Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


October 24

[edit]

12:20, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Fosterjr

[edit]

Hello I used to have a page which was deleted as somebody kept changing information on it that wasn't correct. I am trying to re-upload a page but no matter what I do it cannot be included. Could you please advise? Could I request that the deleted page is perhaps re-submitted without the wrong material included? I probably should have requested this the first time but I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what to do the first time I requested my page be deleted. thank you Fosterjr (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not meet the notability criteria, which is why your draft was rejected. Even if you hadn't asked for the first effort to be deleted, it may very well have been anyway. That (and your new attempt) didn't address the concerns of reviewers.
Your initial concerns are still an issue- if an article about you exists, others can put incorrect information on it, even if only temporarily. See WP:PROUD as to why an article about yourself isn't necessarily desirable. My advice is that you focus your efforts on social media where you can indeed own and control the content you post. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

[edit]

I have submitted links to interviews and the most recent award Ed Sousa has recieved. I am not sure how much more information is required to validate hi notoriaty? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrsoliman1966 It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). Interviews are useless for establishing notability, as that is not an independent reliable source, it is the person speaking about themselves. This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Daisy.totomm

[edit]

Hi! I wanted to list an increasingly used coastal ocean model that already covers most of the market in some countries. The entry was rejected because of 'All sources are primary.' 0. I guess ArXiv preprints don’t count(?) 1. How about conference papers and proceedings? 2. Do conference papers have to be peer-reviewed? 3. Do they have to be from reputable sources, like AIMS for math? 4. Do journal papers need to be WoS tracked? Do they have to have an impact factor? 5. What about technical reports (the most common format for commercial models)? I’m looking to figure out what will qualify as secondary sources as blogs and forum posts obviously won’t. 6. Oh, and will secondary sources be disqualified if author collaborated with the primary source prior in some papers? E.g. F1000 has such rule. Daisy.totomm (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy.totomm: someone will hopefully come along soon who can answer your questions more specifically, but in general terms, sources should at least be independent of the subject, as a bare minimum; now nearly all your sources are papers (co-)authored by the developer himself. We have very little interest in what the developer says about this software, we mainly want to know what third parties say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what DoubleGrazing says is correct. If a concept has not been discussed in independent and secondary sources, there can't be a Wikipedia article about it. All the sources in the draft are publications where Lawen is the main or co-author, with the exception of the project's own website and a university website which isn't actually a source – it follows the sentence about Lawen developing the model while he was at Texas A&M University, but the linked webpage doesn't mention Wavedyne so it doesn't verify that information. --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Bronson Fotiadis1

[edit]

The article submitted was decline for reasons of inadequate citations. The article contains over 70 in-line citations listing the author, date, or direct link to the source listed below. This includes sources from the National Park Service on information such as Fort Jefferson or the official NOAA website on the effects of Hurricane Wilma on Key West in 2005. Any further information as to how the article does not meet the requirements for adequate and verifiable sources would be greatly appreciated. Bronson Fotiadis1 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask the reviewer Courtesy ping: AlphaBetaGamma? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was really leaning on accepting due to how well written it is, but I kinda got stuck on "The Port's cruise ship dock was originally opened in 1984 in Mallory Square and was met with disapproval by citizens that it would disrupt sunset watching on the square. In 2021, the Florida State Legislature overturned the amendments.In March 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved renovation plans for Pier B, a project in which to service larger ships in the harbor." and "Key West's Wrecking industry contributed the island's wealthiest periods throughout much of the 19th century. Shipwrecks became a common occurrence in the Florida Keys with vessels from the Old World running aground in the regions shallow reefs. Indigenous Natives in Key West were often employed to salvage cargo from wrecked merchant vessels during the early 17th century, including a major salvaging by Natives of the Spanish Fleet wrecked off of the Marquesas Keys in 1622.". Not sure if I am being an idiot and forgetting a policy here, but 2 paragraphs worth of no inline citations kinda stopped me, only because the author seems to know how to use sfns and has seems to have sourced every book-supported citations already, so I assumed it wasn't the "There is a book reference in the reference section but there's no inline footnote" situation. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:34, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

[edit]

Is there a possibility to obtain the deleted information to create a new page? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrsoliman1966: if you go to Draft:Ed Sousa, you can see the name of the admin who deleted this; you can ask them if they would return the contents to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Allied Panzer

[edit]

I do not know where to find sources online. If I could get tips on where to find reliable sources that would be amazing. Allied Panzer (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied Panzer: Try your local library? We also accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Mitolivia

[edit]

Dear Team, I'd like to request some more feedback regarding why the sources are not reliable enough. Susan is well-known in her industry, her peers appear in wikipedia.

This page [1] declares Forbes as a reliable source which was used among the references. However, I did find 2 sources that are considered not reliable, I'll remove them.

"Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...] magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers." - there are Hungarian references that are higher quality online magazines as well as a reputable university.

Can you please provide more assistance? Thank you in advance! Mitolivia (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to respond to the claim that you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Boudrege

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to know why the sources weren't liable? Was the band camp reference the reason behind the rejection?

Thank you, Geneviève Boudreau Boudrege (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boudrege: In part, yes. We don't cite Bandcamp or Setlist.fm (streaming service/online storefront). We also don't cite their own music label (connexion to subject). Pitchfork is generally seen as a good source, however. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this band as been apart of the underground hip hop scenes for well over 5 years now.They're not a "thing" that was made up one day, they have audience from all over the world. Boudrege (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Boudrege, you replied to the wrong question - my comment about MADEUP was in regards to another submission. I have moved your comments to the correct section. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you, I will make some changes and resubmit. I appreciate you taking the time to revise the article. Boudrege (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 24 October 2024 review of submission by 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577

[edit]

I instructed ChatGPT to create a language and decided to tell the world about it. I understand that some of the information may be false. I will have you know that I am simply telling you what ChatGPT told me. I can revise the article.

Best regards, 

                     Wikipedia User 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have let you make the page if I were in charge. It sounds interesting. I'd like to see it. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the article as we disallow things that were made up one day. Please also don't post comments pretending to be un-affiliated users. Qcne (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do we not accept text generated by ChatGPT or other large language models, we don't accept novel concepts or research. We are an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I apologize for any trouble caused. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 24 October 2024 review of submission by RigbyNicholson

[edit]

I have requested this page to be uploaded three times, but every time I am struck down by people saying I have unreliable sources. What sourced have I cited that are unreliable, in this article, thanks, Rigby. RigbyNicholson (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. Entire sections are unsourced, or at least lack inline citations. The sentence encouraging readers to visit the school website should be removed,.external links aren't displayed that way. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you could make the problems of referencing and passing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES a bit less daunting if the draft was written in a much more focused manner. Right now, more of the article is devoted to a previous school that relocated and a biography of the person the school was named for than the actual school itself. And what there is of the school is filled with lots of random details that aren't really encyclopedic; I'm not sure the policy of sixth grader sport participation is really something for here. If you think you can demonstrate notability, find sources that are independent and talk about the school, not the previous school or Charles Owen. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

Some how I want to get this on Wiki Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what sources you're trying to cite in the draft, because all references are malformed bare urls, which a lot of editors here hate for a good reason. Additionally, the draft has a major issue with promotional tones, which is also unacceptable. Your draft has already been rejected 3 months ago, so if you want to resubmit it after you do a complete overhaul of the draft, you can launch a discussion with the rejecting reviewer to appeal the rejection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Kiyume1990

[edit]

Yes Kiyume1990 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting reviewers' time with empty drafts. A blank page will never be considered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

[edit]

02:03, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Mandi News

[edit]

why is'nt my Article Altaf_Ahmad_Ranjha published for public as i cant find it while searching it on internet mediums. Mandi News (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandi News: Google caches its search results. Even assuming the page is indexed immediately it takes time for Google's crawlers to find it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News There is an arbitrary delay to seek to avoid search engines indexing any article that has been published in error. Search engines to not choose to index every article anyway. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE TRY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE SO IT CAN BE PUBLISHED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT Mandi News (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your hurry? This is an encyclopaedia for all time, not just for 2024. There is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for inconvienent take your time i just asked as i wasnt fimiliar with the method and was intriguied Mandi News (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Carl 1131

[edit]

My draft on sagique was declined and I would like to know some ways to improve it. Thank you Carl 1131 (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl 1131: Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources that are independent and secondary have already said about it. Where did you find the information about sagique? There are no sources at all in the draft that mention the term or concept. The only two sources are dictionary entries with definitions of other words. The decline notice also contains important information. --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Syed hameed hussain.S

[edit]

Hello, I need help resolving an issue with my article draft that was declined due to insufficient independent and reliable sources. Could you assist me in improving the draft so it can meet Wikipedia's notability standards? Here is the link to my sandbox: Syed hameed hussain.S/sandbox. I appreciate any guidance you can provide to help get my article published. Thank you! Syed hameed hussain.S (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no indication that she meets the definition of a notable person. You say she is "known for her expertise" but have no sources to support that statement or even tell who claims she is known for that. The only other thing you do is describe her background and qualifications, nothing about how she is notable. One of the sources you give is an interview, which is just her speaking about herself, that's not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Jacky2024

[edit]

Hello,

I’m seeking assistance on how to improve my draft for Draft:BankSathi , which was recently declined. The feedback mentioned issues regarding a promotional tone and insufficient independent sources.

