trauma care. It's not "life and limb", it's "life limb and sight." The ASOT is leading a multiorganizational effort, including the orgsanizations listed n the roadmap, the Health and Human Services, and the United States Army.

What do I need to do to get the entry approved for Wikipedia?

Roadmap

A Call to Action and Roadmap for Improving Emergency Treatment of Ophthalmic Trauma in the United States Introduction: In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) described the state of emergency care in the United States as fragmented, with tremendous variability, lack of disaster preparedness, and shortage of on-call specialists.1 Reasons cited for lack of on-call specialists included inadequate reimbursement, liability risks, and disruptive demands to their private practices.1 

Therefore, a

joint-specialty task force was established with the goals of evaluating the role of ophthalmologists in ophthalmic emergencies and trauma and addressing the public health need on a national basis. The task force includes representatives from the following organizations: American College of Surgeons (ACS), including Trauma Surgery (Central Committee on Trauma (COT)) and Ophthalmology sections; American Academy of Ophthalmology (Academy); American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO); Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO); American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS); American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma (ASOT); and Society of Military Ophthalmologists (SMO). Background: Ocular trauma is a leading, and sometimes preventable, cause of visual impairment and blindness. A study of the 2008-2014 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) found 316,485 cases of ophthalmic injuries or 5.93% of the total 5,336,575 hospitalized patients.2 

The most common

injuries were orbital (39.5%) and contusions of the eye/adnexa (34%). Other NTDB studies found that 11,097 (5.7%) of all work-related trauma cases (234,983) included ocular injuries3 , and that 3.7% (8,715) of 235,254 patients with firearm-associated injury also had ocular trauma.4 In the United States, a study based on the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Hospital Discharge Survey for 2001 estimated nearly 2 million (6.98 per 1000 population) individuals suffered eye injuries requiring treatment.5 

