Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

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.

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

December 17

01:14, 17 December 2024 review of submission by CloudyYT

• CloudyYT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • How to Stop Bleeding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my page rejected? CloudyYT (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:How to Stop Bleeding

@CloudyYT, this isn't Wikihow; we only have encyclopedic articles about notable topics, not life hacks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! CloudyYT (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

02:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C

• 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nintendo Switch 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

help me cite scorces please 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

besides this has so many rumours this must be real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not have articles about unsubstantiated rumors with no sources about something that may or may not exist yet. Until there are reliable sources that can verify the existence of such a product, or even the announcement of such a product, there will be no article about it because it is WP:TOOSOON for such an article to be written. cyberdog958^Talk 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There are scorces to cite alredy, and Draft:PlayStation 6 has scorces 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I made it much better.2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources, now's the time. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

for what? 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I said, for what?2603:8001:6940:2100:6985:378D:533D:4982 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources, tell us what they are. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not operatge off rumours, predictions, and innuendo. We need sources explicitly discussing the Switch's successor in concrete terms, whatever name it may be released under. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

but it looks perfectly fine. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BB1F:907C:7F61:CA21 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you think so means that you don't yet understand Wikipedia policies. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Your only "good" source is the Polygon article, and even then that's almost entirely speculative in nature and thus useless as a source. It doesn't "look perfectly fine"; it looks like you're throwing darts at a picture on the wall while blindfolded and standing on a rotating turntable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

well part of that polygon article connects to the "anouncced items" section of the draft making the citation kinda useful. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BC77:1C6D:706B:1BF9 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if you have a functional crystal ball. Mine only shows "THIS SOURCE SUCKS, BEAVIS". As I said, the Polygon source is the only one approaching acceptable (one source by itself cannot support an article regardless of its quality) and most of it is literally just speculating on the Switch's successor, which makes it practically worthless as a source as a result. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I already have scorces at the intro and the annouced items section. 2603:8001:6940:2100:E421:4051:5D3D:3A8A (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

03:11, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Belk3377

• Belk3377 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Khaled Nabhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my article not accepted?

I have a master's degree in journalism from one of the best schools in the US and I've worked for many years as a researcher and archivist. I see every valid reason as to why Khaled should have a wikipedia page. I'm not a bot or a troll, just because my account is recent shouldn't discount me from making this page. This is also an extremely newsworthy time to make this page on the day of his passing and it can't afford to wait 30 days. Belk3377 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Belk3377, this is not a news site. Your credentials hold no sway over the policies of the encyclopedia. There is no deadline if they are notable today then they will be notable tomorrow or they truly weren't notable. Now with all that being said these contentious subjects have these protections for a reason and for someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and such we have found to easier to maintain these protections. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Belk3377: Given the extreme disruption in re the Arab-Israeli conflict that has warranted extremely draconian measures on top of a contentious topic designation in an effort to kerb it, I would strongly advise you to take ColinFine's advice below and work on areas of the encyclopaedia that are as far away from the conflict as possible, so that you can actually learn how Wikipedia works instead of becoming yet another victim in a long-running partisan warzone on Wikipedia. Areas under contentious topic designations do not suffer fools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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. Even if you are an experienced journalist, writing for Wikipedia is very very different from journalism. It's also rather different from academic writing. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the header(it was backwards) and removed the url(not needed). 331dot (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

04:20, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 213.230.120.215

• 213.230.120.215 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mirzayev07/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to ask for advice for this page about myself. I want ot publish it mainly because of the universities I am applying to and for the future use. I'll always update my info in this page if I'd publish it. Thanks for consideration. Hope to hear from you about weaknesses of this page. 213.230.120.215 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia on notable topics. Until several reliable sources have written about you, you are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP user, assuming you are Mirzayev07, please read what I posted to your user page. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

04:41, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Summerfieldnotion

• Summerfieldnotion (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robin Almeida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

because I feel the person I am writing about has enough data on internet to be on wikipedia and I would like to request to approve it Summerfieldnotion (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Summerfieldnotion you had several chances to fix the issues and instesd you ignored the advice in the decline notices and continued to submit without improvement. If you read through the actual requirements and learn how to write an actual encyclopedia article with proper sources, you may be able to appeal to the reviewers to be allowed to resubmit. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless the sources are places where people who are wholly unconnected with Almeida have chosen to publish significant coverage of him in places with a reputation for a strong editorial policy, then no. See WP:notability and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

05:10, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295

• 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marius Webb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft is exactly that, a draft, a stub that is intended to be worked on.

My understanding was that remaining in Draft allowed an article to be worked on in this way, before any request for publication.

Your reviewer's comment "This seems to be a cut and paste mess of a press release or something." is just plain bullshit. Fine if you don't know who the person is bugt keep your ignorance to yourself.

This makes me think not only should I stop using Wikipedia, given the piss weak editorial standards your reviewer displays, but I should stop contributing financially, too.

Really, I had expected better of Wikipedia.

Tell me I'm wrong. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks aren't gonna help your case. When you submitted the draft, it signaled that you thought it was ready for review. A decline isn't final, and you can still continue working on it, this time without submitting it prematurely. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is your question – why a completely unreferenced, clearly unfinished draft was not accepted for publication? That's exactly why.

Whether you wish to continue using Wikipedia is entirely up to you. Whether you fund Wikimedia Foundation or not, ditto.

Keep the insults and foul language to yourself, though. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Rubbish. The reviewer's comment was unjustified, ignorant and insulting. And deliberately so. I've managed editors, writers and publishers over 40 years, and that response is unjustified. If they were my employee, I would sack them.

How is someone supposed to put an article in draft for further development without pushing the Publish button? I wasn't requesting publication as is, I was putting a draft article in polace for further work.

How am I supposed to do that?

As for the intemperate language, control ypour reviewers' insults and you won't cop it. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel bad for the editors you managed. "Publish" doesn't automatically submit the draft, you have to click a button to do that, and you did. The only person making insults is you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The draft wasn't reviewed because you "pushed the publish button", it was reviewed because you pushed the submit button. 'Submit', as in you submitted the draft for pre-publication review. If you don't want your drafts to be reviewed, don't submit them for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it's still as clear as mud. No wonder Wikipedia is begging for help. Good luck! 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether you donate to the Foundation or not is up to you- we editors don't see the money and have no way to confirm whether anyone has donated or not due to privacy. This is the time of year that the Foundation does a fundraising push, although their finances are stable at present.