I’ve already made some adjustments to address these concerns by:

Rewriting the content to adopt a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. Ensuring that I cite reliable, third-party sources to meet notability requirements. Could someone provide guidance on any additional changes that would make the article align better with Wikipedia's standards? Specifically, I’m looking for tips on sourcing and tone improvements that will satisfy notability and verifiability criteria.

Thank you for your help!

Best regards, Jacky2024 Jacky2024 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky2024 Are you associated with this company in any manner?
The draft reads like text that might appear on its website. Language like "BankSathi was established on January 15, 2020, with the goal of providing accessible financial solutions, particularly in Tier II and Tier III cities across India" is promotional(see WP:SOLUTIONS, "solutions" is just marketing puffery) and unclear(what is a "Tier II" city?). You just discuss the offerings and business activities of the bank; instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot,
Thank you for your detailed feedback. I am not affiliated with BankSathi; my goal is to create an informative, objective entry. I see now that some of the language may come across as promotional, and I’ll revise it to be more neutral, removing terms like "solutions" and clarifying unfamiliar phrases such as "Tier II cities."
I'll also focus on restructuring the draft based on what reliable, independent sources have stated about BankSathi to better demonstrate its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. If you have specific suggestions on how I might further align the draft with Wikipedia's standards, I’d appreciate it. Thanks again for your help.
Best,
User:Jacky2024 Jacky2024 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacky2024: you say you're not affiliated with this business, but in response to the COI query on your talk page, you said "To address the concern, I’ll refrain from directly editing the Draft:BankSathi article. Instead, I’ll propose any suggested edits on the talk page and make sure to provide reliable, third-party sources to support them. I will also disclose my connection to the topic on the talk page as per Wikipedia’s guidelines to ensure transparency." Yet, no such disclosure has been made on the draft talk page. Can you clarify what's going on, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for your message and for pointing this out. I understand the importance of maintaining transparency regarding any potential conflicts of interest. I want to clarify that while I am not directly affiliated with BankSathi, I realize that my previous response may have caused confusion regarding my intentions.
I appreciate the reminder about disclosing connections, and I will make sure to properly disclose any relevant information on the draft's talk page. My aim is to contribute constructively and to adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I apologize for any oversight on my part, and I will rectify this immediately.
If you have any further suggestions or specific aspects you think I should address in my disclosure, please let me know. Thank you for your understanding. Jacky2024 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't pick this bank at random to edit about- your first edit to the draft had very difficult formatting, and you claim to be from the area where this bank is headquartered. If you are associated with this bank in any manner, now is the time to say so. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you for your message and for expressing your concerns. I want to clarify that while I am familiar with the region where BankSathi is headquartered, I do not have any formal affiliation with the company. My intention in editing the draft was purely to contribute to an informative entry based on the available information.
I understand the importance of transparency and the guidelines surrounding conflicts of interest. If my editing history or formatting has raised any doubts about my neutrality, I apologize for that. I will ensure to be more clear in my future contributions.
Please let me know if you have any specific questions or suggestions about the article, as I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s standards.
Thank you for your understanding. Jacky2024 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacky2024 This doesn't answer why you claimed to have a connection to the bank previously and now claim that you don't. You're also being very careful with your language- "formal affiliation", "not directly affiliated"; please tell now what the nature is of your connection with BankSathi, whatever it may be, no matter how small. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacky2024: are you using AI to generate your answers? If so, please don't. We want to hear what you, and not some algorithm, have to say.
Please describe in your own words your relationship with this business. When you registered your account recently, you added a bit of blurb on your user page, and as your 2nd edit dropped a fully-fledged draft on this bank. There's presumably a reason for that – what is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Persianwine

[edit]

Hi dear. What is the reason for rejecting this article? Persianwine (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Persianwine: the draft is insufficiently referenced, with a single source cited twice, leaving most of the content unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 25 October 2024 review of submission by 37.39.165.89

[edit]

Hello this is a company page and want to know what can i do to make it be published. Thank you 37.39.165.89 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "company pages" here, we have articles about companies that meet our criteria. Your draft has been deleted. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 25 October 2024 review of submission by 124.40.245.74

[edit]

Because there is nothing wrong i did. This biography is very important and people are searching Satvik C S 

124.40.245.74 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been deleted as overtly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Combat marto

[edit]

How can the page be published? Combat marto (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Combat marto: it cannot, since it has been rejected; the draft presents no evidence of notability, or even any credible suggestion thereof. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Absolutiva

[edit]

I expanded some notable names about youngest fathers and mothers in this list, as a compliant with WP:BLPNAME, unless if there is a commentary. Both previous list articles deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that AfD discussion tells you why this draft should not be accepted. I have blanked it, as it contained multiple WP:BLP violations. I have no idea what you mean by as a compliant with WP:BLPNAME, unless if there is a commentary. The list was most certainly not compliant with WP:BLPNAME. --bonadea contributions talk 13:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even List of oldest fathers and Pregnancy over age 50 as well? Absolutiva (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are not under discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: I'd nominated both for deletion. Absolutiva (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Goldprism22

[edit]

why is the edit denied what part of tos does it compromise? Goldprism22 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldprism22: Take a look at What Wikipedia is not. --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Mandi News

[edit]

Why isnt article Chaudhry_Ikramullah_Ranjha been displayed on the main page as we search it through internet mediums as only user talk page is shown and not the offical article Mandi News (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandi News: this draft was only accepted a moment ago. It will become visible to search engines once it has been reviewed by New Page Patrol, or after 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News Wikipedia has no control over how search engines index our articles. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. Qcne (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News: Please do not start another thread just because you don't like the answer you were given; I gave another explanation as to why search engines haven't indexed it above; that still applies alongside DoubleGrazing and Qcne's explanations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News: We don't do "official" articles. What is your connexion to Ranjha? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Sysdevuk

[edit]

It's unclear what's wrong with this article. I don't see any major difference from this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMDE Any practical help with will be appreciated. Thank you. Sysdevuk (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sysdevuk: this draft cites only close primary sources, plus one Reddit thread (= non-reliable source); in other words, zero indication of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You clearly have a conflict of interest (COI) in this subject, judging by your user name. I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've clearly decrared COI before publishing this articale, however I've tried to be objective. I've added some additional sources for your reference (it is any better?) [btw: in case of Reddit it 'wiki-like' post, not a 'general discussion'; and it is not from an associated person].
May I know how 'paid edition' works? (last time I edited something for Wikipedia near 10 years ago) Sysdevuk (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sysdevuk: where and how did you disclose your COI? I couldn't find this anywhere, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Skibidiukuser