Most of the eye injuries were treated in the emergency

department (ED) (50.7%), with the remainder in physicians’ offices (38.7%) and hospital outpatient (8.1%) or inpatient settings (2.5%). Additionally, multiple studies document significant rates of ophthalmic injury and needs, often in the form of complex ocular polytrauma and mass casualties, from various injury mechanisms such as natural disasters, industrial accidents, terrorist attacks, and explosions. 6-12 Ophthalmologists are the most qualified to diagnose and comprehensively treat disorders of the eye, adnexa, and visual system.13 This is based on extensive medical and surgical training and knowledge, judgment, communication skills, and professionalism, and amplified by rigorous medical standards, commitment to providing continuity of care, and dedication to comprehensive and lifelong education. Patients with significant eye injury, eye pain, or periocular trauma are most appropriately managed by ophthalmologists for definitive diagnosis and necessary medical and surgical treatment. Recommendations: The Task Force recommends the following actions to address numerous systems-level gaps in ocular trauma care in the United States: 1. Critical importance of the Ophthalmologist. The major ophthalmic societies and training programs should reinforce the critical importance of active involvement of ophthalmologists in the national trauma care system. This should emphasize the ophthalmologist’s unique qualifications in this area. Responsibility cannot be abdicated either by intent or by nonparticipation. Continuing medical education activities for ophthalmic trauma management should be ongoing throughout the ophthalmologist’s career. 2. Recognition. The AAO and ASOT should implement a process of publicly recognizing those ophthalmologists who contribute to the management of ophthalmic trauma and emergencies in their communities. The ACS should continue to include ophthalmic representation on the Central COT. 3. Needs analysis. In collaboration with the ACS and ophthalmic organizations, ongoing educational needs analysis should be undertaken to identify and address ophthalmic trauma knowledge and skills gaps in each community. This analysis should evaluate existing educational resources and determine whether modifications to these materials are necessary to incorporate new technologies or methods. 4. Damage Control Ophthalmology (DCO). The relevant ophthalmology societies represented by this task force should investigate opportunities to develop Damage Control Ophthalmology (DCO) guidelines for civilian triage, stabilization, and ultimate referral to specialty ophthalmic care derived from established Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines. Efforts should be made to circulate the modified DCO guidelines to the ophthalmic community including residents, fellows, and community ophthalmologists. The development of subspecialty DCO guidelines (e.g., DCO cornea, DCO oculoplastics, DCO retina, etc.) is essential. 5. Interspecialty and subspecialty collaboration. The ACS, Academy, ASOT, and ABO should make efforts to provide educational materials regarding trauma coverage to both ophthalmic and trauma communities. The ABO’s recognition of trauma as critical to maintenance of certification, ACS COT’s Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) revisions and other programs, and DOD’s numerous documents for Initial and Prolonged Ophthalmic Care and DCO are examples of initial and ongoing efforts that should be applauded and expanded. Subspecialty collaboration in developing appropriate DCO guidelines will provide consistent and unified guidance in an effort to minimize variation in treatment. 6. National coordination of ocular trauma care and disaster/emergency preparedness. The combined ophthalmic and trauma societies should investigate the process, logistics and ongoing resource requirements of integrating ocular trauma care into the National Trauma and Emergency Preparedness System as proposed by the ACS COT. These efforts should be informed by the military ocular trauma system14 and leverage advanced technologies to extend ocular trauma expertise, particularly to underserved and rural areas. The societies should also work with national and regional disaster/emergency preparedness agencies to ensure ophthalmic concerns and contingencies are considered in planning. 7. Eliminating barriers to coverage and care. The ACS should work to identify and improve systems barriers to ophthalmic coverage in trauma facilities, such as ensuring adequate equipment, supplies, and trained support personnel are available to the on-call ophthalmologist. This includes considerations of credentialing, privileges, and reimbursement. The above suggested actions should provide a framework and roadmap for improving emergency ophthalmic coverage on the part of ophthalmologists and emergency personnel alike, as well as providing continuing resources to improve their comfort, skills, and confidence in dealing with ophthalmic trauma. The Task Force hopes these actions demonstrate good faith efforts and commitment on the part of organized Ophthalmology and Trauma Surgery to jointly help rectify the ongoing problem of inadequate emergency coverage for ophthalmic trauma and address the shortcomings identified by the IOM. We believe these systems-level improvements will result in more accessible, better, and more seamless care, and that both the individual casualty and the nation will benefit from the effort. For the Task Force, Approved: Robert A. Mazzoli, MD FACS: Chair Stuart R. Seiff, MD FACS: Co-Chair Stephen D. McLeod, MD: American Academy of Ophthalmology George B. Bartley, MD: American Board of Ophthalmology Steven E. Feldon, MD, MBA: Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology James D. Auran, MD: American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma, Kenneth E. Morgenstern, MD FACS: American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Barton L. Blackorby, MD: Society of Military Ophthalmologists Jeffrey D. Kerby, MD, PhD, FACS: American College of Surgeons Central Committee on Trauma Avery Nathens, MD FRCSC: American College of Surgeons Central Committee on Trauma Paul A. Edwards, MD FACS: Ophthalmic Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons Alan L. Wagner, MD FACS: Ophthalmic Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons

100.2.77.12 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrapped up your 'Roadmap', please don't post excessive content here on the Help Desk, thanks.
The main problem, and the reason why your draft has been declined, is lack of evident notability. Per WP:ORG, you need to cite multiple secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of your society, and that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
You also need to reference the content appropriately so that we can verify the information. Citations such as #6, which merely says "apots.org", doesn't really tell us anything. There are more such problems in this draft. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.
Finally (and this wasn't a reason for declining the draft, but is nevertheless important), you need to disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "pressing need" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a means of getting a message out to the world - that is called promotion (irrespective of how worthy a cause it may be).
A Wikipedia article summarises what independent commentators have already published about a subject - including any detractors. That is all. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052[edit]

Hi, I have submitted this so many times with so many different references and none of them get through. I really don't know what else we can add. We are a multi billion dollar global organisation, how can that not be enough to verify us? 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this business, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves amd what they do. Most of your sources are your company website, this does not establish notability. Any article about your company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The mere fact that you are a wealthy company does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Seraphine Arku[edit]

I submitted an article and someone reviewed it and said it sounded like an essay rather than an article. Also, the reviewer added that I should summarize information from different sources which I did so I need more clarification and possibly, others can review it and throw more light on it for me. Thanks Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft: Draft:The maternal Health Narrative in Africa. asilvering (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphine Arku, looking at this draft, I don't really understand why you want to create a new article? We already have an article on Maternal health, and it would be best if you could edit that article to include information from your sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is part of the list of articles we can write that is why I did. Thanks for the clarification Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphine Arku, what do you mean by "part of the list of articles we can write"? Is this part of an editathon or school project? -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The African Wiki Women ProjectAfrica Wiki Women IWD - Inspire Inclusion 2024/Items/Resources and Suggested articles and items - Meta (wikimedia.org) Seraphine Arku (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see. If you want to make a much longer article, I agree that Maternal health in Africa is a good topic. If you only want to write a little bit, like what was in your submitted draft, it's probably better to just write on Maternal health, where your changes will be visible immediately. It looks like this editathon will still be going for the next couple of months, so you might alternatively want to hang onto this draft and see if anyone wants to add to it with you. I'll move it to the correct title for you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 15 April 2024 review of submission by EagleDancerWiki[edit]