This process is not for submitting stubs. Articles do not need to be complete to pass this process, but they do need to meet basic standards. If you want to create a stub(which does run the risk that deletion processes may be applied to it) you'll need to first create an account and then get autoconfirmed. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Submitting a draft without any references is completely unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Start with the sources, then when you've got them, forget all you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say. Any other approach is at best difficult, and likely a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

05:12, 17 December 2024 review of submission by David mullangi Ma

• David mullangi Ma (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:S F S High School,Agiripalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to get acceptance of the above article David mullangi Ma (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@David mullangi Ma the subject is not notable and has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @David mullangi Ma. I'm afraid that most high schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about them is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

14:39, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Joe John Michael

• Joe John Michael (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Template:AfC submission/rejected (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe John Michael (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joe John Michael: do you have a question in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes My Film Draft Page Thirteen Heroes film Good No Bad Done Joe John Michael (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joe John Michael: your draft is blank, apart from the infobox, and has no sources. It is pointless to keep submitting it, as it clearly isn't ready for publication.

Also, could you please stop posting the same stuff in pages where it doesn't belong. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

14:54, 17 December 2024 review of submission by RenewQuantum

• RenewQuantum (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mara Beller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I looked at the Wikipedia:Inline citation page again and removed anything that I could not source. Is this okay now or am I missing something? RenewQuantum (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed everything I could and I will resubmit. To the best of my knowledge, there are not any citations missing any more. RenewQuantum (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Another point on the rejection: "14:22, 17 December 2024 Avgeekamfot talk contribs 7,495 bytes +85 Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements (AFCH)"

This person has died over 20 years ago, this is not a BLP. RenewQuantum (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

15:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Tpinon76

• Tpinon76 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lawrence "Larry" Waks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've done my best to simplify the entry. Can someone please inform me of what part specifically is a red flag that I can correct? I've tried to make the entry as bland as possible to be sure it is factual and not appear aggrandizing. Thanks in advance for any help possible. Tpinon76 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Tpinon76 The COI notice you placed on the draft should go on your user page. What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

Large sections of the draft are unsourced(especially the personal section). The names of minor children(any children, really) should not be in the article unless the children merit articles themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

15:26, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

• MR Bang Jago (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ali Azhar D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, if I may know what should be changed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines? MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing, it has been rejected. This person is not notable. See the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

15:43, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC

• 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:William Knighton (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have twice had a draft Wikipedia article rejected because it is “not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article”. In my view, the text as it stands is fairly neutral - in any case, I can’t identify in what way the draft is not in the desired style.

How do I proceed? 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

15:49, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

• MR Bang Jago (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ali Azhar D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Excuse me, if I may know the references, why? In Indonesia, all references are accurate and all media are independent and fully supervised by the Press Council in the country of Indonesia, the quotes from every article that appears in this media have also been verified by the Press Council before being published to the public. MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@MR Bang Jago: this draft wasn't rejected for verifiability reasons, but notability. There isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in my opinion if it's about popularity I don't think it's necessary because his work has been nominated for film awards, and all of that has accurate evidence and through the Indonesian government as well, is my opinion not enough? MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@MR Bang Jago: it isn't about popularity, it's about notability, as defined in the Wikipedia context. You would need to show that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or one of the special (WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, etc.) notability guidelines. Your or my opinion doesn't even come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are right, but I quoted from GNG that if you are famous, you must have a lot of independent news coverage, while he often gets independent news coverage in Indonesia, and in Indonesia the media is also verified and actual by the Press Council, so how could the media I attached not be independent. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not the main issue, as has already been said. You haven't demonstrated notability. Please review the criteria DoubleGrazing informed you of and tell us which criteria they meet. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Number 3 of WP:NAUTHOR doesn't mention anything about award nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh that author I mentioned the movie, but after I checked earlier I found a more suitable one that is in WP NAuthor, namely the "Any Biography" section, I think it fulfills the category in number 1 that has received awards and nominations. and has contributed to the local government through his film. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think it has met the criteria of 'Any Biography' which is nominated for an award, especially since this is an award from the bilateral relations between the two countries Indo - Australia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@MR Bang Jago: the WP:FILMMAKER guideline does not explicitly mention awards as a criterion. In any case, the IWAFF awards do not appear to be notable enough to establish notability for their recipients, if that's what is being asserted here. And from the draft it seems that this person hasn't even won the award in question, they've only been nominated?

Fundamentally, someone who only started their filmmaking career this year, and who has only released one film, is highly unlikely to be notable, short of actually winning a Golden Globe or Oscar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm okay MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

and I ask for help, if for example the writing tone is still not appropriate, please correct it because I am confused about the formal writing tone in question, I have tried as much as possible to write in a formal language style, I ask the management to tidy up the writing style, thank you for your attention. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

being nominated for a non notable award doesn't make them notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hell, even being nominated for a notable award doesn't grant notability in and of itself. If there were a critical mass of nominations for one's whole body of work, sure, but one nomination isn't enough to judge notability regardless of the prestige of the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

18:05, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Plausethereal

• Plausethereal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Itokin Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I publish this draft so when I create a link to the sandbox it will immediately be seen because I'm not seeing any publishing button and I have created a link but when the page was opened using the link, it was said that no article was in my sandbox. Have I already published this article and also I do not want to resubmit it for review Plausethereal (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome. As a result of the draft article being moved to its current title, the sandbox page is currently a redirect to the draft. You are free to remove the redirect from the sandbox page and otherwise edit it as you wish.