[edit]

hello I'm new to this and I'm writing for our large 20,000 discord community that experienced a raid. Do I need to include references for every fact I claim? What is the minimum I need to include to get this published, I have read articles but appreciate a more concise and direct advice. thank you Skibidiukuser (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skibidiukuser The "United Kingdom Discord Raid 2024" does not merit an article in this encyclopaedia, and so this draft will not be considered further, sorry. Qcne (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
am I not able to edit my draft until it reaches the requirements? Skibidiukuser (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It won't ever reach the requirements, @Skibidiukuser, sorry. Qcne (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skibidiukuser: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skibidiukuser: To answer the questions Qcne and DoubleGrazing skipped over, we would need third-party reliable sources that discuss this in depth for us to even consider having an article. Your draft is wholly unsourced, and the reason Qc and DG are both saying it won't be considered further is because it's highly unlikely tech news publications would cover what appears to be a routine sort of phishing, especially within 24h after it happened. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Magnusmuldoon

[edit]

I wanted to get a further detailed explanation of why my article was rejected. I revised and was still told that the references I used do not allow the article to qualify as a Wikipedia article. The sources I used prove that the fighters I listed who boxed with Rival gloves actually wore the Rival branded gloves in their fights. I also provided a source to verify the Rival background information. What else do I need to provide? Thank you. Magnusmuldoon (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnusmuldoon: your draft (not yet 'article') was declined (not 'rejected') because it is insufficiently referenced, and does not demonstrate notability, as detailed in the decline notice. Whether some fighters wore gloves from this brand has nothing to do with notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies the WP:GNG notability guideline, which it currently does not appear to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Woller

[edit]

How can I transfer the article from Wikipedia in Germany (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Textbook_of_Hand_Surgery) to en.wikipedia? I just have to translate the leading text, anthing else is already in English. Can anyone help me? Woller (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woller: the simple answer is, just copy & paste it (and remember to attribute the source).
The slightly more complex option is to request an WP:IMPORT. (Whether that's possible in this case, and how it works, I've no idea as I've never attempted that.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll also need to show the that citations are adequate to establish that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, or the article will get deleted (or possibly moved to draft) once it is in English Wikipedia.
Since it looks to me as if almost all the citations are to the book itself, the answer to that question is a resounding No.
An acceptable article in English Wikipedia is a summary of reliable independent sources which give significant coverage to the subject, and writing an article for English Wikipedia begins with finding such sources. No independent sources, no article. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Fabdal

[edit]

Hi, what do i have to do to get a biographical page posted for Samer Bishay? Fabdal (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabdal Please study HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Dozertank

[edit]

Hi, i'd like some assistance in my article as i don't understand how my references (SVT, GAFFA etc) aren't reliable sources?

Kind Regards, Dozertank (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails WP:NSINGER and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dozertank: The SVT source is probably fine, but more sources of that quality are necessary (I can't access the GAFFA article, but even if that's good it still isn't quite sufficient). And although SVT is certainly a reliable source, it looks like the programme is at least partly an interview (I haven't watched the whole thing) and that means it isn't secondary. Importantly, all biographical information needs a source. And finally, the Spotify links can't be used as sources at all, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you or the help! I've added more sources now such as the booking agent Sustainable Punk, the individual venue pages for the tour etc.. Should i remove the spotify links completely?
Kind Regards, Dozertank (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at your draft I can say, yes, remove the Spotify links completely. I can also say that sources from the booking agent and the venues are not independent, and so can be used only to verify uncontroversial factual information such as dates, and cannot contribute to establishing Notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Fabdal

[edit]

Hi, how do I get a biographical page posted? there are literally thousands of these on wikipedia. Fabdal (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have biographical articles about people that meet our criteria, but we don't have promotional articles that merely document activities and qualifications. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Samer has been covered in the media and I've cited many articles in the page. I believe meets the criteria listed. Fabdal (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft lacked sources, in addition to what I said above. You wrote things like "His work with Ice Wireless and Iristel has been instrumental" but don't say how he was instrumental.
What are the three(and only three) best sources you have? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1]
[2]
[3] Fabdal (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "York University Alumni Profile". York University. Retrieved 2024-10-25.
  2. ^ "Connecting the unconnected". Canadian Immigrant. Retrieved 2024-10-25.
  3. ^ "Bringing Connectivity to Canada's North". Government of Canada. Retrieved 2024-10-25.

21:50, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Dorian Marian Neagu

[edit]

I need help to make this topic notable. check the information and data about the topic and then tell me what I need to change to make the article safe, notable and perfect for Wikipedia. Dorian Marian Neagu (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the subject must be notable before there is an attempt to make an article for it. What would be the three best sources that establish the subject's notability? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

[edit]

03:05, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Ernestina1844

[edit]

I cannot find Edit tab at top of window to reedit the text of my article. Ernestina1844 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernestina1844, this question isn't really suitable for this help desk. Have you tried turning your computer (or whatever device you use) off and on? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 103.161.144.33

[edit]

Its for the third time the article gets rejected. Can some one say which sources are not reliable? 103.161.144.33 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The Times of India has dubious reliability(see WP:TOI). The main issue is that you have no sources that establish the film is a notable film as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 100.8.233.48

[edit]

a 10 y old kid has open 2 company! 100.8.233.48 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When independent reliable sources that you can cite write about that and its significance, let us know. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your latest post. Please don't spam the help desk. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, we err towards not having articles on minors if we can help it as a Wikipedia article would irrevocably destroy their privacy. The sourcing would need to be absolutely flawless for us to even consider an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Witzcraft1

[edit]

why is this not approved? Witzcraft1 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Witzcraft1: because it is completely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
I assume this is about yourself? In which case, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not an autobiography it is all factual and can all be checked Witzcraft1 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you want i can snd all the sources Witzcraft1 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't Mr. Martin, you clearly have access to him as you took a photo of him. You also created the logo of his first electronic release and the album cover of another. These things mean you almost certainly have a conflict of interest to disclose.
If you have sources, it is imperative that they be provided when writing about a living person. If you can show that he is a notable musician as Wikipedia defines it, add the sources (see Referencing for beginners if you need assistance with doing it) then ask the reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Dancematters

[edit]

this page has now been deleted???? Dancematters (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancematters: correct, Draft:Billy Cowie was deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was not promotional Dancematters (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters: I can't comment, as I haven't seen the content; only explaining what happened. The reviewer clearly felt it was promotional, and the attending administrator concurred and consequently deleted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) my suspicion is that wikipedia editors and administrators have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. Dancematters (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters: you can contact the deleting administrator to discuss this, if you wish. You can see their name by clicking on the red link in my first reply, which takes you to where the draft used to be.
Wikipedia editors and administrators, or for that matter AfC draft reviewers, do not need to be experts on a particular topic, to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines. By all means, please do create drafts on notable figures in dance, just make sure they align with our policies so they can be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should contact the deleting editor User:Jimfbleak who deleted it as "unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page". Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what really puzzles me is that I should have to contact jimfbleak who has described the page as an "unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page" without any evidence. if he had just left it there while I prepared the other half dozen choreographer pages that I started working on then he could have seen the bigger picture. I think he has no idea of the amount of time a well researched page with dozens of links takes. and to just delete without a second thought. hmm? who was it said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Dancematters (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to contact him. You only need to do that, if you want this draft restored. Up to you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted him of course. It is a little confusing as it says on the deleted notice that it was Explicit?? who deleted the page??? Dancematters (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You initially created this draft at Draft:Billy cowie. It was moved to the correct capitalisation, at Draft:Billy Cowie. This move left behind a redirect (from the first location to the new), which was deleted by Explicit as routine housekeeping. The draft was then reviewed and declined, and subsequently deleted, from there by Jimfbleak. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not an admin, I can't see the deleted draft. But usually when a draft is deleted as promotional, the problem is that it says either what the writer thinks about the subject, or what the subject says about themselves (or what their associates say about them).
Neither of these is of any relevance at all to writing a Wikipedia article. The article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the the subject have published in reliable places. Further, if there is any evaluative language, it must be attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice. So "Lucy Smith, writing in the Gotham City Reporter, described him as ..." is fine (with a citation), but not "he is ...". ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is really the issue. Once the page is deleted it seems no one can see what the truth is. In the deleted page there is absolutely no evaluative language and there are over 30 references from entirely independent sources. Why not make the page available for discussion? So that advice can be given. I was already working on five other choreographer profiles but it seems pointless to put in that effort if it can be deleted on a whim. Dancematters (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters Any administrator can see it. The deleting administrator is the administrator to ask. Visit Draft:Billy Cowie and you will see who deleted it. There is little point in messages here until you have done that thing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked but had no response which is not surprising in view of the cavalier way in which the page was taken down in the first place without any discussion or communication. If you are an administrator and can see it why not take a look and let me know your thoughts. Dancematters (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP's been blocked for spam; they continued their argumentativeness on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 26 October 2024 review of submission by JTokyoNaught