I am requesting assistance because I do not know how to deal with the IGNORANT and LAZY "editors" in your organization who AGAIN rejected my article despite it being almost identical to a similar article on a related sub-discipline of sport parachuting that was accepted back when Wikipedia apparently had knowledgeable, not-lazy real editors. That article is on Wikipedia right now, yet your "editors" are so effing lazy and ignorant they can't be bothered to do 10 SECONDS of research to find that similar article on a related subject.

This article, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is ~500 words, yet it took your "editors" 2.5 MONTHS to reject it again for totally bogus reasons that they would KNOW were totally bogus if they were not so effing LAZY and IGNORANT and bothered to do 10 SECONDS OF RESEARCH about the subject.

Please compare my entry with the tandem skydiving entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_skydiving

You will discover that my entry, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is almost identical because these two sub-disciplines of sport parachuting ARE almost identical, as the chief difference between them is that tandem skydiving starts from an aircraft, and tandem BASE parachuting starts from a Building, Antenna, Span, or Earth object.

So why oh why in God's name do your ignorant lazy "editors" REJECT the tandem BASE parachuting article despite there being essentially ZERO difference in them -- especially when the SOURCES your ignorant lazy "editors" keep claiming are inadequate for a host of equally bogus reasons are even closer than the text itself to being the exact same sources as the article which was accepted?

The only conclusion I can draw is that when the tandem skydiving article WAS accepted some years ago, you had actual, real editors, who were not lazy and ignorant. Seriously, what other possible reason can there be?

So that is why I am requesting assistance: These lazy, ignorant, incompetent "editors" need supervision -- and really, you guys need to ask yourselves:


IF these tools are so lazy and ignorant that they totally screw up THIS SIMPLE ARTICLE WITH SOURCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR ANOTHER WIKI ARTICLE,

THEN how badly are they screwing up bigger, more complex, more important submissions?


This is not rocket surgery.

Thanks in advance for solving this and getting the tandem BASE parachuting article up on Wikipedia despite the ignorant lazy "editors" who have made such a mess of this and wasted everybody's time, including yours.

Robin Heid, M.A. 


EagleDancerWiki (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct the existing articles were crap and needed to be removed so I have taken care of that. Thank you for bringing it to our attention in such a constructive and understanding way. Now with that being dealt with your draft was declined because it does not meet the requirements of inclusion in that it does not show enough coverage in sources outside of official organizations. If you can show more coverage outside of these organizations then it is very likely this could be included as a notable topic on its own. Otherwise you may consider adding some of this content to BASE_jumping#Tandem_BASE_jumps. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, Tandem skydiving long predates the drafting process, its first edit being made 2005/Dec/03. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 16[edit]

04:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 180.150.113.7[edit]

Hi, I've just seen my draft has been declined. It is in fact the truth. Please see Timothy John Windsor (York) on Facebook and contact the royal family for further proof if necessary.

Thankyou 180.150.113.7 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Lucygirl03[edit]

I have checked his entire profile. He was selected as an IPS officer in the 2013 batch. He has served as an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Ramanathapuram district and acted as a Superintendent of Police (SP) in Ambatur city. He is currently serving as an Undersecretary in Delhi. He has successfully resolved numerous sensitive issues in Ramanathapuram district. Therefore, I believe he is eligible to have a Wikipedia page. Here is the reference

IPS Profile reference: https://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/go/home_e_17_2015_pn.pdf https://elcot.in/sites/default/file/List%20of%20eligible%20Officers%20under%20AIS%20Scheme_0.pdf https://ips.gov.in/Empanelment/Inter_seSeniority_20012023.pdf

Ambattur case: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/140218/chennai-rowdy-binu-pleads-for-mercy.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/how-chennai-police-captured-6-dozen-wanted-men-in-1-raid/articleshow/62829064.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/letter-solves-15-murder-for-cops/articleshow/63162837.cms

