Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:23, 1 January 2025

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
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

Top of page
Table of Contents
Today's posts
Bottom of page

December 26

06:11, 26 December 2024 review of submission by 117.254.37.23

117.254.37.23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:ATMECS Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft article has been rejected multiple times and I am trying to get it approved. I will submit one more edit. I request any experienced editors to help me refine this article so I can get it approved before Jan 1, 2025. Appreciate the community's help. 117.254.37.23 (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you're Ssaisushanth45, please log into your account whenever editing.

Secondly, bear in mind that as a paid user, you are not allowed to attempt publishing this yourself; you must go through the AfC review system (as you are now doing).

I cannot find any multiple rejections or even declines. One version was deleted from the main article space for being purely promotional. Another was moved into the draft space, where it has been declined ones. Or have you created this under other titles and/or other user accounts?

It isn't clear what support you require. Please ask specific questions, if you have any.

We do not get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. More generally, you will struggle to find anyone in the wider community to do that, on a subject in which few other editors have any interest. Besides, you are being paid to create this, not us (we're all volunteers), so why would anyone else do your job for you?

As for your Jan 1 deadline (whether self- or externally imposed), that isn't a consideration for us. Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.

Finally, you yourself should read, and more to the point show to you boss, this: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DoubleGrazing. I had published the article and was put into Speedy Deletion mode. After a couple of back and forths, one of the reviewers had moved the article to draft space. There are no other versions. Not sure how you interpret "I request any experienced editors to help me refine this article so I can get it approved before Jan 1, 2025" for this

"We do not get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. More generally, you will struggle to find anyone in the wider community to do that, on a subject in which few other editors have any interest. Besides, you are being paid to create this, not us (we're all volunteers), so why would anyone else do your job for you?

As for your Jan 1 deadline (whether self- or externally imposed), that isn't a consideration for us."

Other reviewers were kind enough to point out areas in my article which violated certain rules - I was merely requesting more of the same once I submit my edited version for review and noting this is a priority for me.

Ssaisushanth45 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssaisushanth45: if all you're requesting is another review (after you resubmit your draft), then that is what you will get anyway; there is no need to request it in advance here at the help desk. When you get your review is another matter; we have over 1,800 pending drafts in the system, the oldest have been waiting for two months, and therefore we cannot promise this will happen before your deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 26 December 2024 review of submission by Ramakrishnan.babug

Ramakrishnan.babug (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Babu Ramakrishnan.G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I know the reason for rejecting my article?

Ramakrishnan.babug (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramakrishnan.babug Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 26 December 2024 review of submission by Shaurya4455

Shaurya4455 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Shaurya 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

regarding to uploading a new page or Article i want upload my self article on Wikipedia how can i upload it Shaurya4455 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected there is zero evidence that you pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaurya4455 (ec) I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. The short answer to your question is, you don't. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 26 December 2024 review of submission by CorosanD

CorosanD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Michail Boiadjiev (Михаил Бояджиев) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would you tell me what is missing or not done right in the latest draft of the article, so to be sure it would be accepted next time when submitted ? Thank you. CorosanD (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CorosanD: That's the purpose of the review – submit the draft if you think it is ready, and the reviewer will evaluate whether anything is missing. --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CorosanD. I'm afraid that what is not done right is exactly what most people do when they try the challenging task of creating a Wikipedia article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Specifically: large parts of your draft are unreferenced, which suggests that you wrote the draft BACKWARDS, starting with what you know, rather than starting with what your sources said. Wikipedia isn't intersted in what you know (or what I know): it is only interested in what reliable published sources say.

Furthermore, not many of your sources meet the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of Boladjiev - see WP:42.

Next, external references are almost never permitted within the text of an article, and should be removed. I see that one of them is in fact to an article in another Wikipedia (bg-wiki). You can wikilink to that using the template {{ill}}: so {{ill|Union of Bulgarian Composers|bg|Съюз на Българските Композитори}} is displayed as Union of Bulgarian Composers [bg] - a redlink because there is no such article in the English Wikipedia, but with the blue "[bg]" link to the Bulgarian article. If ever somebody write the English article, the template will automatically link to it.

The last point is that I believe that all the images you have uploaded are copyright violations, and I have nominated most of them for deletion. (I have left the poster, because I think it is probably below the COM:Threshold of originality, and so is in the public domain).

You have claimed that all these images are your own work, which I very much doubt, and you have purported to grant a licence on them: unless you actually do hold the copyright on these images, you do not have the legal power to do so. Please see image use policy. However, the presence or absence of images does not affect whether a draft is accepted, so I suggest you remove the images, and worry about getting properly licensed copies later on. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has had a helpful discussion in the IRC Live Chat where we've gone over the copyright issues and source issues. Thanks for your excellent advice too, @ColinFine qcne (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

03:24, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Fuzzpumpkin

Fuzzpumpkin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Office Hours Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm asking for any advice on how to get this article approved.