As for feedback on the draft, the cenotaph memorializing the crash of ADC Airlines Flight 086 is already mentioned in that article--I can't see that the cenotaph itself is sufficiently notable to merit an article independently from the one on the crash. Hope this helps. Feel free to clarify your question or ask further ones. Thanks, and happy editing. --Finngall ^talk 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

20:34, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

• MajorbucksYT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Mimic (Roblox) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How Do I Add Good References (The Mimic does not necessarily have good articles about it. It's mainly featured in "Best Horror Games to play Roblox") However, it has 1 billion views and is one of the most popular games on the Roblox platform, thanks to its utilization of Japanese culture, being very unique. MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many views it has, if there are no independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, there cannot be an article. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok what would you consider a reliable source, like I need a brief summary.MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. For games, sources usually reviews written by professional reviewers/critics, or sources detailing the development of the game(see Super Mario Galaxy). You say "The Mimic is renowned for its exceptional graphics" but have no source for this claim. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

22:55, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Jaygopal Mandal 1969

• Jaygopal Mandal 1969 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jaygopal Mandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know regarding uploaded my articles, which wrote in Bengali scripts. There was no provocation regarding religion. My all articles about analysis of literature. Please allow to upload and get a chance for review. Thanks. Jaygopal Mandal 1969 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, drafts need to be in English. You may submit Bengali drafts to the Bengali Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jaygopal Mandal 1969: Courtesy link: Bengali Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 18

04:15, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Slim8029

• Slim8029 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Michael Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am adding more references. How to I get them to add to the end of the existing list? The "cite" process is inserting them at the beginning. Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slim8029: You don't add references to the "references" section; instead you add them in-line within the text itself, using ref tags. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

When I click within the text, then click on Cite and add the template information about the new citation, it makes the new entry #1 in the reference list and increments the reference number of every existing reference. It's incredibly confusing to have the reference numbers change all the time.

Is there any way to do this so the new citation gets the next number following the last of the existing references?

Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

05:11, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Truffles771

• Truffles771 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:United Davao Specialists Hospital and Medical Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

whats wrong in my draft? Truffles771 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Truffles771: One source by itself cannot support an article no matter how good it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

07:29, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Olowu Righteous

• Olowu Righteous (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Olowu Righteous/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I recreate a new sandbox? Or is it possible to edit it, write entirely new, different content, and resubmit it? Olowu Righteous (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are writing about the same subject, you should edit the existing draft and ask the reviewer who rejected it to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

09:57, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Quedeveraux

• Quedeveraux (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dominique . M (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've made edits , provided sources and references yet my article hasn't been accepted . I don't understand why . I request clarification  Quedeveraux (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Quedeveraux: this draft cites one primary source, and therefore provides zero evidence that the subject is notable. Which is unsurprising, given that the album this draft is about won't be released for another several weeks.

It's also confusing how the article title suggests this is about the person Dominique M, but the content is written as if it's about the album. You need to decide which is the actual subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

12:46, 18 December 2024 review of submission by The tricolor

• The tricolor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kay(f)bop(t) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this language is significant because the most viewed youtube video of the language is more popular than the most viewed youtube video of Sambahsa, which has a wikipedia page on it. Please tell me more about why you decided to reject the draft. The tricolor (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The tricolor Wikipedia is not for things that are created one day. You have no independent reliable sources that discuss this constructed language, sources like news reports, books, analysis by language experts, things like that. If you just want to tell the world about this language, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then I decide to give up about it The tricolor (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

14:56, 18 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F

• 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Zipedia was not yet released. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Zipedia was launched in 2025 the imaginary encyclopedia, This website is currently protected for imagination. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Zipedia is a website with imaginary things but its currently protected also to prevent vandalism or other. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What is Zipedia right? what is? 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to protect this article draft as extended confirmed immediately. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't happen on this project page, the correct location is WP:RFPP. There's no evidence of vandalism and the topic does not fall under our standard EC topics so it is unlikely to be protected. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

15:52, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Notonlywords

• Notonlywords (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Global Action on Men's Health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am told the sources are not reliable and am unclear why not. Thanks a lot. Notonlywords (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notonlywords: the sources are all primary, and close to the subject, so they are effectively verifying themselves. Also, sections of the draft are unreferenced.

A bigger problem is that the sources (again because they are primary) cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

15:52, 18 December 2024 review of submission by NizuNazmuldhak

• NizuNazmuldhak (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CineKid Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is my article being rejected repeatedly? NizuNazmuldhak (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@NizuNazmuldhak: because it is purely promotional, and provides no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. And despite several earlier deletions, you haven't improved on this front at all, therefore the title is being protected to prevent further versions being created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

16:36, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Sufia Hasan

• Sufia Hasan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yasir Arafat Rahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is the problem/

Sufia Hasan (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that Yasir Arafat Rahim is not a notable person, that all 46 sources in the draft are unreliable (and almost all of them are copies of the same self-published source), and that Wikipedia is not a platform for hoax content. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

FTR, the user posting the question has been blocked as a sockpuppet; they had already had two accounts blocked after creating multiple promotional drafts about Yasir Arafat Rahim. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

17:13, 18 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

• MR Bang Jago (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ali Azhar D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