Ramanathapuram District caste issues: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/promote-communal-harmony/article8634708.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/Sub-Collector-ASP-honoured-for-commendable-services/article17098729.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/shifting-focus-treading-the-path-of-peace-and-growth/article18511170.ece https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=174723380&highlights=RAJ%20MUDHALVAN https://colombogazette.com/2016/08/22/brown-sugar-to-be-smuggled-to-sri-lanka-seized-in-tamil-nadu/ https://www.dtnext.in/city/2017/07/03/city-police-officers-shifted-out-within-a-month-in-reshuffle 

Lucygirl03 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons this has been rejected. First, it's one tiny paragraph that doesn't explain how he meets notability. Second, it's written in a promotional manner. Please address these problems in your draft. Deb (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucygirl03: I would be incredibly cautious if you decide to continue with this. See WP:Contentious topics for more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Millat Ahmad[edit]

I am a maiden user in wiki. My very first article is Aanthai. Please give your suggestions to help to edit my draft for suitable in wiki. Thanks Millat Ahmad (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user, you would be well advised to learn the ropes before trying to create a draft. Have you read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? Deb (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jazakhallah123[edit]

Hey, I'm writing an article about a very influential political dynasty family and am wondering why it has been rejected. Jazakhallah123 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazakhallah123: the draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comment – did you read any of that? Anyway, you've since edited the draft and resubmitted it, so you will sooner or later be getting further feedback from the next reviewer. In the meantime, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 1.158.49.44[edit]

Is it still possible to make articles about the UTTP? They’re significantly more relevant now. I’d like to make an article about them. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to make an article about various other UTTP subjects such as “thy greatest battle of the internet” and “UTTP emperor anime sucks”. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't do that. Qcne (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your sources are usable (unknown provenance). YouTube is unusable as a source in most circumstances; the only time we could use it is if (1) the video is produced by an outlet that we'd consider reliable and (2) said video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. For obvious reasons we wouldn't be able to cite anything the UTTP or its members put out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Funn With The Finn[edit]

Sorry, pretty much a first-timer here. I would be happy to rewrite the article to be just about the book (as mentioned in the comments) and I made the edits already but I can't seem to be able to change the actual name of the article. Can it be changed from "Beatrice Salvioni" to "The Cursed Friend (a novel)"? or do I need to create a new article altogether? I added some more quotes/references. Funn With The Finn (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant; when accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title by whomever accepts it. You may leave a note on the draft talk page as to what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Funn With The Finn: if it were me, I'd leave this draft as it is, even if it means abandoning it, and creating a new draft on the book. That's probably easier than reworking this, and it means that should sources come to light which make Salvioni notable, you might be able to get this accepted also, plus it could save some potential confusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! I made a new draft now just about the book and left a short subchapter on the author with added refrences (removed the HarperCollins too as the details were available elsewhere). Funn With The Finn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Catchphurba[edit]

it would be nice if you help me to publish this articles Catchphurba (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catchphurba the draft has been rejected now, and so will not be published at this time. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3[edit]

I understood that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" but if there is nothing else, but this person I'm sure is notable How to proceed with this? 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced. Where did that information come from? Cite those sources.
And saying you're "sure" the subject is notable is one thing; providing evidence thereof is another. It's the latter we're after. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is written with much promotional language("entreprenurial journey"); this leads me to think that you may be associated with this person- are you? The draft should be written very matter-of-factly, in a dry manner that does not talk up the subject, but just summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in Wikipedia parlance, doesn't mean famous, or popular, or influential, or significant, or any of those things. It means that people have already taken note of the subject, in published material. It basically means "There is enough independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an encyclopaedia article on" - remembering also 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) 10:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:04, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Joel V Alex[edit]

Hi can you help to reframe the sentences so that it complies the rules and regulations of WIKIPEDIA? Joel V Alex (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel V Alex: this draft was deleted as promotional. So no.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mohd Ibraheem 9718[edit]

i am trying to write an article but it is being rejected every time Mohd Ibraheem 9718 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined(not rejected) twice, and then finally rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for publishing how to manuals. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Pilotnance[edit]

Help me, I want to write an article 

Pilotnance (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilotnance: you'll need to be a bit more specific – what would you like help with? Or if you're after general article-creation guidance, then you should find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks Pilotnance (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rockparker[edit]