Today, I cited every paragraph and attempted to strip it of all subjective, opinionated language. I really hope I can get this done! Thank you. Fuzzpumpkin (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzzpumpkin Instead of reviewing it formally I have left you a comment which I hope you will find useful. The comment shows what would prejudice acceptance. I have not checked beyond that comment. When you are happy, please resubmit for review 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Al Gattany

Al Gattany (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Mohammad Hossain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reject my article reason copyright license: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n3LSZFQHZoNZPJJVyJ-F5kmHApr5wLyM/view?usp=drivesdk Al Gattany (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Gattany: I'm not sure what you're asking, but the source from where the content was copied clearly claims copyright. All the document in your Google Drive folder says is who owns the domain name, which has nothing to do with this matter. (And for future reference, please don't link to cloud drive content, many users are rightly concerned about clicking on such links.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Al Gattany (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gattany, your draft completely fails to make the case that Mohammad Hossain is a Notable person deserving of a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Itsfaizanfaizi

Itsfaizanfaizi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Hafeez Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please assist me with how I can make edits to my article. I didn't understand where I was making mistakes and how to avoid them. I'll be grateful as a newbie. So, please mentor me while editing. Itsfaizanfaizi (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsfaizanfaizi Please look at not only my recent second decline, but the body of the article, where I have left a ,multitude of tags designed to help you. Then come back here and ask further questions in this thread explaining what extra information you would like 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the peacock prose by removing or rephrasing exaggerated terms and subjective descriptions. And also add citations for indepth and reliable resources. Itsfaizanfaizi (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsfaizanfaizi I have not looked to check, nor will I. I trust what you have said; thank you. If you are confident that this is likely to be accepted then please resubmit for review. If you lack that confidence, then do additional work before resubmissiom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately another reviewer found that the work done was not sufficient and rejected it, still as a blatant advert. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 27 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:4453:7FF:6500:F461:BEF6:7CEC:5689

2001:4453:7FF:6500:F461:BEF6:7CEC:5689 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Julian Alturas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone help me to edit his biography enable for it to be accepted. 2001:4453:7FF:6500:F461:BEF6:7CEC:5689 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't provide co-editing services here; it's up to you to show that this person is notable. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Kolorguide

Kolorguide (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Dyne Test Pens in Quality Control: Ensuring Surface Tension Accuracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to publish something about quality control and specifically about dyne test pens, on the page it shows me the following title: "Dyne Test Pens in Quality Control: Ensuring Surface Tension Accuracy" Please check draft title. No such draft exists Kolorguide (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name in your sandbox unimportant; the reviewer, if accepted, would give it the appropriate title. The larger problem is that this reads like a largely unsourced essay, and it's very far away from being a Wikipedia-appropriate article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Movied Freak

Movied Freak (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:Movied Freak/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what should i have to add ? Movied Freak (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movied Freak YouTube and IMDB are unacceptable sources as they are user-generated. YouTube videos produced by a reputable news outlet or similar may be acceptable if on a verified channel. The film is also unreleased, meaning it does not yet merit an article(see notability of future films) unless you can show that there was something unusual about the production of the film(beyond casting announcements, release of trailers, etc.) 331dot (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 27 December 2024 review of submission by Abu muttalib

Abu muttalib (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Deepali Sahay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The aproval to draft of my article is declined. Wanted and instructed to post here to know. Abu muttalib (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abu muttalib is posting a request here all that you understood from the detailed decline rationale? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu muttalib Please see the message by the reviewer as to why it was declined and what you can do about it.

I see that you took an image of this person, what is your connection to her? 331dot (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got it. I resubmitted with one more additional independent verifiable source.

As such, no direct connection, except that I was viewer of the said shows and she is from my place. I am a admirer of her singing and wanted a page on Wikipedia for her similar to the Wikipedia page of her husband, which has even a Wikipedia page for both of their common friends Meiyang Chang. The image is clipped and cropped from one of her YouTube videos. Let me share the link. Abu muttalib (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abu muttalib Please do not clip images from anywhere unless their licencing is suitable and allows onward use. File:Deepali Sahay.jpg is being dealt with on Wikimedia Commons and will be deleted unless you follow the process at c:COM:VRT to show that you have permission and/or that the licence at the Youtube video allowed you to upload it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abu muttalib Further; Words/phases such as famous, prestigious, ventured into tend to be words of praise, and reduce your draft to advertorial. Please look at your phraseology carefully. We require flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose asserting facts and verifying them with citations. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Let me rephrase the whole article. Abu muttalib (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Draft talk:Deepali Sahay you say that there is already an article about her at Deepali Kishore. There cannot be two articles about the same person, so you should not resubmit the draft. (It was disruptive to resubmit it without any changes after the previous decline.) The existing article is in very bad shape – it was created long before the draft process existed, so it has never been reviewed or "accepted", but it can be edited and improved. However, unless there are indeed sources showing that she is notable, that article will be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It can be removed. I have the concerned person to send her image so that there is no licensing issue. Abu muttalib (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu muttalib Note that she might not hold the copyright to images of her; typically it belongs with the photographer. As I said images are not relevant to getting your draft approved, I would suggest focusing on that first, before worrying about images. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 27 December 2024 review of submission by 2600:1702:2F70:C990:B1B1:D8DA:C8EE:6746