more of a bilateral award between Indo-Australian countries MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And I also included in the external link, he is one of the officials from the ministry of communication and informatics in the Indonesian government. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If in this Wikipedia, is it not allowed to make pages in the government? more precisely in the scope of the ministry? MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If in this Wikipedia, is it not allowed to make pages in the government? more precisely in the scope of the ministry? because Ali is one of the scope of ministry officials as well. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to references, I include references to secondary sources that have been verified by the Press Council, so it is impossible that the media is not notable, articles that appear in our country's media must first be verified by the Press Council, the Press Council itself is under the auspices of the Presidency of the Republic of Indonesia and is equivalent to the Ministry of Communication and Information, and the press rules of the Indonesian state are different from the press rules in the United State and other European countries, so Ali Azhar D's page is notable regarding its references. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@MR Bang Jago: The US does not have press rules by law. Refer to my "Decode" subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://beritajatim.com/museum-hos-tjokroaminoto-surabaya-jejak-sejarah-dan-inspirasi-generasi-muda is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes him, does not discuss him.
• We can't use https://www.rctiplus.com/news/detail/seleb/4001870/ali-azhar-d--perjalanan-kreatif-dan-dedikasi-seorang-penyanyi-dan-konten-kreator-terverifikasi (unknown provenance). No real byline; who wrote this?
• I can't assess https://www.metrotvnews.com/read/bD2C1z0l-promosi-iwaff-2025-film-indonesia-tarik-penonton-di-australia-barat (language barrier). Automated translation fails on this page.
• https://pepnews.com/humaniora/p-01739242b7430d4/kreator-konten-surabaya-ali-azhar-berbagi-pengalaman-debut-sebagai-crew-film-hingga-talent is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Effectively a prose interview.
• https://mediaindonesia.com/internasional/707394/kjri-perth-promosikan-indonesia-lewat-festival-film is a non-sequitur. (A source that doesn't so much as name-drop the subject isn't going to be useful as a source on them.)
• I can't assess https://nnc-frontend.netralnews.com/ali-azhar-d-konten-kreator-surabaya-yang-mengubah-kegagalan-menjadi-edukasi-sejarah/QWozSUVxYnhoMUxMeDBFZmNyNzN6dz09 (language barrier). Automated translation fails on this page.
• I can't assess https://portaljtv.com/baca/menyelami-jejak-sejarah-di-rumah-hos-tjokroaminoto-sang-guru-bangsa (technical barrier). I get a server-side error (effectively an HTTP 500 error) when I try to load this page.
• https://aadtoday.com/detail/1622/film-paku-tanah-jawa-antara-mitos-dan-realitas-kata-ali-azhar-d is 404-compliant.
• I can't assess https://www-indonesiana-id.translate.goog/read/176951/ali-azhar-d-tradisi-sedekah-bumi-bertahan-di-tengah-perubahan-zaman?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp (language barrier). Automated translation, once again, fails on this page.
• We can't use https://kumparan.com/bengawannews/profil-musisi-ali-azhar-d-lengkap-dengan-umur-dan-agama-1yw1Q22kupu (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Clearly labeled as "Media Partner Content", meaning it wasn't actually written by the outlet's journalists or subjected to their editorial processes.
• I can't assess https://nnc-frontend.netralnews.com/mengenal-ali-azhar-konten-kreator-sejarah-yang-lulus-pesantren-hanya-dalam-2-tahun/YW1jTW5iTkFlRTZDb0dTL0xWQU5vUT09 (language barrier). Automated translation fails on this page.
• https://beritajatim.com/mahasiswa-uc-surabaya-ciptakan-iklan-kreatif-untuk-lawan-pinjol-ilegal looks okay, but this seems like a "chicken-dinner" local-interest type of story that wouldn't much help for notability.
• https://mediaindonesia.com/hiburan/700794/kreator-konten-ini-beri-edukasi-soal-sejarah-surabaya is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Prose interview.
• https://www.harianpijar.com/read/2024/09/17/46503/profil-konten-kreator-ali-azhar-d-dari-kegagalan-hingga-edukasi-sejarah-surabaya has been discussed and dismissed; it's identical to the Media Indonesia source above.
• https://www.ciputra.ac.id/fikom/official-selection-indonesia-western-australia-film-festival-2025/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.liputan6.com/amp/5742404/kjri-perth-promosikan-film-karya-anak-bangsa-jelang-indonesia-western-australia-film-festival-2025 is a non-sequitur.

Of the sources I can assess, only one is close to good, and it doesn't make a compelling case for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the OP has been glocked as a User:Andiprayono097 sock. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

21:43, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Insane Volunteer

• Insane Volunteer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kristan de Graaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can you please advice me Insane Volunteer (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You did not show that this person is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

23:45, 18 December 2024 review of submission by SallySharpeIrvin

• SallySharpeIrvin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nathaniel Taubman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted a page but it is not active. I’m wondering why? I used very good sources and accurate information. SallySharpeIrvin (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

SallySharpeIrvin I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" part. You haven't actually submitted it for a review yet, you need to click the button on the screen. I might suggest that you look at Referencing for beginners to learn about how to format references first. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

December 19

01:26, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Uryder23

• Uryder23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fanny Breeze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m not sure if this comment belongs on the draft page or the help desk, so I’m starting with the latter.

In trying to understand the rejection of my article on Fanny Breeze, I read the Wikipedia article on reliable sources. Based on my understanding, References 1 and 5 should pass the test, with the sources being the Orange County Register of Deeds, the NC State Park Division, both of these understood to be reliable government agencies. Reference 6 comes from the Eno River Association, a local but trusted conservation organization.

Beverly Scarlett’s role here is as a descendant of the subject, but she has also served as a District Attorney and District Court Judge in Orange County, so I would expect that would move the needle closer to being a reliable source, so that perhaps we can add References 2 and 3 to the list of reliable sources. If it helps, I can try to vet the credentials of local educators Dave Cook and Joe Liles, the narrators from Reference 4.

My desire here is to provide some visibility about an individual who made a difference to thousands of people. It’s not easy to find high quality sources for a person who was born almost 200 years ago, so I’ve offered those that I can find.

Please let me know if there is some way to modify the article so that it might be accepted.

Thanks, Tom

Uryder23 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Uryder23: the first thing that strikes me is that half the paragraphs (some very short, admittedly, but still) are unreferenced. So even if your sources were all undeniably reliable, the draft would fail the test of not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Source 1 may well be reliable, but it isn't a published source (by the looks of it, at least). Source 5 appears to be just a photo; it is probably "reliable", but only serves to support a tiny factoid in the draft.

The bigger problem (than sources being reliable or not) is that they are all primary, apart from #2 possibly, and as such unable to establish notability. That's what I would have declined this draft for myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing @ColinFine For both of you - thanks for the clarification. I'm understanding more about why don't have what we need for this page. I'm disappointed, but your explanations will help me explain to the other folks on the team why we can't meet the standards. Uryder23 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Uryder23. To enlarge on DoubleGrazing's reply: the decline notice focuses on reliable sources. This is the most important criteria, but there are two others which are nearly as important: independence from the subject - very little which is written, published, commission, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates, can be cited; and significant coverage - a source which only mentions the subject in passing is of little use, and one which does not mention the subject is almost always irrelevant. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

04:32, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

• Sunuraju (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aye Ishq e Junoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i add citation sources Sunuraju (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sunuraju: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

04:43, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699

• 2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Omar Muhammad Basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what was wrong with the article? any suggestions?