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_NmrmndGM

I need help with citing this youtube video multiple times. I don't know how to cite it multiple times at different timestamps. JTokyoNaught (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JTokyoNaught: I struggle to see why you would want to cite this video even once, let alone "multiple times". It's an interview, and as such won't contribute towards notability. It's also of somewhat dubious quality, so arguably couldn't even be used for verification purposes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview done by a well established interviewer. Nardwuar has been interviewing musicians for over twenty years, including Sonic Youth, Pharrell Williams, Drake, Kendrick Lamar, and many other artists. He's also known for his accurate research on musician's lives which is why I want to use the source. JTokyoNaught (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos are rarely considered reliable sources, unless it is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. JTokyoNaught (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTokyoNaught: An interview conducted by a "well-established interviewer" is every bit as useful as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev - i.e. not at all. Interviews are the subject talking about themselves and can't help for notability regardless of the medium it is published in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. JTokyoNaught (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Mehadi akash

[edit]

i need explanation Mehadi akash (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehadi akash: We don't cite Facebook (no editorial oversight). Are there any news stories about Hassan? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 27

[edit]

00:02, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Iaroszler1

[edit]

Hello,

I am confused about the rejection I recieved. The Cohen, Boaz (1934) review of Kaplan's book as well as the Bard article, Terry R. Bard, "Julius Kaplan, Hyman Klein, and the Saboraic Element," talk about Kaplan in detail, not to mention the articles in Hebrew. How many more citations are required? If it is about biographical information, there is almost nothing about him besides his own description of himself from his dissertation. Iaroszler1 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:12, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Zabezt

[edit]

My draft was rejected due to sourcing issues, do you know how I can fix it? I’m pretty sure all of the references I used are published, in depth, and reliable. Also, this draft will probably have to become an article eventually, so even if I can’t fix any issues, can’t other editors do it? Zabezt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabezt Nothing has to become an article here. Notable items which are verifiable tend to do so
I have no idea why you feel it necessary to decorate your draft with flags of all nations, it decreases readability. I suggest that ther removal will enhance the probability of a reviewer actually looking at it in detail.
I see that you have resubmitted it. A reviewer will be along in due course. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for my confusion, I’m still a new user. I understand, I will remove them. Zabezt (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two citations are to obviously non-independent sources, and the third one looks very much as if it is based on a press release, and so is also not independent. The Reuters piece might be independent, but it doesn't say much about AUSSOM.
You need to base your article almost 100% on sources which are all three of reliable, independent, and with significant coverage (see WP:42). (They do not have to be in English). If at least three such sources do not exist, then the mission probably does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the article is not possible. ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the changes I made? Zabezt (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 27 October 2024 review of submission by CSK1987

[edit]

Dear Wiki team, I would appreciate your guidance on which sections require improvement and the recommended number of additional references. Thank you for your assistance.

Thank You, CSK CSK1987 (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of that would be academic, as the draft was rejected(after numerous declines), meaning that it will not be considered further. Much of the draft is unsourced. The awards are meaningless towards notability as the awards themselves do not have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
You must disclose your connection to this person(you took an image of them and they posed for you). Please see conflict of interest and paid editing. ("paid editing" includes employment in any capacity) 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a moot issue since this has been rejected, if you write new articles in the future, there are certainly a few lessons you should draw from this. One, don't source things backwards; you appear to have been written the prose first and then tried to find the backing for it, which is the opposite of the best approach. Find the reliable, independent sources first and then only write what can be sourced. It's also important to listen to feedback as the reviewers are there to assist; you did not heed any of the critiques of the article in a meaningful way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 27 October 2024 review of submission by 115.70.155.108

[edit]

Hi, I understand that it isn’t enough proof and stuff but there is not enough to prove to you. I am being very honest and are not lying to you, please accept it, please. Hope you understand, Blessings. 115.70.155.108 (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said you are lying, please see the messages left on the draft. It appears you are writing about yourself, see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, hope you are having a good day

I just wanted to let you know that there aren’t many sources on the web about what he actually did, and wanted to ask for your mercy and let me put up my article. I am not lying to you, you might still think that I am but I promise I am not. Please help me out.

Hope you understand and accept, Blessings. 115.70.155.108 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. The information needs to be verifiable. We can't verify your promises. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not issue any form of religious blandishment when you sign your messages. Strewing whatever 'blessings' are around behind you may be considered by some to be offensive. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your references are not in-line, as is hard-required for biographical content. All of your sources are either Facebook (no editorial oversight) or statlines (too sparse); we want news articles that discuss him/his performance at length. And your "blessings" are wasted on me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Tihanh

[edit]

Tell me what's wrong, please help me! Tihanh (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message as to what is wrong, you have too many references. A small number of high quality references is preferred to a large number of poor references. It's also not clear how the band passes WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Athletescv

[edit]

It takes too long to review the draft Athletescv (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Athletescv: you only submitted this five days ago.
What is your involvement with this draft; you didn't create it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 27 October 2024 review of submission by UsamaSarwar

[edit]

I hope you're well. I wanted to reach out regarding the recent rejection of my Wikipedia article submission about Usama Sarwar and Project Connect. I understand that the submission was declined due to concerns around notability and perceived promotional content.

I've since made adjustments, focusing the article solely on Project Connect and included an independent source that provides significant coverage of the project. However, I’m seeking further guidance on how I might improve the draft to better align with Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly around addressing notability concerns without appearing promotional.

Could you provide some advice on the specific changes that would help the article meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion? I want to ensure that I follow the guidelines and produce content that is both neutral and informative.

Thank you for your time and feedback. UsamaSarwar (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UsamaSarwar: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion.
Please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for your feedback. I now better understand the concerns around conflict of interest (COI) and autobiography (AUTOBIO). Moving forward, I’d like to seek advice on how best to proceed, ensuring neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Would it be advisable to have an uninvolved third party contribute to the article to address the COI issue? Additionally, I’ve identified secondary sources that provide independent coverage of the project. Should I focus on ensuring that independent editors handle future submissions to avoid any promotional issues?
Thank you for your guidance. UsamaSarwar (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UsamaSarwar: you say you better understand COI and AUTOBIO... and then you go ahead and create yet another draft about yourself. It seems your sole purpose here is to promote yourself, would that be a fair assessment? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. However, I believe that primary sources often provide an authentic representation of an individual's contributions, and some news media can sometimes be ambiguous. Could you please advise me on how to enhance my submission to meet the notability criteria? Additionally, if there are specific types of references or sources that would be most helpful in demonstrating Usama Sarwar's notability, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your support! UsamaSarwar (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UsamaSarwar: with respect, it does not matter in the slightest if you "believe" that primary sources are the way to go. They're not.
I'll say it once more, bluntly: don't try to write about yourself. Even if you're notable, of which there's so far no evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you solicit a third party to edit for you, they are no longer a third party and would need to disclose their relationship with you. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you please provide me a template for Biography? I just saw that this Biography is missing and I believe it should be on Wikipedia because it is useful for the people to know about the contributions of Usama Sarwar to the society by developing the community apps that are free to use. UsamaSarwar (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Igreo

[edit]

hello i wanted to know what you think about this review: The comment the reviewer left was: Director of non notable films doesn't meet Do you think the project should be abandoned? Thanks Igreo (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot show that this person is notable, there is little point in further editing. If you think they may become notable later, you can revisit the draft then. Drafts will remain as long as they are edited once every six months; even if deleted, it can be restored. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 27 October 2024 review of submission by UsamaSarwar

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted a draft for a biography on Usama Sarwar through Articles for Creation, but it was declined due to concerns about the notability and references. I understand the need for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. However, I believe that primary sources often provide an authentic representation of an individual's contributions, and some news media can sometimes be ambiguous. Could you please advise me on how to enhance my submission to meet the notability criteria? Additionally, if there are specific types of references or sources that would be most helpful in demonstrating Usama Sarwar's notability, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your support! UsamaSarwar (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create a new thread for every post. And we know you're editing about yourself, so there is no need to speak about yourself in the third person. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Baro Bromberger