2600:1702:2F70:C990:B1B1:D8DA:C8EE:6746 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Allen A. Dennard Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your feedback on why my article was not accepted and for giving me the guidelines that I need to follow in order to improve my chances of getting the article approved. I need to know how much time I have to re-edit the article and resubmit. Thanks. Sincerely, --Elreta Dodds. 2600:1702:2F70:C990:B1B1:D8DA:C8EE:6746 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have up to six months to do so. Each edit you make resets that clock. Thus there is absolutely no effective deadline. Happy editing. You may also continue to edit after submission. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is no deadline as long as you are actively working on the draft. If it is inactive for six months, it will be deleted, but even then it can be restored via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

01:34, 28 December 2024 review of submission by 103.238.130.133

103.238.130.133 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Jan D. Corvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I ask why the article was rejected based on notability and how can it be improved for successful resubmission ? 103.238.130.133 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that improvement is not possible at this time; no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. It seems like you have no independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of this person, just descriptions of their activities. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:50, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Fuzzpumpkin

Fuzzpumpkin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Office Hours Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've been having trouble getting my article draft approved to be a "real" article. I'm open to all advice. Fuzzpumpkin (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzpumpkin You need to include the "Draft:" portion when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you above. Please see the messages left by the reviewers; the most recent one asks you to improve the tone of the article, and the reviewer left you specific advice on your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no need to open a further thread on this matter, Fuzzpumpkin, Continuing the same thread is usual and helpful. But, since you have, Draft:Office Hours Live's referencing is much improved since my comment, for which I thank you.

When you are sure that you have handled the all reviewer's advice as well I suggest you resubmit for review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Itsfaizanfaizi

Itsfaizanfaizi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Hafeez Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my article has been rejected 2 times. I understand it was rejected due to concerns about advertising and notability. Could you provide specific feedback on the promotional aspects and what type of sources would demonstrate sufficient notability? I am eager to revise the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Itsfaizanfaizi (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsfaizanfaizi: slight correction, your draft was previously declined twice, and has now been rejected. Rejection means it won't be considered any further.

The relevant notability criterion is WP:NBUILD, which means that we require significant coverage in multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Johnsonbl9ck

Johnsonbl9ck (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Kamalı Zeybek (film, 1954) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reviewed End Johnsonbl9ck (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsonbl9ck it hasn't been reviewed yet, and don't add fake notices, thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a waste of everybody's time to submit a draft with no content and no sources. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a notable subject, and very little else. Please see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Durgaprasadpetla

Durgaprasadpetla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Kambala Srinivas Rao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a beginner on Wikipedia and need some help. I was trying to edit the Talk:Kambala Srinivas Rao page, but I encountered a message saying it was deleted under G8 (talk page of a deleted page). I would like to know: Is it possible to restore the talk page, and under what circumstances? How can I address content or discussions related to the deleted page appropriately? Are there specific steps I should follow to create or request the recreation of the article itself? Thank you for your guidance and support! Durgaprasadpetla (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durgaprasadpetla I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You may use the Article Wizard to create a draft. The deleted talk page only has a comment by you. The article was deleted under the A7 speedy deletion criterion(no asserted importance). You need to see your user talk page for important information requiring a response. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Hays Deutschland

Hays Deutschland (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Dominic V. Spinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I mixed up the references, which I copied from the German Wiki site I worked on. I cant clean the references. Easiest would be to delete all references an set them up new. How can I do that? Hays Deutschland (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hays Deutschland I've removed all the references. If that's not what you meant, please undo my edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Dreimouse in an nutshell

Dreimouse in an nutshell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Saxdor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have worked hard to make this article, but i got no way of getting the reference to show on the page😞 Dreimouse in an nutshell (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you disclose your connection with Saxdor? I have left 4 messages today on User talk:Dreimouse in an nutshell and you haven't responded to any of them. I have reviewed the 4 references that you have added to the bottom of the article but none of them even have working URLs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 28 December 2024 review of submission by Accounttree8

Accounttree8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Merrimack Valley Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have no idea why my article has been denied. The reason it was denied was "Reason as the Prod reason." I have no idea what this means. Please advise. I would like this article to be published ASAP, as there is no good reason for its denial. Accounttree8 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accounttree8 You claim that you created and own the copyright to the conference logo- and you seem to be on a deadline(we're not). What is your relationship with the conference?