2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not written in an encyclopedic fashion, it's full of MOS:PUFFERY, basically every fact is unsourced, and there's nothing presented that suggests the subject is notable. Even if this were a notable basketball player, the article would need to be completely rewritten; it has very little actually about the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

11:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Tapiro Maccu

• Tapiro Maccu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Radio Dublino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, The page I wrote about Radio Dublino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Radio_Dublino) was rejected for lack of sources. I removed the weak sources and added many more reliable sources. I have been waiting for another review since June. Do you know what I can do? Would it make sense to add more sources? I already have 11 references for a very short page. Tapiro Maccu (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tapiro Maccu: just for the record, this draft was declined in June, but only resubmitted on Nov 19th, so you've been only waiting for another review for exactly one month. And no, there is no way to expedite this process, as we have 1,800+ pending drafts to review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the reply and the clarification. My question was about the sources. Should i add more sources or maybe is better reduce them and leave just the 4 / 5 more independent reliable sources? Tapiro Maccu (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of citing a source is to give the reader a means to verify some information in the article. If a source performs that function on its own, leave the citation in. If it verifies information verified by another source, consider removing one of them. If it does not verify a piece of information in the article, remove it. And if it is a non-independent source whose only function in the article is to verify the existence of something (eg an artistic work) consider whether that work ought to be mentioned in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by AUZOKA12

• AUZOKA12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:AUZOKA12/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking support for the publication of a school project in the Sandbox. I think my references are not linked to the articles as I pasted them from my original 'WORD' file. I have attempted uploading for comments but have not been successful. I need help with properly citing my references. AUZOKA12 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners, but it appears you are writing an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If your teacher has asked you to do this, they are incorrect to do so for several reasons and have put you in a difficult position. Your teacher should refer to the Wikipedia Education Program materials to learn how they can design lessons that don't involve requiring students to create a Wikipedia article or get a draft approved. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:25, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Blahblahahaha

• Blahblahahaha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Secret of Devkaali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not able to find the yellow box saying "Review waiting, please be patient. Kindly help! Blahblahahaha (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Blahblahahaha Don't use the whole url in the headers on this page, just the full title(the whole url isn't really needed anywhere). Try submitting it now; the template used doesn't exist(I think). I put the correct one. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

13:53, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Olipre

• Olipre (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Romain Tranchart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I've translated an article on Romain Tranchart that I wrote for the French wikipedia. However, I can't integrate the authority notices and I understand that this is why my English article is rejected. Can you help me solve this problem? Olipre (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you have not shown that this man meets the special definition of notability that we have here on the English Wikipedia(a notable musician, a notable creative professional, or more generally a notable person). The French Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies; what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Olipre: As a translation, you need to declare this for proper attribution. I've left a notice on your talk page. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

16:29, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 82.222.127.225

• 82.222.127.225 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Who is Lil Peech? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why it is draft?? 82.222.127.225 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are asking, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced and does not show how this young man is a notable musician as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

18:46, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Alexeyperlov

• Alexeyperlov (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Heil dir, o Oldenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If the article is denied again, can I remove the old denial message? Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is, the previous message for the denial on 7 December. Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Declines must remain as long as the draft remains a draft. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

20:01, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4

• 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gloria Sabra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please approve this listing. You can check that Gloria Sabra is a musician, as her music is available in multiple platforms streaming songs. Thank you! 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. That's why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

20:40, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sapr1930

• Sapr1930 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:OneCanopy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I was just wondering why the sources I provided were not considered independent, reliable, or published. Also, what information should be removed in order for this not to read like an advertisement? I am unaffiliated with the organization, but think this page would be useful to those interested in conservation. Please advise, I believe this information to include only straightforward facts that I found about the company in published sources online and nothing that is promotional. Sapr1930 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sapr1930 The main issue and the first point of the declination reasoning on the draft specifies rather that the issue is the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The reason for including an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant to its creation. We are instead focused only on things that are WP:Notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

hELLO, @Sapr1930. The trouble is that none of the sources you cite are independent of OneCanopy. (It is possible that the BizWest one is - it's behind a paywall, so I can't see it) but I doubt it. 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. An article that says what the subject wants to say is very likely to sound promotional.

I suggest checking your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: they need to be all three in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this info. The Coloradoan, BizWest, and Sky-HiNews are all newspapers. They have nothing to do with OneCanopy, they simply reported on the company. The Wild Things & Wild Places podcast is also independent of OneCanopy but interviewed a member of OneCanopy for an episode. The other two sources are national organizations completely independent of OneCanopy and I only shared them to support the statement that OneCanopy held memberships in those notable organizations. Please advise further as I'm not understanding how newspapers which are independent and reliable sources are not considered independent of the company, OneCanopy, which is a reforestation nursery with no affiliation to news media. Sapr1930 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the organs are not indpendent, but that those articles are not independent. For example, The Coloradan have very clearly interviewed Brinkman, and based their article on what he said (even though only couple of paragraphs are explicitly quoted). That is not independent, it is echoing what the company says. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So you will only accept articles in which they did not interview people that are associated with the company? Sapr1930 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

23:04, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sportsguyaus

• Sportsguyaus (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:North Queensland Sports Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I drafted the article about the NQSF earlier this year after becoming aware of them through some community events - and reached out to find more details. Since I drafted the article, I have subsequently been employed by them. The article did not make it past the Draft phase, feedback being it needed more resources to reach threshold for coverage.

How should I proceed? It would no longer be suitable of me to continue a draft based on my position? Does anyone think this page should meet the notable criteria

I'm newish to etiquette etc. so I apologise for any well-intended mistakes in advance. Sportsguyaus (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sportsguyaus. You may continue to work on the draft, provided you first make the mandatory declaration (normally on your user page) of your status as a paid editor.

You will need to make sure that your sources meet all three of the criteria in 42. If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria, the Foundation does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up.

If you can find three or more, you should forget absolutely everything you know about the Foundation, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Even if you know something that directly invalidates what one of the sources says, you may not put your knowledge in unless it is published - and depending on what the information is, you probably shouldn't even if it is published but only by the Foundation. This is because Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth - and it is also one of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest can be difficult. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine, this is very helpful. I'll conduct a review for notability prior to continuing, and be sure to work through verifiable works and not truth as you pointed out. Sportsguyaus (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

December 20

03:47, 20 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

• MajorbucksYT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Mimic (Roblox) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please check out this page and see if it is ready to be accepted. If not give me reasons (Please don't be about the references) MajorbucksYT (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@MajorbucksYT: If you want the draft to be reviewed again (that is to say, if you want someone to check it to see if it can be accepted), you need to submit it by clicking the "Resubmit" button. Why would you not want to know that the referencing is inadequate, if that should be the case? --bonadea contributions talk 06:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's like "Please tell me whether my house is likely to fall down, but don't mention the foundations". An article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. Absolutely nothing you know about the subject belongs in the article unless you can find a published source for it. Large amousnts of your draft are unreferenced (and while policies don't require that everything actually be referenced as long as it could be, reviewers tend to be unhappy if references that could be there are missing). ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I reference correctly though? Like first a brief summary of whatever, but like do I have to phrase it so the reference goes in perfectly or something?