[edit]

Hello, I'm requesting assistance because my draft got declined 2 times, even though my sources are reliable. Im bilingual and one of the sources is in Polish, and that source has most of the info from my draft. So could it be that it gets declined because the people that check the submissions dont take it as reliable? Thanks in advance Baro Bromberger (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baro Bromberger: your draft has a number of issues. Firstly, it only cites one source. Yes, I know it lists a few more, but these aren't cited anywhere so they arguably don't support anything in the draft.
Secondly, with only a single citation, the vast majority of the information is unreferenced. How do we know it's true?
Thirdly, the sources are primary, so they don't establish notability per WP:GNG. It's also debatable how reliable and independent they are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Will try my best to solve the issues Baro Bromberger (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed it, hope it gets accepted now Baro Bromberger (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

[edit]

Why my wikipedia page Alamsher LLC has been deleted for violatoin of copyright meterial,these images has been taken by my self from Alamsher LLC, i have a orignal images and i am the owner of these, please how can i recreate my wikipedia page about Alamsher LLC? Ahmad87861 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad87861: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. Alamsher LLC was deleted a couple of weeks ago, because it didn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. This draft Draft:Alamsher LLC is still there, as is your sandbox one User:Ahmad87861/sandbox. If images have been deleted, that may have happened on the Commons, which is a different project from the English Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is a Google Knowledge Panel considered enough to establish notability for an artist on Wikipedia? If not, what kind of sources are typically required? Ahmad87861 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see WP:42. Ca talk to me! 14:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmad87861: Since the Knowledge Panel is known to cull information from Wikipedia and undergoes no editorial oversight, it's never going to be an acceptable source. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you! 182.184.208.70 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:41, 27 October 2024 review of submission by TNM202

[edit]

Hello. I have made a draft for this article on my alternative account(this one), as the main account was under a wikibreak. As it is a new account, it would require to be autoconfirmed to be allowed to directly create the article, however as my main account is an autoconfirmed account with 393 edits, I believe it would be directly able to create this page. Is it possible to somehow transfer the article from this account to the main one? Thank you. TNM202 (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TNM202: the technical answer is that it isn't possible to 'transfer' it from one account to another (not to my knowledge, at any rate); in fact, I'm not even sure what that means. However, your account which has the necessary permissions to publish it can do so, regardless of which account created it.
The non-technical answer, which you didn't ask for but get as a bonus (!), is that I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic, per WP:NOTNEWS. It may in time develop into one, if the scope of the event expands, or it shows lasting or wider impact. But so far it seems to be just a relatively ROTM news item. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TNM202: Articles are not tied to accounts what-so-ever.In fact, other than user pages no page on Wikipedia is tied to a user account what-so-ever. I would also very carefully read WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions as there is a non-zero chance this ends up related to that, and if it is neither of you have met the necessary 500-edit + 30-day threshold. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to both of you for the valuable insights TNM101 (chat) 16:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Baro Bromberger

[edit]

Hello again, got declined again. I added more links, and changed the styling. Why do the revievers keep flagging the sources as unreliable? There are only about 4 pages that even mention this phone, so finding a better source is near impossible. The sites I mention are very reputable and definitely reliable. Could Someone please have another look at my draft? Thanks in advance Baro Bromberger (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baro Bromberger: please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one.
I don't think either of the two sources you're citing are particularly reliable, one is a small private 'museum' (of sorts), the other looks like an enthusiast site of some sort. When I say "not reliable", I'm not saying they are lying or anything, just that they don't look like sources that employ editorial oversight, have a reputation for fact-checking, etc.
In any case, these two sources aren't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, so if the draft wasn't declined for sourcing, it could be declined for that. And if, as you say, better sources aren't available, then that almost certainly means this subject is not notable enough to justify an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 27 October 2024 review of submission by BrendaAbdelall

[edit]

I dont know why the topic is not sufficiently notable ?? BrendaAbdelall (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendaAbdelall: because after multiple reviews, you haven't produced any evidence that the subjet (ie. you?) is notable. The onus is very much on you to do that.
Also, this is very poorly referenced, and basically reads like a CV/resume.
Finally, are you aware that we very strongly discourage autobiographies (see WP:AUTOBIO)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrendaAbdelall: We have little tolerance for autobiographies. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
This looks like a case of chaff choking out the wheat. Also, as noted above by DoubleGrazing, this is written more like a resume, rather than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 27 October 2024 review of submission by AYGFS

[edit]

How do I delete this draft? AYGFS (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive interpreted your question as a request, so I did so- even if you did nothing, it would be deleted in six months, or you can mark it for speedy deletion by putting {{db-user}} on the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 27 October 2024 review of submission by M.krakovets

[edit]

Please explain why the Elen Smile page was rejected again after revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elen_Smile

I am thoroughly familiar with the guidelines and followed them carefully, double-checking all sources, which are reliable. What’s wrong? Please help. M.krakovets (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined NOT rejected, you have a large number of links to the songs (not required) and a large number of YouTube references (Not a reliable source). Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify: is a YouTube link considered a reliable source if it comes from the official channels of TV networks or shows? You still haven't answered. M.krakovets (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.krakovets: if a YouTube clip is on the official channel of a reputable broadcaster and is featuring their own content, then yes, that can be a useful source; in that case it is not materially different from the same content being available on the broadcaster's original broadcast or streaming channels. The question then is, what is that content, and how useful is it for verifying something meaningful in a draft. In this case, the YouTube clips cited seem mainly to verify that the subject appeared in some TV shows. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s correct. The broadcast was on live television, and this is simply a recording of that broadcast. Here, it’s being used specifically to verify the singer’s participation in those television shows. M.krakovets (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 27 October 2024 review of submission by AnnMitchell1964

[edit]

How is a picture placed on the page. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With zero reliable indepndent sources, a picture is the very last thing you need to worry about. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 27 October 2024 review of submission by 183.109.33.200

[edit]

Hmm.. why? 183.109.33.200 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Draft:2025 FIFA U-17 World Cup. It is too soon for the topic to have reliable, indepedent, and in-depth sources covering it. It serves little use to the readers since it contains minimal information. Ca talk to me! 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 27 October 2024 review of submission by Jnc V

[edit]

I am currently writing a article about the school I graduated from not too long ago. I would like to know how I could improve the article, such as what to add, change, or cite within the document. There are not many reliable or up-to-date resources online, and any sources that could be used seem to not be enough for the article to be published. What should I do as a beginner? Jnc V (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not necessarily have to be up-to-date, as long as the time period is mentioned (like through phrases like "As of 2023"). Timeliness of sources is also not relevant for matters that is unlikely to change with time, such as the history of the school.
Most of the sources in the draft only give basic facts like accreditation status that apply to majority of schools. Some are not independent from the school itself. Ca talk to me! 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is being rejected for not fullfilling WP:NSCHOOL. What suggestions do you have to make it qualified for the main encyclopedia? Jnc V (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading WP:42, an essay. Ca talk to me! 05:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

[edit]

02:37, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Songha Mao

[edit]

I want to resubmit for tiger reth. Thank You. Songha Mao (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not, since the draft have been rejected, meaning you cannot resubmit any further. Ca talk to me! 05:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Raspberry505

[edit]

How to make this draft credible for Wikipedia? Raspberry505 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not, since the draft have been rejected, meaning you cannot resubmit any further. Since the election have not happened yet, there is nothing to talk about. In addition, you have to find in-depth, reliable and independent sources for your draft. See the help page WP:42. Ca talk to me! 05:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Keshavwebglaze

[edit]