SafariScribe could you elaborate? 331dot (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake, I'm not sure why it is listed that I created the logo. I did not create the logo, nor do I own the copyright. I am more than happy to fix that, but I'm not sure how to fix that. I am a former employee at the conference (I am since retired and now have some time to do things like this). I have been in communication with the conference and they would like to have a presence on this website, as most of our peer conferences do. I'm juts trying to help my former colleagues. I have been attempting to create this page for 9 months. It has been denied every time. I am not on a deadline, I am just frustrated with the countless denials (which is why I indicated ASAP). I am a Wikipedia novice and have tried to correct it many times, to no avail. I am just very frustrated with the process. 80-year old's aren't savvy with technology like this :) Accounttree8 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- you must immediately without delay go to Commons and either request deletion of the logo, or show where the logo has been released with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose, including commerical, with attribution). Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules, which does carry some restrictions(they cannot be in drafts) but does allow limited use in articles.

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted.

As you are acting on behalf of the organization, you have a conflict of interest.

The trouble you are having is that you have too many references and the ones that you do have don't show that the conference is a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. As for other conferences- their articles could be inappropriate as well and we just haven't gotten around to addressing them yet. I know this is a lot of information, but these are all important things. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia for people of any age- we usually recommend that experience be gained first by editing existing articles. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot You may not be aware that there is a logo complexity threshold at Commons. That threshold handles uncopyrightable items - text and simple geometric shapes. I believe that this logo qualifies as being below that threshold. However, advice from a Commons expert is really essential. I work there, but I am far short of being an expert.

Your advice to Accounttree8 seek immediate deletion has strong merit c:Commons:Help desk will provide them with all the assistance they require. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested deletion of the logo.

Respectfully, I disagree I have a conflict of interest. I have done this on my own volition and have not worked at the conference for 15 years. No one working for the conference had any input with this article.

Is it possible to give me an example of how to prove the conference is a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one? What would I need to do to show this? Appreciate any help you can provide. Accounttree8 (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accounttree8 You said "I have been in communication with the conference and they would like to have a presence on this website"; does that not mean you're their representative?

To show notability, you need independent reliable sources that discuss the conference organization itself- not necessarily its member teams. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Accounttree8 The file is held at c:File:Merrimack Valley Conference Logo.jpg, and you will need to edit the relevant section fo the page holding it. You have both claimed to be the author, and released it under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Neither of these is correct.

You say "I apologize for the mistake, I'm not sure why it is listed that I created the logo." but you were required to fill that information put when you uploaded the file. Thus it is listed that way because you listed it that way. You need to rectify that at once, please 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Accounttree8. Unfortunately it appears that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. If you are trying to write an article in pursuit of "presence on this website", then you are involved in promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Any benefit (or detriment) which a subject may accrue by being the subject of a Wikipedia article is of no interest to Wikipedia. An article on your Conference should be a summary of what sources wholly unconnected with your Conference have chosen to publish in reliable places: what the Conference or its associates say or want to say is irrelevant. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why nobody donates to Wokipedia! :) Accounttree8 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Accounttree8 Oh dear. That was rather rude. When given good advice it behoves you to say a pleasant word of thanks. Do, please, pull your horns in. If the MVC is notable then all you need to do is to show that it is. Declaring a WP:COI shows a commitment to transparency. It suggests that you have done everything to be an editor in good standing. Arguing against it suggests The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Thank you for nominating the logo for deletion on Commons. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, @Accounttree8. Let me give my personal view: if ever Wikipedia changed its policies so that it ceased to be one of the few places on the internet blessedly free from people promoting themselves and their activities, I would certainly stop contributing my money, and probably, albeit reluctanty, also stop contributing my time. ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Accounttree8: Please read and attend to the comments from the reviewers. The draft suffers from extreme CITEKILL, as explained in some detail by a couple of your fellow editors who declined the draft at different times. --bonadea contributions talk 22:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is remotely bothered whether you donate or not, it is irrelevant. Theroadislong (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

07:03, 29 December 2024 review of submission by RasaPetrauskaite

RasaPetrauskaite (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Measure J (Sonoma County, 2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Every time I try to make an edit and publish the edit, I get an error message that says that content provided was not properly deflated. This might have happened because I tried to paste a table from a website. But now I cannot undo it and the error message always shows up and prevents me from making any changes. I would like to edit this draft of an article. Could you please suggest how I can move forward with that and resolve the error message? RasaPetrauskaite (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RasaPetrauskaite: I've just made a minor edit to this draft without any problems. Perhaps the issue is local to your browser – try restarting, and maybe clearing your cache if that doesn't help? If the issue persists, you are more likely to get competent advice at WP:VPT where folks who know technical stuff hang out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 29 December 2024 review of submission by The27thAlphabet

The27thAlphabet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Ashwani Gupta (business executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can i please request help to evaluate this draft. I have added the notable sources and links. but do help in making this better for submission. The27thAlphabet (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The27thAlphabet: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You will get an evaluation when you resubmit the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've only linked to basic profiles and daily business news, that do nothing to confirm anything other than Gupta having those specific jobs. Notability requires a good deal more than this. You need to be looking for independent, reliable sources that are about Gupta. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Gidan Fasaha