The guide pages aren't helping at all MajorbucksYT (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@MajorbucksYT: you clearly know how to reference, technically speaking at least, because you've managed to create 12 citations which seem okay to me. The problem is that you're citing some non-reliable sources like Twitter, and much of the content in this draft is unreferenced – where is all that information coming from, and how do we know it's true? Every material statement should come from a reliable source, and you need to tell us the source by citing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright thank you! MajorbucksYT (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

07:39, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

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

May I ask if the time needed to wait for a review is longer for resubmits? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: no, it's not; all drafts are reviewed in no particular order (time- or otherwise), and that's true of resubmissions as well as new drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

09:55, 20 December 2024 review of submission by LeeMind12

• LeeMind12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:StrongBull FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear KylieTastic, Currently, the available references I have are primarily from social media channels (mainly Facebook), as StrongBull FC is still in its early stages and has not yet received significant coverage in mainstream media. I am actively seeking more in-depth and reliable sources from local and regional news outlets that could demonstrate the team's notability and involvement in various student sports leagues and events. LeeMind12 (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: KylieTastic. If there are no independent sources so far, the topic is likely too soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, no, [insert sources here] does not establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @CanonNi. LeeMind12 I was just responding to your post on your talk page, please give people time to respond we are all volunteers and see the answer there. KylieTastic (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"StrongBull FC is still in its early stages and has not yet received significant coverage in mainstream media"- this would mean that it does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

16:11, 20 December 2024 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo

• CSharpStudentToo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jyrki "Spider" Hämäläinen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There seems to be plenty of references online and in published books. Also a published author and a full-time journalist for one of the biggest magazines in Finland. Can you please elaborate why not considered important enough? CSharpStudentToo (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that he is a notable author. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

16:21, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Davidaquije

• Davidaquije (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Olga Milla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would you please see the edits and reconsider the publication of this page? Davidaquije (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davidaquije you would need to submit for review by pressing the big blue Resubmit button. However, your references are formatted incorrectly (they are not full citations), and I see no evidence she meets our notability guidelines for people. qcne (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

17:25, 20 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:F4AD:F079:1810:EC9

• 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:F4AD:F079:1810:EC9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are more informations in this page coming soon! 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:F4AD:F079:1810:EC9 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop creating pointless article drafts. The draft title has been protected against creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

17:25, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Uttam18

• Uttam18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Buhalipal Village (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Describe my mistakes in Hindi, I don't know the actual meaning of the mistakes Uttam18 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are unable to understand our comments unless they are in Hindi, you should participate at the Hindi Wikipedia. This place is to ask about drafts, not articles, you should go to Talk:Buhalipal. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Uttam18: Courtesy link: hi.wp. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

19:23, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Tedelaney2006

• Tedelaney2006 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Symphony No. 2 (Stenhammer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I honestly do not have any additional sources. I am using a copy of the score which I have cited. I am familiar with this work for over 40 years. What other sources could I include? Tedelaney2006 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If no independent sources give this work significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tedelaney2006: I have moved the draft to Draft:Symphony No. 2 (Stenhammar) (the previous title still works, and redirects to the new one) and fixed the spelling in the draft text as well. Finding reliable sources will be easier if you use the correct spelling. By using the Google Scholar search engine I find a respectable number of sources – some are in Swedish, which is acceptable, although English sources are preferred in the English-language version of Wikipedia. You might also be able to get help identifying reliable sources if you ask at the WikiProject Classical music talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

20:22, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Juaniferrero3

• Juaniferrero3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Juaniferrero3/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with the comment previous publish the article. Your feedback seems that it is the only thing it´s wrong. Juaniferrero3 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for posting essays. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

20:27, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Zub8eti

• Zub8eti (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zub8eti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you guys please tell me how to get this live so things are done properly and accordingly and the right way. Let us know exactly what is needed. Also how does one change the page title and remove draft? Please let us know Zub8eti (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't it has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

OP is blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

21:35, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Slim8029

• Slim8029 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Michael Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I click within the text, then click on Cite and add the template information about the new citation, it makes the new entry #1 in the reference list and increments the reference number of every existing reference. It's incredibly confusing to have the reference numbers change all the time. Is there any way to do this so the new citation gets the next number following the last of the existing references? Thanks Slim8029 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No!

"This behaviour is by design", as programmers love to say. I really can't see how it could work any other way.

Like most software bugs, it's important, and hard, to say just what the real problem is. Is it that you're getting the new cite pasted in at the top of the article? That's a different problem (and shouldn't be happening). But really, references should be, have to be, and are, numbered in sequence. That means they will get renumbered to maintain this sequence, no matter the order you add them in. Welcome to the world of academic publishing.

I'd suggest using the code editor, not the visual editor, and learning to work a bit more hands-on with the wikitext source code. It's not really that hard (everything is weird, so all of us just work by copying around the last snippet that worked right!)

Also just bang it in any old how, explain what's happening, what's wrong, and get some old greybeard to fix the annoying details afterwards. The wiki editing model is good at that, if we can just allow it and not get tied up in WP:BUREAUCRACY. Also use the Talk: page as much as possible. It solves so many problems.

This is an interesting topic for an article and I look forward to it going live. But it does need more sourcing for some sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you suggest and just bang the references in. I am aware that I lack published sourcing for some stuff, sad to say. For instance, the Herbert Morrison statement was made to me by my mother and written down by me many years ago, but that cannot possibly be an acceptable source. My plan is to add as many references as I can, then strip out the stuff I'm sure will not pass the reviewers. Some of the relationship details are in geni.com and I don't know if that's acceptable. Slim8029 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

December 21

03:00, 21 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

• MajorbucksYT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Mimic (Roblox) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are corp.roblox.com, kristolex.com, ginx.tv, dilt.co or Roblox dev forum reliable sources?

Roblox dev forum only allows a select amount of people post, not everyone.