What mistake am I making in Kaushik Das's Wikipedia article, can you please assist and help to me Rockparker (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockparker: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced with no inline citations (which are required), and I don't think there is any real evidence of notability either. Please see the decline notices, including all the advice linked to from there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do can I able to do Kaushik Das article in future or not , please help me , what should I do now Rockparker (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: You need to show he is notable per Wikipedia's definition. None of your sources do that - Two are Transfermarkt (which we don't accept as a source), one is statlines from one of the leagues he played in, one is a match summary, and the last is a match report that doesn't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There 2 more articles about him , but I thought that firstly I mistake a lot that's why I remove that linke if you agree then I will put again , and he is a Football player and many his friends have there Wikipedia article, why for kaushik das is complicated Rockparker (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of Article X to argue for Article Y. It's likely his friends have articles due to being made before WP:NATHLETE was ripped to shreds in 2022 and nobody's bothered to go in and clean house yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review my last submission for last time sir please , this is my first time sorry for that , but tried my best sir Rockparker (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't use vocal.media (unknown provenance). Vocal.media especially appears to be a very badly disguised press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockparker: okay, I've reviewed it one last time. Not one of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12[edit]

Could you please advise on why is she not notable enough? There are so many other whale researchers, who have made even smaller contributions to whale research and they have been included on Wikipedia? Is there a criteria? Dishakabra12 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dishakabra12: the draft is entirely unreferenced, which means it fails on verifiability and notability, both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. You would need to produce reliable sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Delpolocovy[edit]

Please help me to modify my article so that it is accepted before publishing it. 

Delpolocovy (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Delpolocovy. Have you read WP:NOTESSAY? Your draft is not an encyclopaedic article, but an essay, so needs a total re-write.
You could try improving the existing microplastics article instead? Qcne (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by GabrielBarkin[edit]

I would like help looking at the draft I wrote for The Croner Company and making it acceptable for submission. I suspect I need to pare it down considerably (too much of the material is unsubstantiated by independent sources, I suppose), but perhaps there is someone who can help me make it acceptable? GabrielBarkin (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielBarkin: yes, paring it down is probably a good idea. However, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, therefore your main task is to provide sources that satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline.
You should also change the disclosure on your user page from the generic COI one to the more specific paid-editing one, see {{Paid}}. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rustymirror[edit]

I've added justification for notability to the Talk page. Can you please advise if anything else is needed to resubmit this article for creation? Rustymirror (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the last review, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. Note that notability shouldn't be indicated on the talk page- the draft should be written to summarize the sources that show notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustymirror: Google Scholar gives this person an h-index of 7. Without being in any way an expert in this domain, that doesn't sound to me like evidence of meeting NACADEMIC #1. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 207.242.53.34[edit]

Hello Team, 

  i want to contribute or publish an article about NeilMed Pharmaceuticals Inc which is the manufacturer of the nasal saline irrigation devices and is the world leader in it's category. I want to create an article/post similar to how other companies have i.e. Apple, Amazon, BD, one trust llc, etc. Please help me out and guide through the process.

Thanks Sapan 

207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is certainly not the way to go about it. Your draft is pure advertising, with zero evidence of notability, and is consequently awaiting speedy deletion.
Please read and understand:
If you think you can comply with all that, then you will find everything you need to get you started at WP:YFA.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC):I assume that you are writing about your company; if so, this must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose.[reply]
(ec) Your text was a blatant advertisement and has been deleted. You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Companies like Apple and Amazon do not own and maintain articles here. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on about the activities of your business; if it truly meets the notability guidelines, someone will eventually write about it. Be advised that an article about your business is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 51.77.137.219[edit]

‎ 51.77.137.219 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
  • We can't use Reference 1 (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is usable only if (1) the video is created by an outlet we consider to be reliable and (2) is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
  • We can't use Reference 2 (no editorial oversight). Forum board.
  • We can't use Reference 3 (no editorial oversight).
  • We can't use Reference 4 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jvaldry[edit]

I'm confused about the notability requirements. One reviewer said the person meets the standard, and another disagreed. I thought I had provided enough documentation of her work and cleaned up the language to be more encyclopedic. Jvaldry (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvaldry: no, per WP:NACADEMIC #6.c, deanship does not normally make one inherently notable. (Doesn't mean an exception couldn't be made, and also doesn't mean that this person couldn't be otherwise notable, of course.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1219269713"