Gidan Fasaha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Aliyu Saidu Jauro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hy, Please Can You Assist Me Check The Errors On This New Page That I am Adding? It Got Rejected. Gidan Fasaha (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gidan, this was rejected as not a single source was provided to indicate that the subject was notable. While there are nine references, not a single one of them ever mentions Jauro as far as I can tell, let alone confirming any fact asserted in the biography. Just as an example, look at the first paragraph after the lede. Neither Jauro's parents names, the ethnic group they belong to, where they are from, or his father's occupation, have any sourcing whatsoever. The only source provided goes simply to provide more information about the Yandang not the subject of the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gidan Fasaha. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have published about the subject, and very little else. If you do not have any reliable independent sources, there is literally nothing which you can put into an article. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Manikingr

Manikingr (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Alef (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings and respect This article, which is about an Iranian artificial intelligence startup called Alef, has been completely edited and is written in an unbiased language without any advertisements for anyone's benefit.The sources of this article are written from official and completely independent media in Iran. But unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors have monopolized the creation of articles and do not allow the creation of new articles and the improvement of Wikipedia. Manikingr (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

This process is usually voluntary. If you wish to disregard what you are being told by more experienced people, you can move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, but you risk it being nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Jasminmusicz

Jasminmusicz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Jasmin (Zara) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

im a biggner so kindly assist me what is my msitake and how to fix it Jasminmusicz (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Your draft has no sources that show you are a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasminmusicz, your highly promotional draft biography of a 13 year old child is completely unreferenced and in violation of multiple Policies and guidelines. Most significantly, it violates Verifiability and the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasminmusicz: I would seriously reconsider whether the price of a Wikipedia article (i.e. permanent loss of your privacy) is worth it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 29 December 2024 review of submission by JIMMY OFUOYAn14

JIMMY OFUOYAn14 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:JIMMY OFUOYAn14/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please what can i do to make my submission to be accepted JIMMY OFUOYAn14 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do. Please stop creating new accounts to publish your AI generated autobiography. --bonadea contributions talk 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, previously blocked accounts include JIMMY OFUOYAN10 (talk · contribs) and Jimmy ofuo (talk · contribs). --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Sam241224

Sam241224 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:Sam241224/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi everyone, I recently submitted a wiki page for review and it got rejected for overly cheese language or unreliable sources, something like that. Things gone too wrong and the page was declined. I need help with improving it if possible. Please guide me as I am new here and if its a dead end, that's also ok. just let me know. thanks. Sam241224 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer noted, at one point schools were inherently notable, but that is no longer the case. Schools must meet WP:ORG just as any other organization. You should not be describing the school and its offerings, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school. If you have no such sources, then the school does not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @331dot for your swift and detailed reply,

Now I got it, Its not what we want to say, but what reliable and Independent sources said that we need to rewrite / convey. Correct me if I am wrong. Can you please check the references and tell me if they qualify?

thanks for helping me understand whole process Sam241224 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The activities of the school do nof confer notability; there needs to be sources with significant coverage of the school and what makes it important/significant/influential as a school. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "Scientia emphasizes a balanced approach to learning, integrating technology and modern teaching methods to prepare students for the challenges of a dynamic world. Known for its commitment to community engagement, the school actively participates in initiatives promoting environmental sustainability and social welfare, fostering holistic development in its students." is just blatant advertising and would never be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, understood. thank you for checking the contents and pointing out. @Theroadislong Sam241224 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. So, how can I start a new page about something else. Lets leave this page here. I want to contribute but I don't think the language I use is right, I need to improve on that before I start working on anything else.

thanks @331dot Sam241224 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can create additional sandboxes(User:Sam241224/sandbox 2) or you can use the Article Wizard. Please know that creating new articles is not the best or only way you can contribute. We have millions of articles that need help, and editing those will help you gain experience before you attempt the difficult task of creating a new article. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to contribute to some other articles, maybe something with structure or easy tweaks before going after a big task as you suggested. I am not sure about the language I need to use in wiki content, It will take time for me to get things, but I have started to get the grip on things like my profile, sandbox and talk page, user page and such things. But, its a long journey, from front Wikipedia looks so simple, but from inside so many things are going on. Amazing.

thanks for putting in your valuable time :) Sam241224 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam241224 my genuine advice to new editors is to start out improving existing articles, because writing a new article from scratch is really hard! Like trying to perform in an orchestra when you've only just picked up an instrument. Your Wikipedia Homepage will have some suggested edits you can make at various levels of difficulty. qcne (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne, thanks for your suggestion. I will try to find something beginner friendly on my homepage. Any suggestion on matching my tone with Wikipedia standards? Sam241224 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Practice, really. You should only be paraphrasing or summarising what reliable sources say, and make sure when you do you write in a dry style. This could also be useful: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch qcne (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but what is 'dry style'?

thanks for the link :) Sam241224 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to really give examples, its something that you pick up once you've done enough editing. The tone should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. Pretend you're writing an autopsy. Wikipedia only ever describes, never leads the reader or engages them. qcne (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, now I got it. Things are becoming clear now. Difficult for me but will try, thank you. Sam241224 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

01:54, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Jogershok

Jogershok (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Kathleen Ann Shea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this not meet the goals and expectations of this WikiProject?