MajorbucksYT (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@MajorbucksYT: How many people are allowed to post is irrelevant. What matters is if they have an editorial staff that fact-checks, issues retractions, etc. And by default BBSes do not have those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

08:46, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Vishalarya1

• Vishalarya1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vish arya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please reload page Vishalarya1 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves or post their resume. Please use actual social media to do that. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

09:09, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Spworld2

• Spworld2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Real Kerala Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been requesting to move this article to the main space for many months and have not received a proper result from the admins. The article is developed based on the available information and the sources are notable Spworld2 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers are not just admins. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to post essays. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

15:25, 21 December 2024 review of submission by JaredWEngland

• JaredWEngland (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Coast Guard BASE Elizabeth City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I'm trying to establish a new page, but am unsure how to adequately address the comments provided to my first draft. I added several additional references, but am not sure that will be adequate. In short, I'm trying address some confusion with the hierarchy of existing Wikipedia articles. There are articles about Air Station Elizabeth City and the Elizabeth City Regional Airport. However, these are just two of several Base Elizabeth City tenants. My goal is to create a Base page to clarify the structure, better communicate what's at the campus, and provide a framework that will enable better information moving forward. Without a Base page, there isn't a location for this information to be built. Contributing to the challenge, the general pubic is largely unclear of the differing functions on the Base, so external references I can cite often have embedded in them the very confusion that I'm trying to address with this article. I know I cannot cite myself, but I'm a career Coast Guard officer who has worked on the Base at high levels. I'm seeking to address a problem I've seen both in the community here, and to a lesser degree within the Coast Guard itself. Especially for new members transferring to Elizabeth City, it is difficult to understand the makeup of the location. My hope is that this new page can become a repository for useful information to address these concerns, but it must exist first. Thanks for any help or guidance you can provide. JaredWEngland (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The purposes you outline above are no doubt very laudable, but they are not what we do at Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable indpendent sources say about a notable topic, and very little else. "A base page to clarify the structure" doesn't sound like that - it sounds more like original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm expressing myself poorly, but this isn't original research. I'm just trying to create a page for an actual location where about 3,000 people work everyday and generates ~50% of the GDP for northeastern North Carolina. I want to create the page as a "skeleton" that can be built on to flesh out the details of this place by myself and others in the future. My reference to structure was that, to establish how the place is organized, so that there is a place for the details to subsequently be filled in. Other Coast Guard Bases, much smaller and less significant in mission, personnel, and reach, have a page. Why not this one? Coast Guard Base KodiakCoast Guard Base KetchikanCoast Guard Base BostonCoast Guard IslandCoast Guard Base Cape Cod JaredWEngland (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@JaredWEngland: All but the articles on Ketchikan and Cape Cod predate the drafting process entirely, and those two predate drafting being made all-but mandatory. They did not go thru the same process as your draft has to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Beware of the other stuff exists argument. Those other articles could themselves be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers.

A draft article does not need to be complete, but it does need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the base. If you have a source for the claim that it generates 50% of the GDP for part of North Carolina, that's a start. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited again and resubmitted. Unfortunately, many of the sources for information I have aren't available on the internet, so citing them isn't possible. The most recent adds & references what I was able to find in existing sources.

Taking a step back, I understand the need for a draft/review process but this feels excessive. I've put a fair amount of time into this (creating a page and learning all the rules/software/formatting/ect has a steep learning curve) for what still may be 100% waste effort. I'm afraid that most people will give up much quicker, and Wikipedia will devolve to the major mainstream dated info model that the now defunct encyclopedias of yore used. In the balance between the unconstrained free for all of the early wiki days and absolute odious control of a rigorous academic reference, this feels too much like the latter. However, I'm an infrequent Wikipedia contributor and light financial backer, so my opinion is likely of low value. Volunteers are the magic of Wikipedia, and that's mostly you. Even though this has been frustrating, thanks for what you do! JaredWEngland (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again @JaredWEngland. Neither the number of people who work there nor the revenue it generates is necessarily indicative of meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Meeting those criteria is the absolute first stage of creating an article, because otherwise the article is not going to get accepted. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a bunch more references to substantiate my opinion that it does meet the notability guidelines. However, to me that criteria reads with a fair amount of subjectivity, and other opinions may differ. If I'm again told it doesn't meet them, then I'll still disagree, but appreciate the clarity and will drop the subject. JaredWEngland (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly available; books/magazines in a library are fine.. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

15:41, 21 December 2024 review of submission by ProofandTrust

• ProofandTrust (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Vendor Risk Assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission. I’ve carefully reviewed your explanation but still find it unclear why my article was not accepted. I noticed that Wikipedia currently lacks a dedicated definition of Vendor Risk Assessment, a fundamental concept in information security. My goal is to provide an encyclopedic explanation of this widely used term to inform readers about its importance and relevance. Your feedback mentioned that the article resembles an essay. However, I intended it to be a neutral, fact-based description aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. If there are specific sections or phrases that need revision to make it more suitable, I’d appreciate detailed guidance. I’m committed to improving the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and would greatly value further clarification to ensure it aligns with community standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance. ProofandTrust (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ProofandTrust. Your draft is a blog-post style essay/how to guide/critique. That's not what an encyclopaedic entry on Wikipedia about a subject should look like. Instead, you should be paraphrasing reliable published sources (not blog posts, which most of your sources are) in a dry, factual manner using the Wikipedia Voice. I am afraid you will have to completely re-write your draft from scratch and find new sources for there to be any chance of it being accepted. qcne (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

17:07, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Wilfred Day

• Wilfred Day (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Candidates of the 45th Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am surprised this is not in place. It is highly relevant since the government will fall on the next confidence vote. What is wikipedia waiting for? Wilfred Day (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia and not a news organ, is waiting until there is substantial independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I suspect that by the time there are adequate sources for such an article, the election will already have taken place, so there will be no need for this article. But I know nothing of Canadian politics.

See also there is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no certainties in life. We don't assume something might happen, no matter how likely it is. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

December 22

06:41, 22 December 2024 review of submission by MonkeyBanjo007

• MonkeyBanjo007 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Conor McLeod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To clarify, I tried creating a page but if I had to guess I don't have enough information at the moment. I will try to add to it I just want to create a page so I can add to it. Conor is an Actor for several roles and also a Voice Actor of A video game.