Hi, I recently posted the article for review, and it was rejected. I am very new at this and can't determine the reasons and words for which it was denied. If any one can help me to rewrite the article in more neutral tone it will be very helpful. Keshavwebglaze (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keshavwebglaze: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. Some comments have been offered in the draft. Basically, your job is not to praise or 'sell' the subject, only to describe her in the most boringly dry, factual manner you can. Any peacocky terms such as "pioneering" are only allowed if they are a direct quote from a reliable and independent secondary source, and even then they're probably best left out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ohk @DoubleGrazing ill take my time and try to make it more boringly dry without enhancing her as the most prominent in racing. Will make it more simple leaving peacocky terms as you have mentioned. Keshavwebglaze (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Keshavwebglaze. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:19, 28 October 2024 review of submission by LeopoldFriedrich

[edit]

Hello, my article was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.", are my sources not reliable? I don't understand how. I included a book, a blog, the primary source. I could also include a video about the topic. Would that help? Did I cite something wrong? I don't understand. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources as they almost always lack fact checking and editorial control. Most YouTube/other videos have the same problem, unless they are from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel.
You're just documenting the existence of the language, not what independent reliable sources choose to say about it and what makes it notable. If no such sources exist, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about including videos from this outlet mibuso.com, also I thought the language may be notable as the predecessor language which was used for the same purpose has an article. Is the book source I listed not accaptable? Programming Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central: Build customized ... - Marije Brummel, David Studebaker, Chris Studebaker - Google Books, I thought that this would constitute a source that showed it to be notable. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LeopoldFriedrich. Your draft was declined not rejected. Those are two very different things. What your draft lacks is multiple references to significant coverage of the AL programming language in reliable sources completely independent of the AL programming language, and Microsoft whose project it is. Some of your sources do not discuss the AL programming language and are therefore of no value in establishing notability. Sources published by Microsoft are of no value in establishing notability. Blogs are almost never reliable sources. Videos are rarely reliable sources unless under the direct editorial control of a reliable media outlet. Pundits expressing their opinions do not confer notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use the language professionally, I am however not employed at microsoft. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Lstr1

[edit]

Hi, I’m writing to ask if there are any changes needed for my article. I would really appreciate an update on the review and if you could let me know when I can expect approval or feedback. Thank you in advance, Best Regards Lstr1 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. Lstr1 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Zabica99

[edit]

In relation to a drafted article on a regional IT company, I'm looking for help on my resources.

I think they're okay, there's a financial statement in there regarding key people, there are also a few different and reliable news articles regarding the company.

In short, are the listed references off or do I need more of them?

Thank you for your help, kind regards :) Zabica99 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need more references, you need better references, ones that don't just report the routine activities of the company. See WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Paul H Graham

[edit]

Can someone help me why will they delete my page? What did I do? What did I violate? Paul H Graham (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autobiography would be a good place to start, especially the point that reads "Self-created articles are often nominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. Many editors feel that persons who create autobiographies are exploiting a volunteer project for their own aggrandizement." Your article clearly falls into the category of self-aggrandisement. It's pure spam. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 103.187.249.149

[edit]

Why my article is getting rejected again and again? 103.187.249.149 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Asratulhasannahid

[edit]

Hallo Dear Wikipedia team. My name is Asratul Hasan Nahid and I came to know a while back that my article was rejected but I can't understand what was my mistake for which my article was rejected. I just wrote an article about my profession and biography and I wrote the article completely following your rules. I don't know why my article is rejected pls let me know my mistakes and give me the opportunity to correct these mistakes and resubmit. Asratulhasannahid (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is you didn't follow our rules, namely WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. That's exactly what social media is for. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply. I actually didn't see these requirements so I wrote an article like this. thanks wiki Asratulhasannahid (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Arthatruth

[edit]

Dear editors, The submission has been drafted based on authoritative and indepenent scholarly and legal documents, which are referenced in the article. The sources include a recent UN-report (2024), academic journal papers, scholarly monographs, and academic databases. All sources are mentioned in the submission. However, the entry has been declined "due to lack of reliable sources". Therefore, I wonder how this issue could be resolved. I also sent a message to the editor but has not received a message so far. I would be grateful if you could help. Best, Arthatruth (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthatruth, have you read the comments at the top of the draft? ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Kieron Brodie

[edit]

I would like to ask where in my page I can correct please. I am very new to this interface so any guidance will be very much appreciated. Thank you. Kieron Brodie (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieron Brodie: welcome to Wikipedia. The draft would need to be thoroughly revised and rewritten so as not to read like a piece of journalistic writing with flowery language such as Kieron succeeded in finding notoriety through skateboarding by appearing in television commercials. In addition, too much of the content lacks a source, such as the entire "Early Life" section. Please also see the informtion on your user talk page about writing autobiographies. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
When the subject in question is yourself, I would advise not ever trying to create the article. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kieron Brodie, highly promotional language like true to his vision of seeing how far his passion in street skateboarding could take him is utterly inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Please read and ponder WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 2601:547:1481:2DA0:B1AD:2385:A85F:8C0

[edit]

I have submitted multiple iterations of this draft and now believe it to be solely based in reliable third party sources; podcast/1:1 interviews have been removed, tributes to other individuals mentioned have been removed and replaced with third party articles that include mentions of Suswell, a large number of sources are in use, formal language has been applied throughout. In my understanding, I have satisfied all the requirements listed by the editor. Further clarification is needed, as I am unclear about what sources are not accepted. 2601:547:1481:2DA0:B1AD:2385:A85F:8C0 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been resubmitted; the reviewer will leave feedback if they don't accept the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Aadhya abhiraj

[edit]

I want to create a details in Wikipedia plz help me Aadhya abhiraj (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aadhya abhiraj: judging by your user name, you have transitioned swiftly from sitting unaided to editing Wikipedia. Kudos.
More seriously, this draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable. And IMHO, it isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 28 October 2024 review of submission by WikiAccount1777

[edit]

The article was now declined several times. My impression (but I may be wrong) is that the first versions were without sufficient references. I am not sure I understand yesterday's rejection. This may be justified, but I would like to understand. WikiAccount1777 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Does any one of your citations meet the criteria in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 205.220.129.27

[edit]

Hello. I understand the feedback and I plan to address. The article was submitted by Adam Werbach. I would like to both revise content (eg remove subjective content) and have sources such as published academic articles and books that will support the page as a notable person. My question is how to do I get a few more days? I am traveling this week. 205.220.129.27 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry about that. Drafts don't get deleted until six months have passed since their most recent edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 28 October 2024 review of submission by DCTraci

[edit]

I've ben advised that the article is not formal enough and i have a difficulty in knowing how to fix it. Can you please offer me assistance and make the necessary changes to bring it up to that level. I am unable to locate those words that do not fit. 

DCTraci (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DCTraci: ...which is why we discourage conflict-of-interest writing, assuming you are related to him. The article has zero references. Note that we do accept offline references (i.e. books, newspapers) provided they are cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @DTraci. Like most beginners who try the challenging task of creating a new article without first spending an appreciable time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
A Wikipedia article should be almost 100% based on reliable independent sources. Nothing that you know about the subject (even if you are related to the subject) is of any relevance unless a reader can in principle verify it from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 28 October 2024 review of submission by Theamazingduckington

[edit]

Why is the article being rejected for poor sources when its based off of the 2023 Breeder's Cup article with only two sources? Theamazingduckington (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, if you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies in 2023 Breeders' Cup. I am not interested enough to have researched whether or not adequate sources exist, but I have tagged that article for its inadequate sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 28 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:52F8:E800:A097:9FB2:AB:ED82

[edit]

What type of sources should we include? 2600:1700:52F8:E800:A097:9FB2:AB:ED82 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources that discuss this person in depth and tell what makes him a notable person. Holding patents doesn't do it(hundreds of thousands do that), unless you have coverage that discusses the significance of his doing so.. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article starts by finding reliable independent sources (see 42), so that if you cannot find any, or only find one or two, you will know not to spend any more time on a subject which cannot have a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

[edit]

02:34, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Cclind

[edit]

My article keeps getting rejected because the subject is not "notable." I am not sure which articles to find that would warrant notability. So far, I have some from local newspapers, academic websites, and even a journal article. How do I prove that he was notable? Cclind (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cclind! One thing that you'll want to fix before resubmitting is the citations. Have a look at referencing for beginners for a guide. You could also investigate WP:TWINKLE, which I believe adds some handy buttons for referencing (as well as tons of other things you might like if you want to stick around and keep editing!)
So now on to notability. First, you should have an idea in your mind of which criteria you're going to establish Krumholz is notable under. As he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). There are sub-criteria for notable people as well, so you might want to look and see whether he meets the criteria for, say, academics. I have to admit that I don't immediately see which criteria he would count as notable under, but if you can point out the one you're relying on, I'd be happy to look through your sources and see how they stack up.
A last word - someone can be important, worthy, and respected in their field but still not be notable by Wikipedia's rules. Very, very few people ever warrant an article. Don't be discouraged if it turns out Krumholz isn't notable by Wikipedia standards - we'd love to have another editor around working on other articles. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 29 October 2024 review of submission by 115.70.155.108

[edit]

Hi,

What do I need to do to get it good enough for an article.