She is listed in the Charlie Project as well: https://charleyproject.org/case/kathleen-ann-shea Jogershok (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogershok: there is insufficient evidence that the subject is notable. Also, the Charley Project is a primary source, and as such contributes nothing towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Sivans1734

Sivans1734 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Felicia Grossman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined for not citing reliable sources but the only spot in which I didn't cite sources was the Early and personal life section which I have all the information from the subject herself and it is not anywhere on the internet. Sivans1734 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivans1734 but not one of those sources are reliable or independent meaning they are not of any value on showing us how they are notable enough to meet the standard of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sivans1734. In addition to what McMatter said, please note that all information in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from a pubished source. Unpublished information, no matter who it is from, may never be included in an article. A further point is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Toothpickdog

Toothpickdog (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Havelock Mussel And Seafood Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This festival is happening in March, and about now is the time when people are likely to be googling and buying tickets. I'm hoping some will find their way to this article and be able to expand it - particularly to add missing headline acts from past years. Almost two months ago my draft submission was declined as I had only a few poorly sourced references. I've added a lot since then, but they're not great quality - there just aren't many references available on the internet that I can find. Thanks for your help in getting this article online! Don. Toothpickdog (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toothpickdog: do you have a question about your draft, or the review process?

Please note that sources don't have to be online; offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the requirements in terms of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Thanks for your response. I guess I don't really have a question, other than to say, "What do I need to do to get this online?" If it's just a matter of being patient, that's OK; but if the draft is going to need additional review cycles, then I fear we'll have missed the peak 2025 interest period.

Thanks too for the tip about offline sources. As chance would have it, some old Havelock community paper documents were unearthed today, so I now feel more confident about using them here. Toothpickdog (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 30 December 2024 review of submission by EclipseExpress

EclipseExpress (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Katy Perry Collections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you add more to this page? EclipseExpress (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EclipseExpress: if you're asking someone here at the help desk (and/or at the Teahouse) to co-edit the draft with you, then the answer is no, that's not something we get involved in. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Jadan? Moreno

Jadan? Moreno (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:Jadan? Moreno/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why I can't publish this page. Jadan? Moreno (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadan? Moreno: because it has been rejected (twice), for the reasons given in the notices and comments. TL;DNR = we don't publish promotional autobiographies with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Cian Nollaig

Cian Nollaig (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:I Love Limerick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I hope all is well. I am finding the feedback unclear for the article's sources being declined. When I compare the sources used to similar pages based in the region; my article uses third-person citations whereas the other pages cite articles from either their own websites or websites their companies own. Cian Nollaig (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Nollaig Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are numerous ways inappropriate content can get past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. It is possible for inappropriate content to exist, even for years, we can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, you can identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still has some unsourced sections. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Dcbeatz

Dcbeatz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:HiiKER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is very interesting. Since this rejection, I spoke to the company. They said they have been bombarded with requests for them to pay more than 1000 dollars to get a wikipedia article published. This is 100% part of a corrupt system in wikipedia! Dcbeatz (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dcbeatz, that is an unfortunate ongoing scam by scammers who are not affiliated with Wikipedia. Please carefully read (and show the company) Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a scam that Wikipedia has nothing to do with. Scammers monitor this and other pages to then contact the subjects of drafts. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcbeatz: it's also interesting that you're on speaking terms with the company behind this app. This very much suggests a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed; I will post instructions on your talk page.

If you speak with them again, warn them against paying any money to anyone. Not only is this almost certain to be a scam, as already pointed out, the company is also unlikely to get anything for their money. Even if these folks are bona fide editors who know what they're doing, there is nothing anyone can do to guarantee that an article will be published, or more to the point, that it will remain so. And there's every chance they are very far from bona fide. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 30 December 2024 review of submission by 43.225.193.153

43.225.193.153 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Md Tauseef Alam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to add more references when it is not available in Web, although I can find is just few social media profiles along research paper publications 43.225.193.153 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Sources do not need to be online, see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to write references. Social media profiles do not establish that the person is notable; an article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Microesoft1212

Microesoft1212 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Chellikere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, while writing the article for this locality, I've come to the conclusion that it's hard to find sources that directly mention the locality with respect to another thing. For example, articles rarely mention the nearest metro station, it is something you'd find on google maps. Therefore, citing for statements like these has become a challenge. Therefore, in order to still have a citation, I've cited articles that vaguely have the information that I'm looking for. In order to get the article published, would it be prefferable if I just deleted the points for which getting a citation is very hard, thereby reducing the size of the article or should I continue with my vague citations. Thank you Microesoft1212 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Microesoft1212: everything in the draft must come directly from reliable published sources. If you are writing what you know about the subject, and then struggling to find sources to support what you've written, you're going about it WP:BACKWARD. Also, you're probably engaging in either original research or synthesis, which is not allowed. Please stick to only that information which can be clearly backed up by sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 30 December 2024 review of submission by UtpalSarmaAssam