I was wondering of how I can add a portrait image, you know by the side of all these people usually there is an image to acompany the person.

I was also wondering how you add images in general like of possibly the different characters he acts/ voice acts but I can't find a way to implement images or files.

Thanks- MonkeyBanjo007 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@MonkeyBanjo007 see Help:Pictures for a tutorial on how do insert them. Note that the amount of images does not increase a draft's odds of acceptance, while multiple independent reliable sources that notability do. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

06:43, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8002:E055:8000:0:0:0

• 2409:40C2:8002:E055:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • He Is Younger Businessman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You Should Agree This Draft 2409:40C2:8002:E055:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Link to the draft: Draft:Shubham X Rameshwar --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the draft's rejection. There is nothing that shows they are notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Previously answered here (question posted by blocked user User:Bollysocialmedia) and here (by User:Royaloaksschoolking) and here.

See also: Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde about the same person (protected against creation after multiple re-creations and rejections), and this question as well as the two sections after that one, posted by blocked account User:Shubhamxrameshwar564. Please stop creating these drafts, and stop spamming the help boards about them. --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

10:54, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Batoenonghistoryador

• Batoenonghistoryador (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Howard Calleja et.al v. Anti-Terrorism Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I would like to ask for your help regarding the draft title of an article I am currently writing. If possible, could you change the title to "Atty. Howard Calleja et al. v. Executive Secretary et al."?

Additionally, I have a few questions:

1. How should I cite sources that are in PDF format? 2. In writing the article, is it permissible to list all the issues, given that they are material to the whole article? I am concerned that it might be flagged as a directory. Should I make it concise and risk omitting the core of the issues to shorten it?

Thank you so much for your guidance!

Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Batoenonghistoryador: the title isn't important at this stage, this will be moved to a different title anyway when (if) accepted, and at that point the reviewer will place it at the correct title.

You can cite online PDFs with the {{cite web}} template. The format= parameter takes PDF as value, but you don't even have to specify that, the template picks it up from the file type automatically.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by your last question (#2), could you elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't fully understand question 2 either, but I suspect that I can answer it by saying that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliably published sources say about a subject, and very little else. If independent commentators talk about all the issues, then you can list them; if no independent commentator refers to some issue, why should it appear in an encyclopaedia article at all?

As to question 1, DoubleGrazing has answered the technical part, but the question arises of whether these PDFs have been reliably published or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this informative response. Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

11:37, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8002:E055:1D7E:DFE2:FBA4:B566

• 2409:40C2:8002:E055:1D7E:DFE2:FBA4:B566 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shubham X Rameshwar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HE IS A BIGGEST YOUNGER BUSINESSMAN 2409:40C2:8002:E055:1D7E:DFE2:FBA4:B566 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

16:10, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Njames05

• Njames05 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:University of Texas Rugby Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I share my page here with two other people so they can help me add content? Nigel D James (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Njames05: drafts are public, so you just share the URL as you would any other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to invite collaborators on the draft. Thank you for declaring your COI - I have corrected the formatting on your user page so that the declaration actually appears as it should.

One of the first things you and they should do is to cite reliable published sources for all the unsourced material in the draft, and remove it if you can't find sources. You should also edit the text to remove all instances of "we": this is not in any sense the Club's article, but Wikipedia's article about the club, which should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the club have chosen to publish about it, not on what the club or its associates say or want to say.

You should also unbold the section headers. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

16:59, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8041:CA12:8029:E983:E715:C93B

• 2409:40C2:8041:CA12:8029:E983:E715:C93B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kinhola BK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Check now 2409:40C2:8041:CA12:8029:E983:E715:C93B (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, meaning that it may not be resubmitted. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

17:45, 22 December 2024 review of submission by LR.127

• LR.127 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Rafael de Miguel González (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a comment on an existing Wikipedia article already submitted through AfC - I had declined it previously for doubts on notability, which have faded after a deep discussion here on the Rafael de Miguel González page. The article was then accepted. Since then, I feel that loads more unsourced information has been added that question the neutrality of the original draft.

I do not intend to send this article to AfD, hence why I merely aim to discuss it here - at worst, the article could be reverted to its revision when accepted, and newer edits could be trimmed or otherwise removed.

I'm courtesy pinging a few people who contributed to the previous discussion: User:Timtrent, User:Joe Roe, User:Benison, User:Mr.choppers, and User:asilvering. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that this is an actual article, you should discuss on the article talk page(perhaps as a request for comment) or on the more general Help Desk. This board is only for drafts in the draft process. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My original comments were more of a frustration with the AFC process. I agree that after its recent revisions, Rafael de Miguel González reads more like a CV than anything else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Rafael de Miguel González reads more like a CV than anything else. Woof. You weren't kidding. Good call on the re-stub. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

18:45, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Bentasyt.1

• Bentasyt.1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lanksti linija, UAB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what can i improve this article that it would be on wikipedia Bentasyt.1 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see the message left by the reviewer, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Bentasyt.1. 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.

Very brief summary of writing an article:

1. Find several sources which are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject of the article, and contain significant coverage of the subject. See WP:42
2. If you can't find at least three such sources, give up and do something else.
3. If you can find them, forget anything you may know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say about it.

ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

19:35, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Sophisticatedevening

• Sophisticatedevening (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emma Howell Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added an infobox to the draft, however it is much too large, and I am unsure how to shrink it, and none of the parameters in the template seem to fix it. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed up for you Sophisticatedevening. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

20:03, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Mariah Hopkins

• Mariah Hopkins (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Kokoa Amor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was the article declined Mariah Hopkins (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Mariah Hopkins/sandbox ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It was declined because it doesn't have enough independent reliable citations to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - see WP:42. Of the three out of 15 citations that even might meet those criteria (actually 2, because 2 of them are the same source), the Lambo piece does not have significant coverage of her, so the TempoStub is the only one that even might be an acceptable source - though I suspect it is based on an interview or press release, so is not truly independent). Even if it is, one source is not enough to establish reliability, and most of the draft is not cited.

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.

Resubmitting the draft without making any changes is not recommended, and may be regarded as disruptive editing.

My comments to another editor above are equally applicable to your case. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

December 23

06:08, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Sonshiv

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

please upload my wikipedia

Sonshiv (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)