Blessings. 115.70.155.108 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 29 October 2024 review of submission by SIEFIsmail

[edit]

now the page will not be published after my last edits ? SIEFIsmail (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources that show how she is a notable person. You essentially have just documented her work and activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SIEFIsmail: how did you happen to find this draft, just out of curiosity? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume BrendaAbdelall (talk · contribs) told them, either before or after they got blocked. And given SIEFIsmail registered shortly after that block, this is me assuming good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Although I did notice, only after I'd posed that question, that the block was only soft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Can you review my draft? Rosebabysu (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: you have submitted your draft for review, so it will be reviewed. It is impossible to say when the review will happen, since the reviewers are volunteers, and may evaluate drafts in any order. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosebabysu: the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up; please be patient.
That said, the information there is so sparse that it doesn't really amount to a viable article draft. If it were published like that, it would be liable for an immediate A7 speedy deletion as it does not make a credible claim of noteworthiness. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

[edit]

This article has been dedlined after I had already rewritten it to take into account comments from an editor. The reasons cited by the editor who rejected the submission appear quite un-specific, vague, to the point where I could think this editor is biased. This editor does not point which parts of the text correspond to the problems he mentions. I think the text is much more neutral and encyclopedic in both style and content than many wikipedia articles, and this rejection appears extremely unfair to me Steyncham (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steyncham: please do not make unfounded accusations of bias without providing solid evidence.
Also, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), merely declined (which means you're welcome to submit once you address the decline reasons).
The draft reads like an advocacy piece. We're looking for purely neutral, factual description, based on summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about this organisation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got as far as looking at your first three sources - none of which even mentions "WePlanet".
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, that is all. A citation which does not even mention the subject is usually a waste of everybody's time - writer's, reviewer's, and reader's.
I suspect that you wrote the draft BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Fab Papa

[edit]

I have taken the following page as a model for the creation of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rother

Lean Thinking movement has worldwide historical significance and I find it interesting to document the key contributions that shaped it. John Shook and Mike Rother have both made key contributions, have a similar number of awards and have a similar number of publications.

So it's an interesting learning opportunity for me: what makes the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rother page ok but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Shook not ok?

Thanks for the feedback! Fab Papa (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fab Papa: unfortunately you've chosen a poorly-referenced, short stub, with questionable notability (and apparently written by the subject himself, to boot!) to model yours on. Which means you're at risk of replicating some of its problems.
If you're basing your claim of notability on impact and legacy, you need to support that with reliable and independent sources that clearly back that up.
The sources cited in this draft are primary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback!
I have discovered the concept of writing backwards, which I think explains some of my initial misconceptions. I will restart "forward" from the different awards received. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Shook Fab Papa (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Fab Papa. I applaud you for working forwards. But it isn't the awards that you should work forward from: significant awards are indicators that a subject is probably notable (in Wikipedia's sense), but it is still the reliable independent sources that are required (see WP:42) and these are far and away the best place to start from. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mdshinhasarder24

[edit]

Please add me details biography 

in wikipedia  Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdshinhasarder24: nope, not going to happen. You were probably already told with your previous account, but if not, let me tell you now that we don't support autobiographies, especially where there isn't the slightest evidence that the subject is notable. You need to try somewhere like LinkedIn for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Biography for MD. Shinha Sarder Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is block evasion. Draft is up for CSD G5 G11. SPI open. WP:ROTM self promoter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja

[edit]

Hi there, I use Wikipedia all the time and have sent donations multiple times. I love what you all do and I'm trying to learn how to contribute to pages now as an editor. I am based in Argentina and made this page about a prominent film here, but it was declined. If you google the film there are tons of articles about it in English and Spanish but I don't know which ones to use as source references. Thank you! Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you need to use sources that are reliable, first and foremost. Yours are all user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. That means they can't be used to verify the information, or to establish the subject's notability, both of which are core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
I think you also may have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. I've posted a message on your talk page about this; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do thanks. There are tons of articles about the film in the biggest newspapers in Argentina, so maybe I should make the article in Spanish first? As you can see, these are the most reliable sources we have:
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/en-fotos-del-proyecto-que-reune-a-sofia-gala-vera-spinetta-y-kevin-johansen-a-la-salida-por-la-noche-nid23042024/
https://www.infobae.com/cultura/2024/10/10/teatro-comunitario-poliamor-y-plan-condor-todo-cabe-en-bajo-naranja/
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/sofia-gala-castiglione-por-que-descree-de-las-instituciones-la-promesa-de-moria-sobre-su-muerte-y-su-nid09102024/
https://elplanetaurbano.com/2024/05/vera-spinetta-existir-no-es-facil-no-me-resulta-tan-simple/ Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you can use non-English sources here as well, there's no need to make a Spanish version of the article first, for that reason. (If you'd rather make a Spanish version, that's obviously your call.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oki Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the major source links to the article references. I'll need to know what you consider relevant in order to continue creating and editing wiki pages. Thanks Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: I cannot say succinctly and categorically what is "relevant", but what you're aiming for is to show that the film satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guideline. The sources you need, are those which allow you to demonstrate notability via either route.
If you find that those sources don't sufficiently support the information in the draft, you will then need to supplement them with additional reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for the tips. I resubmitted the entry after adding more key source references. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry should mention the film is called Bajo Naranja in Spanish Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Heck be gone

[edit]

Hi! I created the page but it was declined. May I please ask why so I can edit it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Thanks! Heck be gone (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Heck be gone. Your draft has three sources, but two of them are to the Hillingdon Herald's own website and the third is from Brunel Uni which hosts the paper. This means none of them are independent of the newspaper.
We usually look for at least three separately independent sources that discuss the topic. Qcne (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks so much for letting me know! :) Heck be gone (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Kat.synergy

[edit]

I haven’t been able to find a specific website that states he has a degree, but I found a link related to the Husky Lunch Network on the UW alumni site. This network connects current UW students with alumni who can offer career advice, networking opportunities, and guidance. While it shows his association with UW, it doesn’t specifically verify his degree in business administration. Would this work as a citation to support his degree, or should I look for a more direct source? Kat.synergy (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kat.synergy: if the only reason you know that this person has a particular degree is that they told you, then you cannot use that; only information supported by reliable published sources can go into an article.
Without seeing the source you're suggesting to use, I can't say categorically whether it would be acceptable, but it sounds like probably wouldn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood—I’ll focus on finding a reliable, published source that specifically verifies the degree rather than relying on self-reported information. I’ll keep looking for something more suitable. Thank you! Kat.synergy (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Userfromtheusa5000

[edit]

I want to make this for my friend, please allow it I never have time to make a sufficient edit to it. Userfromtheusa5000 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Userfromtheusa5000: this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. If you want to write about your friend and his chickens, you need to find an alternative platform for that; there are plenty to choose from, out there in them interwebs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 29 October 2024 review of submission by MountainAccount

[edit]

I need to make sure the page looks good before I resubmit in order for the page to be accepted and go live. MountainAccount (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountainAccount: this draft would not be accepted as it stands, given that it cites only close primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:ORG.
Note that while universities by and large are notable, individual schools/faculties/departments etc. by and large aren't. In other words, merely existing isn't enough of a reason for this school to justify its own article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 secondary articles. Can you please review again and let me know of any other additional needs or if it would be accepted. Thank you. MountainAccount (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