UtpalSarmaAssam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:UtpalSarmaAssam/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason for not publishing UtpalSarmaAssam (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability. qcne (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UtpalSarmaAssam, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, in violation of policies Verifiability and Biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Drtasadukitoo

Drtasadukitoo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:Drtasadukitoo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to create new article Drtasadukitoo (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drtasadukitoo Your first attempt is all about you, but you fail WP:BIO, and have written an advert for yourself. You have confused Wikipedia with a website that is interested in your life and achievements. Please use a résumé site like LinkedIn, and note WP:NOTLINKEDIN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 30 December 2024 review of submission by SabrinaKJones

SabrinaKJones (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:RemoFirst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created an article and received feedback to make it more useful and make sure everything features citations. I updated it on 12/24/24 but have not had any response since then if the article is OK now, or if it requires more edits. It is not published yet. SabrinaKJones (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; for feedback, please submit it again. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Moulyags

Moulyags (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Kannada News Today (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've noticed that some live pages on Wikipedia seem to lack sufficient sources or detailed references, yet they remain active. This has caused some confusion about the criteria for article approval. While I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines, I would appreciate clarification on how these standards are consistently applied. It would also help to know if my draft for Kannada News Today meets the requirements or needs further improvement. Moulyags (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moulyags This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. As such, inappropriate articles can and do get by us, for many reasons(one big reason is that this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed). We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. See Other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relationship with Kannada news, as required by policy(see WP:COI and WP:PAID) as you claim to have personally created its logo. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

00:16, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Blitzite2

Blitzite2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Class of '09 (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's hard to get in-depth sources when it hasn't been professionally reviewed a lot. The game has received a lot of critical acclaim, with $1M of revenue approximately. Blitzite2 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It likely doesn't merit an article, then- reviews are usually how games/films/books etc, merit articles. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Blitzite2. Revenue is irrelevant. Critical acclaim is relevant - provided it is published in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently a fellow editor(@User:Buckshot06) already helped me publish my draft as Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps). May I ask what will happen to the draft? P.S. I turned 7th Marine Brigade into a redirect to Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts get deleted automatically if they are not edited in six months.

If you are the only editor who has worked on a draft, you can request its deletion by pasting {{db-author}} at the top; but other editors have worked on Draft:7th Marine Brigade, so that option is not available in this case. You can request its deletion at WP:MFD, but it's probably not worth it for a draft. I do suggest you withdraw it from review though, so as not to take up a reviewer's time. You can simply remove th most recent e {{afc submission}} template from the top. ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the draft was technically never reviewed? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: this draft was reviewed, and declined, once, on Nov 29; but not reviewed again since your resubmission a few days later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it was never re-reviewed

Doesn't really matter because in the end it was published anyways but yeah Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was awaiting new review. We currently have c 1,800 pending drafts in the system, with wait times up to 8 weeks or so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok understood

Removed the review banner and added a comment saying that it is already published Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Mohan1357

Mohan1357 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Mohan Kumar (academic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please kindly assist in working on my article for publication on wikipedia page Mohan1357 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan1357 Hello, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please see the message left by the reviewer as to what needs to be done; we're not here to be co-editors, just to give advice. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Brown Balloons

Brown Balloons (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Bro MONROW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft page has been rejected by one of the editors. I already provided factual information and reliable sources. Brown Balloons (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems that this person is not notable as Wikipedia defines a notable person. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Lwanga

Lorenzo Lwanga (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- User:Lorenzo Lwanga/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I could use a live walk-through on how to edit a few things. Am having trouble with my first article. Lorenzo Lwanga (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Nandy Movies

Nandy Movies (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Bhaggyolokkhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made edits to my article, provided sources, and references, my article has not yet been accepted. I don't understand why . I request clarification please help me. Nandy Movies (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandy Movies: presumably we're talking about

Courtesy link: Draft:Bhaggyolokkhi? It hasn't been accepted, because it is very poorly referenced, and therefore provides no evidence that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Unreleased films hardly ever are notable, so you should probably wait until the film has come out and received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandy Movies As an unreleased film, it is likely too soon for there to be an article about it. Press releases do not contribute to our notability criteria for films. Wait for some in-depth coverage from reliable film critics before re-submitting. qcne (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Judging by your username, you have a conflict of interest in this subject. That needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Candus76

Candus76 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Thanjavur K. Ponnaiya Pillai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm translating a wikipedia page (https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/தஞ்சை_க._பொன்னையா_பிள்ளை) and I have added the same sources added there, but my request to turn it into an article is denied because I need more references (which I don't have). What do I do? Candus76 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Candus76. Each language Wikipedia project is different, with different policies and guidelines. The English Wikipedia has the strictest reference requirements out of all the various language projects.