Hello - I would like to get this author's page up on Wikipedia. Can you help me? TJPR225 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in your draft to suggest that Faust Ruggiero is notable in Wikipedia terms and it is entirely unreferenced so has zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sources now. TJPR225 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TJPR225: We can't cite Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't cite Google Books (no editorial oversight). A quick search shows absolutely no sources we can use (string: "faust ruggiero"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

Can someone please help me get an author's page up? TJPR225 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

I added two sources now.... TJPR225 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJPR225: please don't spam the help desk, and don't start a new thread with each comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

[edit]

I created the page 'Masutaro Otani' in Japanese but actually noticed I used incorrect kanji for the actual translated name but can't seem to be able to change it myself. Hiss actual name as shown on his grave says the following: 増太郎

I hope somebody is able to help me make this change. Finlay73 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay73: This page is for assistance with draft articles on the English-language Wikipedia. To be frank, editors here are vanishingly likely to be able to help with matters on the Japanese-language Wikipedia due to being illiterate in that language. You need to be asking for assistance at ja.wp, not here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Nangthang

[edit]

I coundn't find any articles/publie to use sources other than ZYA Homepage website and their Facebook page. They mainly use Facebook to give updates and other stuff to the community. Nangthang (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nangthang: Then we can't have an article for want of third-party sources that can show the subject is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

[edit]

00:09, 30 October 2024 review of submission by FranceRivet

[edit]

Hello,

On August 1st, SafariScribe declined the article proposed for Draft:Samuel Metcalfe, an Inuk from Nunatsiavut, Canada, on the basis that he considered the sources to be unreliable. I have written to him to get clarifications, but the reply I received was that he would not share his analysis with me. I am hoping that someone at your help desk can help me understand which references are deemed unreliable.

Of the 34 sources listed in the article,

• 13 are articles published in respected magazines such as Inuktitut Magazine (the official publication of Canada’s National Inuit organization which has been published for over 60 years), Etudes/Inuit/Studies (one of the most important scholar publications on everything Inuit published by Université Laval in Québec City), Atuaqnik (a newspaper published by the Inuit community of Northern Quebec, now called Nunavik), Circuit (the magazine published by the Order of translators, terminologists and interpreters of the province of Quebec), Kinatuinamut Ilingajuk (a Labrador periodical published in Nain by the Labrador Inuit Association), and Polar Record (A Journal of Arctic and Antarctic Research published in Copenhagen).

• 6 are articles published in newspapers such as The Ottawa Citizen (Canada’s Capital daily newspaper) and The Telegram (the daily newspaper of the city of St. John’s, the capital of the province of Newfoundland-and-Labrador).

• 1 is from a book published by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

• 1 is from a thesis from Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland-and-Labrador.

• 1 is from a publication by the Nunatsiavut Government.

• 1 is from a census record

• 5 are from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid.

• 6 are from letters, certificates and id cards issued by third parties and are held in Sam’s personal archives.


Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how the sources referencing magazines, newspapers, books, theses, census records or governmental publications can be seen as unreliable.

Am I right that the issue is with the materials we have included that come from Sam’s personal archives? These letters, certificates and id cards were issued by external/independent organizations, but if I understand correctly, the fact that they do not correspond to material published in a publicly available source makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia. By any chance, if we were to upload photos of some of these certificates/id cards would the references now be accepted since the visual proof is provided?

For the references from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid, 4 of the 5 references refer to TV or radio programs produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada’s national radio and TV broadcaster) or the OkalaKatiget Society (a Nunatsiavut non-profit society dedicated to preserving and promoting the language and culture of the Inuit within Nunatsiavut through radio and television programming). These are therefore productions that were once publicly broadcast and copies of the programs are now held at the archives. Why wouldn’t they be suitable? Is it because we simply refer to them? Is it mandatory that I view and listen to the programs to report what Sam actually said?

The remaining reference taken from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid is a statement that Sam translated a book from Inuttitut to English. The reference is not a published document, but the book that Sam translated is. If this reference is not suitable, I presume that we have to get a copy of the published book and see if Sam’s name is mentioned as being the translator. That would become the new reference. Is this correct?

SafariScribe also had an issue with the “notability” of Samuel Metcalfe. We can deal with this issue in a separate discussion, once we clarify the references.

Thank you in advance for your time and help. 

FranceRivet (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FranceRivet! The two issues are in fact the same, from Wikipedia's point of view - you are trying to use sources (which must be reliable, etc) in order to establish notability. Let's see if we can sort this out by breaking it down a bit.
Firstly, you have to decide the grounds that you are arguing he is notable under. Since he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). NPERSON has subcriteria, so it may be that you are saying he's notable via one of those. Those pages will also tell you what you need to provide in order to establish notability - for example, if you were saying he's a notable creative professional, you would be looking for evidence that he'd had a big exhibition, or started a new kind of art, or so on.
Once you've decided which that is - and please do mention it here, it'll help! - then you look at your sources to see if you have suitable sources. The thing that often trips people up is that any source you are using to establish notability must meet the triple criteria of WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable).
I'm not going to go through all your sources, but I would be happy to look at five or so of them if you want to point to some in particular that you think would count. I can already tell you that letters, ID cards, and government records in general won't establish notability. If some of the sources include for example newspaper articles about Metcalfe, or a chapter in a book about him, that sort of thing is likely to establish notability. Ideally you won't be using the letters etc at all, but you can use sources that don't meet the triple criteria for uncontroversial information (things like when and where he was born, family names, and so on). Remember though that your first goal is notability, so you should focus on sources that do meet WP:42 first and foremost.
I hope that helps, and please feel free to comment back with more questions and/or with sources you'd like me to look at. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:12, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Dturell

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if I can get further feedback and assistance on how the sources in this article can be improved. I have read through this resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and am unsure. Thank you! Dturell (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many claims in this draft is completely unsourced, which goes against a very important policy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:59, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Hello, the content I submitted has been waiting for review for several weeks. Could you please expedite the review process? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually already kind of getting far with reviewing as much as possible. Last month people were forced to wait for 3 months! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosebabysu: you just asked this yesterday. I've now reviewed your draft, and declined it. (This should not be interpreted as meaning that requests to expedite will result in immediate reviews. Consider this a one-off.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 30 October 2024 review of submission by 12.117.180.190

[edit]

Build 12.117.180.190 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify your question. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Mandir Palace

[edit]

Hi, I created a page but it got declined. I wanted to know the reasons so that I can know what else was required. Donchocolate (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donchocolate, the only drafts of yours I can see are about train lines and a blank sandbox. The blank sandbox page has been declined for being, well, a blank page. If you're asking about another draft, could you link it so we can see? StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:14, 30 October 2024 review of submission by RMPMLK

[edit]

I can Submit my article RMPMLK (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RMPMLK: you can not submit this draft anymore, since it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:42, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega

[edit]

Please help me! Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega: can you be a bit more specific, please?
Your draft is completely unreferenced. You need to tell us where this information is coming from.
Also, see original research.
Finally, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Soenkesiebrands

[edit]

Question to the review of an Articles for creation: Sina-drums (October 30) Hello. My draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sina-drums has been declined with the following problem: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Unfortunately I don't understand the reasoning because I have given over 30 sources that should be reliable. However, I have to say that this is my first page on English-language Wikipedia. I usually work on German sites. Since the German artist in this article has moved to London this year, I wanted to take a look at her English language entry after working on the German Wikipedia entry. But I couldn't find it, so I decided to write it myself. All external sources provided are the same as those rated as reliable by the German Wikipedia admin. The German article has been checked and approved by a German Wikipedia admin. Therefore, I am asking for help at this point so that someone can tell me which of the sources given are considered unreliable and, above all, why. I thank you in advance. Soenkesiebrands (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soenkesiebrands I fixed your post to properly link to your draft. Be aware that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here; it is up to those translating an article to ensure that the topic meets the notability requirements and other policies of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.
Do admins on the German Wikipedia routinely approve content? Any editor may do so here, not just admins.
I would suggest that you ask the reviewer directly on their user talk page what the specific concerns are(they may also see your post here). 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: user-generated sources (YouTube, Discogs, Facebook, etc.) are not considered reliable for most purposes. Your draft cites such sources 24 times by my count. Also, there is some unreferenced personal information, eg. which source gives this person's DOB? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1254296183"