If those sources do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and there are no other sources to be found (remember, you can use offline sources as long as they are published and you provide a full citation) then I am afraid the topic does not merit an article on the English Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, thank you for clearing that up so fast! I'll try searching for more sources :) Candus76 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck - as long as the sources are published and accessible to a reader (even via an offline library or archive) then it is okay to use. qcne (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Artennina

Artennina (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Roeland Hendrikx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me detailed what I should do? I ám a decent person who has the best intentions with this article and I only wat the best for it! Only the sometimes written comments (as English is not my mother language) are not easy to understand. Please give us another moment. Artennina (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not fixed the issues identified by reviewers, including not disclosing your conflict of interest. Your references do not establish that this person meets our definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Lightningbox14

Lightningbox14 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Cough Code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why was it rejected was it too short Lightningbox14 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningbox14: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 31 December 2024 review of submission by DesertMouse26

DesertMouse26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Shokz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - this article was submitted for review and it wasn't accepted. The listed reason was that "the draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I see that there's an existing page on the same subject in Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shokz). Does that serve as proof that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? DesertMouse26 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because different Wikipedias have different policies. What matters is if our policies are met. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec

Henrilebec (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Gerald L. Burke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Notability question It's not clear why scientific notability is different from say "celebrity" notability. My submission for medical technologies includes independent cites in scientific journals, but the Wikipedia article reviewer says this is insufficient to establish "notability". It's not clear why cites in scientific journals are insufficient to establish notability. It seems to me that such cites, sufficient in scientific journals, are not sufficient for Wikipedia. Henrilebec (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec I don’t think the issue here is whether the journals are reliable so much as independent as they are written by the subject. The standard for a person such as this is WP:NACADEMIC. Things like citation index and special awards or academic positions are used to indicated notability, otherwise we need to see articles about him not from him to establish notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a link to your draft in the header as intended. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what's not clear. The articles cited are not by Burke, they are about Burke's scientific research projects. The work of Burke and his team were vetted and published by independent scientific journals (Harvard Medical School. Journal of Neurosurgery, Canadian Medical Journal, Departments of Pathology and Surgery,Harvard Medical School,and the Neurosurgical Service of The Children's Medical Center,Boston,Massachusettsetc). If Burke's name appears in the article, it is simply because he was the team leader responsible for assembling and recording the enormous amount of work of the various research teams. Otherwise, modern scientists are unable to understand where these discoveries were made. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Wikipedia reviewers are not familiar with older scientific journals that were responsible for vetting (and validating) this type of pioneering medical research. This, for example, was the first known instance of an engineering institution (Cal-Tech) engaging in innovative medical research. Can you provide some clarity for us? Henrilebec (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec Ref 3 and 4 list Burke as an author, so valid to use as a supporting material for information but have no value in establishing notability. The age of the journals make no difference in how we assess, that being said many reviewers are not familiar with the specific WP:NACADEMIC as it is a more complex and dynamic policy then the more generally applied WP:GNG. So I am assuming you think they meet criteria 1 of the academic criteria, which may be the case, but I am also not comfortable in this standard enough to assess what a significant contribution to their field would be and how to prove it without cite bombing the article. In my attempts to look up a number of citations of his work I've been unable to get a feeling for this and it could be due to the age of the work in question. I will ping @WhatamIdoing here, as they are more familiar with this subject and maybe can provide more insight then I can. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For NACADEMIC questions, I always defer to David Eppstein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to avoid debating the notability of medical academics because I do not really understand the citation patterns in those fields. I think User:JoelleJay may be a better choice for those fields, although she typically takes a harder line than I would. That said, Google Scholar was not promising; I only found one well cited publication, "The corrosion of metals in tissues; and an introduction to tantalum", not enough for WP:PROF#C1 even accounting for the likelihood that papers from that time period are less likely to be well cited today. The draft does not supply any evidence for notability other than through #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 31 December 2024 review of submission by 188.229.34.79

188.229.34.79 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Kılıbıklar ve Kıvırcık ve Korkusuz Kamber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New 188.229.34.79 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft that is only an infobox won't be accepted due to lack of content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

02:54, 1 January 2025 review of submission by WhoIsBean

WhoIsBean (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
- Draft:Dandy's World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to start writing a Wikipedia Article on a popular Roblox game. I found the draft and it has been declined 2 months ago, what do I do? WhoIsBean (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsBean: "Popular Roblox game" isn't enough to warrant an article. What we would need to see is multiple third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly discuss the game (and not Roblox in general). If such sources don't exist - and I wager they're very unlikely to - we can't even discuss the merits of an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhoIsBean (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reliable source made by the creators itself, it's only issue is that the information is inside the game and not on a site. WhoIsBean (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]